How does one find Truth?

[blueback]

I was thinking on this and ths is what I came up with.

Truth, by definition, is perfectly correct. Truth can't be wrong, because if it was wrong it wouldn't be Truth. Therefore, Truth must not violate itself. Truth can't be both A and NOT A at the same time. It is what it is and it isn't anything else.

So Truth is perfectly consistent. If one thing is True, and another thing is True, they will not contradict each other in any way.

That means if two things contradict each other they can't both be True.

So, it seems to me, the surest way to discove Truth is to purge your model of reality of all contradictions. If your understanding of multiple things doesn't contradict itself then you must understand Truth. This would seem to require that you think a lot and that you not make any mistakes.

It doesn't seem to me that one would have to understand the Complete Truth to be pretty certain that one understands an Incomplete Truth. The standard is all around us. If one understands gravity one can just test it to find out whether or not their understanding is Truth. That is why tests have to be performed over and over again; to force those exceptions to appear so we can find the holes in our understanding. For example, Thomas Edison didn't understand the Truth of how a lightbulb works, but he got to it through trial and error. It would seem that Newton understood the Truth of how gravity works without trial and error.

What do you guys think? Does this method sound like it would work to arrive at Truth?

[Jakalwarrior]

I think you can believe something to be the truth, but never know it to be truth. Beyond that it is just a grey area of how much proof do you need before you start to believe it to be the truth. Science usually requires it to be repeatable and observable but even still science often has wrong conclusions. Sometimes you can take shortcuts with logical inferences, but that doesn't always work well. Think of the old greek dead guys ;)

Even if you purge all of your percieved reality of contradictions it is still just your percieved reality. Math would probably be the closest thing to truth I can think of though.

[Bobleplask]

I think you can believe something to be the truth, but never know it to be truth. Beyond that it is just a grey area of how much proof do you need before you start to believe it to be the truth. Science usually requires it to be repeatable and observable but even still science often has wrong conclusions. Sometimes you can take shortcuts with logical inferences, but that doesn't always work well. Think of the old greek dead guys ;)

Even if you purge all of your percieved reality of contradictions it is still just your percieved reality. Math would probably be the closest thing to truth I can think of though.

I agree with this man.

Regarding math, it's true within the confines of the man-made system math. Outside it, there is no natural law saying it is true. 2+2 could be anything at all and we would just not understand how.

I think Descartes was on the right way. He said that if it can be doubted then he could not use it to find truth. And he discarded everything that could be doubted and ended up with the phrase "I think, therefor I am", which I would like to add can be doubted also.

[blueback]

So. . .do you guys think that Truth doesn't exist? That Truth is whatever we happen to think it is?

It seems to me that if you are going to start from that assumption then there isn't any point in continuing. If there is nothing to discover, what is the point of investigation?

That is why I spent most of that post defining what Truth was. . .so that we could then figure out how to go about finding it.

[bricklayer]

But not all truths can be proven. I don't think you can package it into a formula.

If I want to believe that there are fairies that like to dance on lawns at night you cannot disprove this. No one can say that there's no such thing as fairies who dance on lawns. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Cygnus]

burrowing a quote from a science fiction book..

There are no facts -- only observational postulates in an endlessly regenerative hodgepodge of predictions. Consensus reality requires a fixed frame of reference. In a multilevel, infinite universe, there can be no fixity; thus, no absolute consensus reality. In a relativistic universe, it appears impossible to test the reliability of any expert by requiring him to agree with another expert. Both can be correct, each in his own inertial system.

Bene Gesserit Azhar Book

Dune: House Corrino

We have no way to test "The Truth" as you call it, outside our relative experience, so I think people are interpreting with there own vision of "The Truth".

Newton went through trial and error as well in trying gain a better understanding of gravity. Observations and conclusions had to be discarded or never explained to complete satisfaction.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Theoretical concerns

There is no immediate prospect of identifying the mediator of gravity. Attempts by physicists to identify the relationship between the gravitational force and other known fundamental forces are not yet resolved, although considerable headway has been made over the last 50 years (See: Theory of everything and Standard Model). Newton himself felt the inexplicable action at a distance to be unsatisfactory (see "Newton's reservations" below).

Newton's theory requires that gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously. Given classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of general relativity, a propagation delay leads to unstable orbits.

Disagreement with observation

Newton's theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury. There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian prediction, which arises only from the gravitational tugs of the other planets, and the observed precession.

The predicted deflection of light by gravity using Newton's theory is only half the deflection actually observed. General relativity is in closer agreement with the observations.

The observed fact that gravitational and inertial masses are the same for all bodies is unexplained within Newton's system. General relativity takes this as a postulate. See equivalence principle.


Newton's reservations

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. He never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity. Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer is yet to be found. In Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies. That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.

[curiousjane]

Fascinating topic. I am about to go to bed, or I would expound further ... but I was actually just thinking about this today, so it is funny somebody else should say it, too ...

2 + 2 = 4

It always will. That's what makes it true. We can see two apples and two more apples and count four apples. How neat and clean truth is. And, when applied to math, generally trusted as sound.

However, what about:

The coelacanth fish is extinct.

Well, up until 1938, that was considered a true statement. Then they found out otherwise. So just because science has "proven" something, does not mean it is necessarily completely true.

I could also say:

My name is Jane.

Well, that is true ... here. But it is NOT true in real life. So just because I say something is true, and it appears to be, does not mean it is.

So this can leave a lot of wiggle room for Truth. What is it? How can we determine it? Why do we care? Can we even accept it if we find it and prove it?

TBC ...

[Homini Lupus]

My point of view about that is that absolute truth is there but we don't have the means to perceive it perfectly. Even phisicians know that their measures have a given range of accuracy below wich they know nothing of what they are observing. Then we can develop useful tools like math, language etc. to deal with truth and try to grasp it better.

Then there's the problem of the very limited number of informations we are able to process when dealing with problems that can't be formalised with math or perfect logic (the reasons of a war, the mechanics of a crime etc.) wich are the fields where who controls the past controls the present. Very few people can see those things first hand (like participate to a meeting of two embassadors) the documents can be false etc.

[Bobleplask]

So. . .do you guys think that Truth doesn't exist? That Truth is whatever we happen to think it is?

It seems to me that if you are going to start from that assumption then there isn't any point in continuing. If there is nothing to discover, what is the point of investigation?

That is why I spent most of that post defining what Truth was. . .so that we could then figure out how to go about finding it.

I think it exists, but we have no tools to find it. And you are right - there is no point is investigating it. It has taken up so incredible large amount of time of more or less every human that has ever lived - And we still have not found it. So why bother? That WE just might be the ones to find it?

Why not just play in the sun till we die. If God exists we will probably meet him when we die - and he might have the answers I am looking for. And if there is no afterlife, then we just spent 50-100 years (hopefully) in what might the eternity doing nothing of importance.

[Jakalwarrior]

IMO (and probably also of some philospher, no thought is origional lol) there is truth but it cannot be completely verified or seen by a human mind. Every possible manner of sense or information gathering has a middle man and must be interpreted. Not to mention the act of gathering affects the situation (think quantum physics).

Your method will work a lot of times, but it will always have exceptions here and there.

[MysString]

My problem with truth is that, even if it does exist, it can change over time. Truth is NOT something that can be constant. So if someone claims a truth, they must specify a time and also a space for that truth to exist.

As for the example of 2 + 2 = 4. That is not a truth. It is a mathematical equation and it exists only in our minds. Math may be our main element of reasoning, but it means nothing outside of the human mind.

I wrote a paper in philosophy about truth a few semesters ago. I wish I could find it, cause it was awesome, and I'm having some pretty weird thoughts right now. Wow. I uh... I dunno.

[blueback]

I think we're wandering.

The thesis of this topic is this: That Truth (proper noun) is that which does not contradict itself.

So, to find Truth all we have to do is define things in such a way that there are no contradictions. It seems to me that such an endevour requires that we be very specific. For example, Cygnus pointed out that we have to specify our frame of reference, Homini Lupus pointed out that we have to specify our range of accuracy, and Jakalwarrior pointed out that we have to clearly state our presuppositions.

I think a good way to understand what I am trying to get at is to think of electrical engineering. The formulas that describe electronics are set in stone. The haven't changed in a long time because they work. However, the formulas are not all that is required to understand electrical engineering. The formulas are an abstraction that work as long as everything remains within the accuracy range specified. If things get too small then there is too much interference and the formulas don't seem to work correctly. However, the formulas still work, they are still True. The problem is that a person who thinks the formulas "break down" at the integrated circuit level has simply forgotten the context within which the formulas were created. It's not that the formulas don't work, it's that more variables need to be accounted for.

The Uncertainty Principle is True, but you can't measure it with a baseball. You can measure the position and velocity of a baseball to as many decimal places of accuracy as you want. The Uncertainty Principle only begins to emerge at the size of electrons. You can't measure both the position and velocity of an electron. That doesn't mean there is a level at which the Uncertainty Principle breaks down, just that at some scales the measurement inaccuracy is so small it can't be practically measured. So we can ignore the Uncertainty Principle when we measure a baseball not because it isn't True but because part of its Truth is that it doesn't significantly affect things at that scale.

So, again, the idea is that Truth does not contradict itself. Math is a good example because math doesn't work when it contradicts itself. When math doesn't work it isn't called math any more, it is just called a mistake. There are ways to get to 2 + 2 = 5 but they all involve a mistake, usually dividing by zero somehow. That is why we have to be very careful in how we define Truth so that we don't accidentally allow any contradictions in.

[Bobleplask]

So, again, the idea is that Truth does not contradict itself. Math is a good example because math doesn't work when it contradicts itself. When math doesn't work it isn't called math any more, it is just called a mistake. There are ways to get to 2 + 2 = 5 but they all involve a mistake, usually dividing by zero somehow. That is why we have to be very careful in how we define Truth so that we don't accidentally allow any contradictions in.

I agree with you.

But I am not sure how one could define it without making mistakes. To define truth you need a reference point that is already true.

[blueback]

But I am not sure how one could define it without making mistakes. To define truth you need a reference point that is already true.

If you're right, then you just defined Truth. If you're right then what you just said is perfectly consistent with reality; if it's perfectly consistent then it is Truth. So, either you just defined Truth or you're wrong. I'll let you choose which one you'd rather go with.

[Bobleplask]

If you're right, then you just defined Truth. If you're right then what you just said is perfectly consistent with reality; if it's perfectly consistent then it is Truth. So, either you just defined Truth or you're wrong. I'll let you choose which one you'd rather go with.

It might be true, but there is nothing certain about it.

If I choose, then it would just be a choice made up in my mind. And like you are able to point out, we have a choice in the matter. If somethings is true, then it is always true in all it's forms and shapes and I think it would not be able to present us with a choice of not being true.

But this is just me making up thoughts in my head. Just like yours, it is flawed. It does not have to power to make something true.

[blueback]

Okay, I guess avoiding the question entirely is safer than stating an hypothesis.

Do we agree, then, that Truth exists? That there is a consistent reality, independent of our awareness/comprehension of it, that never contradicts itself?

If so, then we can describe it. The first few times we tried we got things very wrong; that whole sun revolving around the earth thing for example. The more time we have spent working on the problem the more accurate our description has become. Now we have an accurate enough understanding of reality that we can sling-shot space vehicles around a planet and bullseye a moon on another planet.

That is how we know how certain we can be, by the accuracy of our predictions. We test our understanding against reality and if we pass then we must have gotten it right.

[Bobleplask]

No, we do not agree. Truth might not actually exist.

But I'll try and meet you half-way.

Either it exists or it don't. But it's not bound by that either.

So Either it exists, or it don't. Or it exists and does not exists at the same time.

So there are three branches there. There might be more, but none I can think of now. And there might be some that I can't imagine. How do we decide which one to go for? We can try all separately at the same time and see where it leads us?

[Monte314]

I suppose that I would begin a search for Truth by thinking about whether "truth" is a matter of opinion, or whether it is objective.

If it is merely a matter of opinion, then no particular "truth" is preferable in any absolute sense to another. Therefore, I'll just believe whatever I want, and I'll be just as "right" as anyone else by definition.

However, if "truth" is objective, outside of myself, and not mere opinion, then I'd better quit fiddling around inside my own head and figure out where it is... and be ready to change when I find it.

[jadefalcon]

I find truths by two methods.

A) Bible.
B) Whatever the world does not call a truth because there are many "Truths" in this world.
C) (I am adding another) proven, absolute mathematical formulas or statements.

[demaugustus]

Blueback is being chased by a large tiger. He runs as fast as he can until he comes to a high cliff. He has a choice: he can stop and get eaten by the tiger or he can jump off the cliff. He chooses to jump off the cliff. Half way down he manages to grab onto a branch. While holding on for dear life, he looks down. If he lets go of the branch he will possibly break a leg when he hits the ground, but another tiger comes from the distance and awaits his arrival below. Blueback sees berries growing on the end of the branch and he eats them.

[Saint]

I find truths by two methods.

A) Bible.
B) Whatever the world does not call a truth because there are many "Truths" in this world.
C) (I am adding another) proven, absolute mathematical formulas or statements.

Is this post a joke?

[zibber]

Sorry, but let's get Cartesian for a second.

blueback, is it safe to start with that definition? I fear that if this is a search for something universal, external to man, a human concept ("truth" as perfect correctness without contradiction) might be a deceptive foundation.


I think Descartes was on the right way. He said that if it can be doubted then he could not use it to find truth. And he discarded everything that could be doubted and ended up with the phrase "I think, therefor I am", which I would like to add can be doubted also.

What he said is that there is thinking. Even if the thought is an illusion brought on by some evil force, there is still something there. I'd love to hear how this can be doubted.

(ps: Isn't math a big tautology, filled with conventions like -1^2=1? Not sure how that would be a sensical reference when discussing as supposedly pure as truth.)

[Bobleplask]

Sorry, but let's get Cartesian for a second.

What he said is that there is thinking. Even if the thought is an illusion brought on by some evil force, there is still something there. I'd love to hear how this can be doubted.


How can it not be doubted?

It is possible to doubt that there is actually something there. That there is not even an illusion. Logically, there must be something there, but logic can be doubted.

Someone once stated that the easiest way to doubt something is to imagine that it is not there.

[blueback]

So, what you're saying is that you're just fine with contradictions?

In order to say that no question can ever be answered you have to first assume that you can answer the question regarding whether or not all questions can ever be answered. So, what you end up with, is an assertion that only one question can ever be answered and the answer to it is that none of the other questions can ever be answered.

That is a contradiction. I don't like thinking that way because it never works on the simple stuff so it makes sense to expect that it won't work on the complicated stuff since the complicated stuff is just a big stack of simple stuff.

You don't get to create flaws in reality simply by doubting reality. Reality is indifferent to your imagined ability to alter its rules. Try it. Try doubting that there is actually a floor under your feet and see whether or not you fall through. Or, if you think it will actually work, doubt whether or not there is a floor under someone else's feet.

[Seppuku Savant]

I find truths by two methods.

A) Bible.
B) Whatever the world does not call a truth because there are many "Truths" in this world.
C) (I am adding another) proven, absolute mathematical formulas or statements.

Are you being sarcastic? Given answer C, I'm inclined to think not.

[burazekun]

Truth is only a preception of reality. This truth will vary from individual to individual.

Truth is gained through the the preceptions of evidence that presents itself, whether feeling based or logically deduced, it is our interpritation of it.

That is why I say, "What I preceive is the truth till the day I preceive the truth as a lie."





burazekun added to this post, 11 minutes and 24 seconds later...

I suppose that I would begin a search for Truth by thinking about whether "truth" is a matter of opinion, or whether it is objective.

If it is merely a matter of opinion, then no particular "truth" is preferable in any absolute sense to another. Therefore, I'll just believe whatever I want, and I'll be just as "right" as anyone else by definition.

However, if "truth" is objective, outside of myself, and not mere opinion, then I'd better quit fiddling around inside my own head and figure out where it is... and be ready to change when I find it.

Truth is always a matter of opinion. But we are social animals. We test our truths consistantly with the truths and preceptions of others. That's when it becomes objective. I see many humans in the "worker bee" mode. They work and rely on others to come up with the complex thinking.

[Fridays Child]

How does one find Truth?

One asks me.


Okay, okay... this is a serious thread. You don't find truth: it isn't lost. It exists quite independent of our puny (and not so puny) ego attempts to define, control and deny it. If we are receptive, sometimes... it finds us.

[blueback]

This is the philosophy section, not poetry. Can't we try to seriously discuss Truth? "Sometimes it finds us" is nice prose but it isn't going to help reach a conclusion.

[kevintr]

I agree inconsitencys in a theory mean its explanation of reality is imperfict but I don't think a consistent explination of reality is necessarily the truth.

The Copenhagen interpritation in quantum physics is a good example. Alot of physicists don't agree with it's implications of how reality is but they use it because it provides consistant, accurate (as far as possible) predictions. They say it's a useful model and that perhaps that is as close to understanding reality as we can get.





kevintr added to this post, 15 minutes and 29 seconds later...

I'm not sure what you mean by Truth, if Truth is how reality is assebled then what I sead above can be taken literaly. If you mean Truth in a philosophical way I beleve what I sead is a useful analogy. I beleve philosopy is about how to have a fufilling life. Philosophy is harder to nail down than physics and I beleve that if you use a philosophical system that leads to a fufilling life, it is true enough.

[Fridays Child]

This is the philosophy section, not poetry. Can't we try to seriously discuss Truth? "Sometimes it finds us" is nice prose but it isn't going to help reach a conclusion.


Neither is rigidity of thought process. This IS the philosophy (and spirituality) section, not science. If, by "seriously", you actually mean "in a manner devoid of humour", then I bow to your wishes and wish you well in your quest.

[Bobleplask]

So, what you're saying is that you're just fine with contradictions?

Yes.

In order to say that no question can ever be answered you have to first assume that you can answer the question regarding whether or not all questions can ever be answered. So, what you end up with, is an assertion that only one question can ever be answered and the answer to it is that none of the other questions can ever be answered.

Not exactly. I end up with an assertion that everything is possible. If everything is possible it is more difficult for me to figure out what answer is the right one, than just ignoring it all together.

That is a contradiction. I don't like thinking that way because it never works on the simple stuff so it makes sense to expect that it won't work on the complicated stuff since the complicated stuff is just a big stack of simple stuff.

Fair enough. I see what you mean.

You don't get to create flaws in reality simply by doubting reality. Reality is indifferent to your imagined ability to alter its rules. Try it. Try doubting that there is actually a floor under your feet and see whether or not you fall through. Or, if you think it will actually work, doubt whether or not there is a floor under someone else's feet.

Okay, I tried. I did not fall through. Does that mean there is a floor there?

[MysString]

I suppose that I would begin a search for Truth by thinking about whether "truth" is a matter of opinion, or whether it is objective.

If it is merely a matter of opinion, then no particular "truth" is preferable in any absolute sense to another. Therefore, I'll just believe whatever I want, and I'll be just as "right" as anyone else by definition.

However, if "truth" is objective, outside of myself, and not mere opinion, then I'd better quit fiddling around inside my own head and figure out where it is... and be ready to change when I find it.

I'm not sure what you loons are arguing about anymore, but I think Monte314 has something here.

However, I think that truth can be both subjective and objective. Because it doesn't seem possible to measure truth outside of a mental construct, that would make it subjective. Of course, that doesn't mean that truth does not exist objectively outside of our minds, it just makes it impossible to prove. So if you insist on defining "truth," there must be two separate definitions. One for subjective truth and one for objective truth. At this point, the existence of objective truth can be left for debate.

In the end, it all goes back to Descartes. The question of truth always goes back to Descartes.
"Cogito, ergo sum"

[Kuroyue]

Are you talking about Truth or Fact? A great, universal secret or a new mathematical equation? If it's the former, then I'll say that Truth is subjective, and varies from person to person depending on their experiences. In this case, there (apparently) is no truth; and if there is, it is probably too much for us to understand. Truth is a sort of utopia, an ideal forever to work towards and never to reach. And if Truth is subjective, then it can also be contradictory, can't it?

If you're talking about the latter, well. Good old trial and error.

EDIT: I changed my mind. On the topic of subjectivity/objectivity, I think the truth may be stranger than we all think. Perhaps the truth is actually by nature both subjective and objective. Therefore, the truth may also be contradictory. Doesn't that ever happen in real life? Paradoxes, and all?

[blueback]

Therefore, the truth may also be contradictory. Doesn't that ever happen in real life? Paradoxes, and all?
Nope. Everything that we ever thought was a contradiction has either been resolved or partially explained. Therefore, it stands to reason that there are no contradictions; that a contradiction is simply a lack of full understanding.

[MysString]

I've done some thinking, and I don't think that truth can be objective. In order for something to be true, there must be a possibility for that thing to be false, correct? Otherwise, it simply "is." Things in reality aren't true or false; these are values that our minds put to certain perceptions. Therefore, truth is subjective.

A decent definition of the word truth would then be: a measure of the accuracy of one's perception in relation to reality. In this sense, truth becomes part of a continuum(with falsity at the other end), rather than a concrete concept.

The reason why I would say that truth is part of continuum rather than being an absolute value is because otherwise, truth would rarely, if ever, exist. I'm certain that language is the cause of this imperfection.

[BallentineChen]

I've had exactly the same kinds of thoughts about truth as the OP, not contradicting itself.

[blueback]

In order for something to be true, there must be a possibility for that thing to be false, correct? Otherwise, it simply "is." Things in reality aren't true or false; these are values that our minds put to certain perceptions. Therefore, truth is subjective.

I think your definition of Truth is a little muddled.
Everything either "is" or "isn't." So, if you're saying that Truth can't be an "is" then it must be an "isn't." However, your first sentence claims that Truth can have qualities like falsifiability, but how can it have qualities if it doesn't exist?

A decent definition of the word truth would then be: a measure of the accuracy of one's perception in relation to reality. In this sense, truth becomes part of a continuum(with falsity at the other end), rather than a concrete concept.

Why would Truth be the accuracy of perceptions? I suppose that is in keeping with the idea that Truth doesn't exist, but it Truth doesn't exist how can we use it in a framework of things that do exist?

The reason why I would say that truth is part of continuum rather than being an absolute value is because otherwise, truth would rarely, if ever, exist. I'm certain that language is the cause of this imperfection.

But I though that you established Truth as not existing?

The way I see it, there is no point talking about Truth if we first define it as not existing. Therefore, we need to either clearly prove that it doesn't exist or define it as something that does exist.

[MysString]

I think your definition of Truth is a little muddled.
Everything either "is" or "isn't." So, if you're saying that Truth can't be an "is" then it must be an "isn't." However, your first sentence claims that Truth can have qualities like falsifiability, but how can it have qualities if it doesn't exist?

My main point is that truth can only exist in a body of consciousness. If there were no bodies of consciousness (ie: a human mind), truth would mean nothing. It would not exist. There would be no judgments as to whether something can be true or false.

My claim is that truth doesn't exist in the physical world. It is only an "isn't" in this sense. Falsifiability is not a physical quality. Therefore, it would also be an "isn't," in the very same sense.

There is a huge difference between things that exist in our minds and things that exist in the physical world. That difference can be larger or smaller, depending on how close our perceptions are to reality. This difference can also be defined as truth and falsity.

[noumenon]

When a contradiction between "A" and "B" is discovered, what method can be used to determine which factor or variable is at fault? If Joe says "A" is true, but Dave says "B" is true, then we have discovered a contradiction. Yet, without a third party, how can we validate either claim? If "A" and "B" are then compared to "C" and "A" appears to be in violation of "C" then we can assume "B" is correct. However, we can't legitimately verify that "C" is necessarily true, either. Therefore, you have an infinite puzzle that will always require another piece.

The difficulty with life is investigating source. Because perception is subjective and data is collected by subjective perception, the data is therefore subjective as well. This can even be true with math, which is something we generally consider infallible. For example: 1 + 1 = 2. Yet, the form that is perceived as "1" may not be perceived as such when viewed by a 3rd party. What appears to be an apple to our eye may not appear to be an apple on a sub-molecular level. In fact, it could be strongly debated that there is no such thing as an apple because it is merely a reflection of our dimensional relevance. Meaning, the apple is the creation of our own circumstance, which are not likely universal. And even more important, the number "1" means absolutely nothing to an entity which can not translate the symbol. So, really, we must ask ourself this simple question: is it that the apple exists and can be counted, or is it that the numbers and equation are truly the expression of our unique interaction with an unknown phenomenon?

Of course, we will always return to the most basic flaw in any attempt to understand life, which is: what is truth? Is truth something that exists as a quantifiable object in time and space? Or is truth really the interpretation of the unknown? Aren't we all really staring into the illusion created by our own mind, which may or may not be receiving the projected information from an anonymous and undefinable source?

The notion that we are incapable of enlightenment is upsetting. But we can not escape the limitations of our existence, nor should we be ashamed of it. After all, if God truly exists as a sentient being somewhere in the universe, would he not be prisoner to the same logic?

We must admit..... reality is most un-real.

[blueback]

Because perception is subjective and data is collected by subjective perception, the data is therefore subjective as well...We must admit...reality is most un-real.

You first assert that we can't say anything for sure and then you say something for sure.

If you want to reach conclusions you can be sure of you first have to say that it is possible to be sure of something. You can't be sure that you can't be sure of anything.

[MysString]

When a contradiction between "A" and "B" is discovered, what method can be used to determine which factor or variable is at fault? If Joe says "A" is true, but Dave says "B" is true, then we have discovered a contradiction. Yet, without a third party, how can we validate either claim? If "A" and "B" are then compared to "C" and "A" appears to be in violation of "C" then we can assume "B" is correct. However, we can't legitimately verify that "C" is necessarily true, either. Therefore, you have an infinite puzzle that will always require another piece.

The difficulty with life is investigating source. Because perception is subjective and data is collected by subjective perception, the data is therefore subjective as well. This can even be true with math, which is something we generally consider infallible. For example: 1 + 1 = 2. Yet, the form that is perceived as "1" may not be perceived as such when viewed by a 3rd party. What appears to be an apple to our eye may not appear to be an apple on a sub-molecular level. In fact, it could be strongly debated that there is no such thing as an apple because it is merely a reflection of our dimensional relevance. Meaning, the apple is the creation of our own circumstance, which are not likely universal. And even more important, the number "1" means absolutely nothing to an entity which can not translate the symbol. So, really, we must ask ourself this simple question: is it that the apple exists and can be counted, or is it that the numbers and equation are truly the expression of our unique interaction with an unknown phenomenon?

Of course, we will always return to the most basic flaw in any attempt to understand life, which is: what is truth? Is truth something that exists as a quantifiable object in time and space? Or is truth really the interpretation of the unknown? Aren't we all really staring into the illusion created by our own mind, which may or may not be receiving the projected information from an anonymous and undefinable source?

The notion that we are incapable of enlightenment is upsetting. But we can not escape the limitations of our existence, nor should we be ashamed of it. After all, if God truly exists as a sentient being somewhere in the universe, would he not be prisoner to the same logic?

We must admit..... reality is most un-real.

Yes, nice words. I like you.

But I think it also boils down to semantics. How are we trying to define truth? With words. How does one usually attempt to communicate a possible truth? With words. In what way does language relate to what we are trying to define as truth? I couldn't tell you, but the relation must be a terribly weak one. Language is an incredibly imperfect system and frankly, the question of truth most likely lies far beyond its scope.

[noumenon]

Yes, nice words. I like you.

But I think it also boils down to semantics. How are we trying to define truth? With words. How does one usually attempt to communicate a possible truth? With words. In what way does language relate to what we are trying to define as truth? I couldn't tell you, but the relation must be a terribly weak one. Language is an incredibly imperfect system and frankly, the question of truth most likely lies far beyond its scope.

Thank you.

I think you actually got my point. Nothing can be defined because everything is relative to it's source, and the source is always unknown. It's like trying to define an object when we know it can be broken down into an infinite number of progressively smaller (or larger) building blocks.

A radio talk show guest once asked the host to imagine himself beginning as an atom. Then, to slowly back away as would a camera widening it's focus. Soon he would see that he was really a cell that made up an organ in someone's body, and that person was a mother taking care of her children. That mother and her family lived in a home, as you continue zooming out, and that home was in a neighborhood. That neighborhood in a city, so on and so forth. Until you get to a point when you are seeing earth as a single object from millions of miles away. Civilization, as complex as it seems up close, would appear strikingly similar to mold growing on a rock.

So we have to ask ourselves, who is correct? What is the true form? The atom? The family? The neighborhood? The planet? Are we mold growing on a rock, or are we individuals leading complicated lives? It doesn't matter, because there is no universal truth. We can only perceive relative to our position. And we can only express what we experience. So, in essence, life does not obey truth, but rather, truth is the variable language of life.

[blueback]

life does not obey truth, but rather, truth is the variable language of life.
Right. That wasn't insightful.

All you've done is attempt to overwhelm the reader with the complexity of the universe and leave implied the idea that it can't be understood.

Have you ever built a jigsaw puzzle? There is no need to start in any particular place. In fact, you will usually start in multiple locations whenever you stumble upon two pieces that matchup. Over time you will work multiple islands and they will merge together until the puzzle is completed. If the puzzle was infinitely large you would never finish it, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to keep expanding the portions you had solved.

Just because we can never know what is happening in the universe to 100% accuracy doesn't mean we can't understand the rules that control what is happening in the universe to 100% accuracy. It's the rules that I think are Truth, not the various results of the rules.

It is the rules that never contradict each other and which can be used to understand the other rules. Because the rules are constant we can just keep testing them. Any discrepancies are a result of too many mistakes or too little data. That approach has allowed us to slingshot satellites around the sun and bullseye moons. When we can send an object along calculated ballistic paths and have it go exactly where we wanted (on the other side of the solar system) we have definitely figured out some sort of Truth.

[Agile]

Thank you, Blueback. Seriously! You've certainly started a good debate. You have the emprical truth seekers on one side, who say, paralysis can be cured. It's a simple matter of reconnecting tissues that have lost communication with each other, repairing damaged systems, etc. You have the spiritual truth seekers on the other, saying, the body is an infinitely complex organism. We will never get to where we understand it. As long as humanity has been around, we still do not have a cure for ... blah blah ... and would have you believe that some things are just 'not meant to be' understood.

Some feel that as long as they know where the fuzzy lines are, they have a solid understanding of their word. Others know that the clear lines we take for granted were once fuzzy. I'm not sure of why people respond this way...I would love (at this point) to hear from someone who has made comments sounding the way noumenon's go (the universe is an enigma-there are no 'truths') and has learned to think along the lines of Blueback's remarks (every problem is solvable, the 'unsolvable' ones are that way due to lack of (correct) information).

[noumenon]

Right. That wasn't insightful.

All you've done is attempt to overwhelm the reader with the complexity of the universe and leave implied the idea that it can't be understood.

Have you ever built a jigsaw puzzle? There is no need to start in any particular place. In fact, you will usually start in multiple locations whenever you stumble upon two pieces that matchup. Over time you will work multiple islands and they will merge together until the puzzle is completed. If the puzzle was infinitely large you would never finish it, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to keep expanding the portions you had solved.

Just because we can never know what is happening in the universe to 100% accuracy doesn't mean we can't understand the rules that control what is happening in the universe to 100% accuracy. It's the rules that I think are Truth, not the various results of the rules.

It is the rules that never contradict each other and which can be used to understand the other rules. Because the rules are constant we can just keep testing them. Any discrepancies are a result of too many mistakes or too little data. That approach has allowed us to slingshot satellites around the sun and bullseye moons. When we can send an object along calculated ballistic paths and have it go exactly where we wanted (on the other side of the solar system) we have definitely figured out some sort of Truth.

I don't understand why you continue to attack me. What have I done to you? You asked a question and I gave my best answer.

Your implication that I've attempted to do anything but speak my personal truth is insulting. My entire life has been spent attempting to answer the fundamental questions of the human soul. Origin, purpose, balance, truth, fate and destination.
Just because I have not reached the same conclusions you have does not make my intention sinister or selfish.

Your jig-saw puzzle analogy brings a point into play. I don't believe there is a universal truth that can be discovered, because the foundation of consciousness is point of view, and point of view can never be assured of it's own omnipresence. However, that does not mean I recommend we all give up on the pursuit of understanding life or the temporary realities that surround us. Like putting together that infinite puzzle, even if we never get to see the final masterpiece. We can still indulge ourselves in the magnificent, albeit incomplete, images forged by our hard work and dedication.

Only a fool would claim that the setting sun is not a worthy sight to be seen. But no one, wise or ignorant, can see over the horizon.

[blueback]

I don't understand why you continue to attack me.

The same reason you keep commenting on my posts, because I think you're wrong and I don't want your ideas contaminating anyone.

Oh, and I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your ideas.

What have I done to you? You asked a question and I gave my best answer.

Your best answer sucked. I'm trying to do you a favor by setting you straight.

Plus, it gives me a chance to test my ideas. There is always the possibility that you will teach me something new. I must be wrong about something somewhere but I'm not going to find out what on my own.

Your implication that I've attempted to do anything but speak my personal truth is insulting.

I don't think that was implied. I just said that your "personal truth" was inconsistent with reality. I didn't say you were a bad person.

My entire life has been spent attempting to answer the fundamental questions of the human soul. Origin, purpose, balance, truth, fate and destination.
Just because I have not reached the same conclusions you have does not make my intention sinister or selfish.

Where are you getting these words? They didn't come from me.

I pointed out the techniques you were using to cloud both your own judgment and everyone else's. I assume people are incompetent before I assume they are malicious.

Your jig-saw puzzle analogy brings a point into play. I don't believe there is a universal truth that can be discovered, because the foundation of consciousness is point of view, and point of view can never be assured of it's own omnipresence.

Nothing can ever be assured of its own omnipresence because nothing can ever know the limits of reality. Even God can't be sure that he created everything because there exists the possibility that there are infinite other Gods creating infinite other universes that he is not aware of. Therefore, that is not an argument against our ability to gradually puzzle together the pieces of reality that we can reach.

However, that does not mean I recommend we all give up on the pursuit of understanding life or the temporary realities that surround us.

"temporary realities?" Care to provide an example of a temporary reality?

Like putting together that infinite puzzle, even if we never get to see the final masterpiece. We can still indulge ourselves in the magnificent, albeit incomplete, images forged by our hard work and dedication.

Word.

Only a fool would claim that the setting sun is not a worthy sight to be seen. But no one, wise or ignorant, can see over the horizon.

More poetry again. I think poetry is a useless medium for conveying Truth. Poetry is specifically designed to be ambiguous. Truth is consistent. Therefore it makes no sense to talk about Truth with poetry.

[noumenon]

I have no desire to debate with someone who is incapable of extending even an obligatory level of common courtesy. If you truly wish for the cooperation of others in your quest for truth, I recommend you learn to treat them with more respect.

[blueback]

Are you sure you're an INTJ? You seem awfully sensitive. I wish you would just stay on topic; you don't see me trying to get you to care about my feelings.

If you are so concerned with being respected before you have earned it then you probably don't have anything interesting to teach me anyway. Unless I was interested in. . .you know what, never mind. Feel free to come back when your daily affirmations have convinced you that you really matter.

[Agile]

Noumenon, you are arguing one 'form of truth' and we (Blueback) are arguing another. Feel free to celebrate the validity of what you are saying in a philosophical scope. As to a realistic, practical scope, there is one reality, regardless of the way we view it and interact with it, we are very much capable of understanding that reality, regardless of the terms with which we understand it (point of view). The fact still remains that when consistent, (nearly) immutable truths are created, they are just that, truths.

When you begin to introduce confusion into the argument (extraneous information, such as sense, language, etc) which is designed to serve as exceptions to the rules defined by those (nearly) immutable truths which were discovered, you change the scope of the discussion.

In this thread (which Blueback started) the scope of the discussion was clearly defined to consistent, unchanging, non-contradictory (ie, execeptions be damned) truths.

Some of things you have said that have been pointed out as wrong in that non-contradictory context. This is not personal. It is logical. The fact is, your personal truths, as stated, do not apply.

If you wish to review them and grow from what has been presented here (I am personally amazed by both the style with which your argument has been presented and the elegance of your poetry) it would help us and help you also. As your particular (illogical, no offense) approach to this issue puzzles me when it is applied to other issues. Actually it also puzzles me here.

I wish you would take the time to share in your own words what this means to you:

...Truth must not violate itself. Truth can't be both A and NOT A at the same time. It is what it is and it isn't anything else.

So Truth is perfectly consistent. If one thing is True, and another thing is True, they will not contradict each other in any way.

That means if two things contradict each other they can't both be True.

So, it seems to me, the surest way to discove Truth is to purge your model of reality of all contradictions. If your understanding of multiple things doesn't contradict itself then you must understand Truth. This would seem to require that you think a lot and that you not make any mistakes.

[jadefalcon]

Are you being sarcastic? Given answer C, I'm inclined to think not.

no, I am absoloutely serious.

While I am at it, I should probably explain myself.


A) Bible.
B) Whatever the world does not call a truth because there are many "Truths" in this world.
C) (I am adding another) proven, absolute mathematical formulas or statements.

I am a nondenomenational christian. I believe that the word of God is absolute truth, no questions asked. Now even I would poke at that saying that that is irrational, but as I read the Bible I find no loopholes, no faults and no contradictions in it. I found nothing that was incorrect. In fact what was in there applied to my daily life and things just connected. Man judges for himself what is the law- but what is truly right? God dictates that, according to my faith. What he says is the lay of the land in my mind. That doesn't mean I follow every single thing, because man is imperfect, and I am no saint or Jesus.

There are many truths in the world. Chavez is a dictator. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Washington is all about money- and certainly I cannot be sarcastic. Just how can we figure out what is what? The truth is, with that very last statement that I am not being sarcastic. By not believing what is being fed to me by the world, I get to weed out a whole lot of truth.

A^2 + B^2 = C^2. 2+2=4. Pi is some ridiculously long number that never ends. These are mathematical truths.

[blueback]

as I read the Bible I find no loopholes, no faults and no contradictions in it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Contradictions:

Is adultery wrong?
YES: Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18; Thou shalt not commit adultery
NO: Hosea 3:1; Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress

Does God want some people to go to hell?
YES: Proverbs 16:4; The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
YES: 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned
NO: 1 Timothy 2:3-4; God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.
NO: 2 Peter 3:9; The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Does God's anger last forever?
YES: Malachi 1:4; The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.
NO: Jeremiah 3:12; I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Was Original Sin Eve's fault?
YES: 1 Timothy 2:14; And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression
NO: Romans 5:12; By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin

Should we believe everything?
YES: 1 Corinthians 13:7; Believeth all things
NO: Proverbs 14:15; The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Does God desire animal sacrifices?
YES: Exodus 20:24; An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.
YES: Nummbers 18:17-19; Thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD
NO: Psalm 51:16; For thou desirest not sacrifice ... thou delightest not in burnt offerings.
NO: Jeremiah 6:20; Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me

Does anyone ever do anything good?
YES: John 5:29; And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life
YES: 3 John 11; He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God
NO: Isaiah 64:6; We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags
NO: Ecclesiastes 7:20; For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not

Is God the creator of evil?
YES: 2 Kings 6:33; Behold, this evil is of the Lord
NO: 1 John 4:8; God is love.

Is salvation by faith alone?
YES: Mark 16:16; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
YES: Romans 3:28; A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
YES: Romans 4:13; For the promise ... was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith
YES: Galatians 2:16; A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ
YES: Titus 3:5; Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost
NO: Psalm 62:12; For you render to each one according to his works
NO: Jeremiah 17:10; I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings
NO: Ezekiel 18:27; When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness ... and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul
NO: Matthew 12:37; For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
NO: 1 Peter 1:17; The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work

Absurdities:
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

Even God gets tired sometimes. 2:2

God kills some animals and makes some skin coats for Adam and Eve. 3:21

Enoch doesn't die he just ascends into heaven. 5:21-24

God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil. Later (8:21), after he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil. Go figure. 6:5

God was angry because "the earth was filled with violence." So he killed every living thing to make the world less violent. 6:11-13

Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." After this God "said in his heart" that he'd never do it again because "man's heart is evil from his youth." So God killed all living things (6:5) because humans are evil, and then promises not to do it again (8:21) because humans are evil. The mind of God is a frightening thing. 8:20-21

After God threatens to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for a census that he inspired, David says, "let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great." 24:14

Ever the playful spirit, God withers, and then restores, the hand of king Jeroboam. 13:4

There was this son of a prophet that said to his neighbor, "kill me." But the neighbor refused. So God sent a lion to devour him. 20:35

God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. 2:23-24

Elisha makes an iron ax head swim. Neat trick, not even Jesus did that one! 6:6

In the largest single God-assisted massacre in the bible, Asa, with God's help, kills one million Ethiopians. 14:8-14

God makes Uzziah a leper for burning incense without a license. 26:19-21

God gives Satan power over all that Job possesses. 1:12

God and Satan play a little game with Job. God allows Satan to torment Job, just to see how he will react. 2:3-6

Job is the brother of dragons. 30:29

Bible believers have identified the behemoth as a hippopotamus, dinosaur, wildebeest, or crocodile. But my favorite is the way these verses are translated by Stephen Mitchell: "Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor." 40:15-16

Smoke comes out of God's nose and fire comes out of his mouth. 18:8

Those who fear God never starve. 33:19

Wicked people are wicked from birth -- God made them that way. They tell lies immediately after birth (before they can even talk!). 58:3

Even the dragons praise the Lord. 148:7
(I forgot to list the chapter titles, sorry about that, but you can just search the site if you're interested in the references)

[Bobleplask]

Hi all.. I'm almost back.

To sum up what I have said earlier in this and some other thread: I don't think we can find truth.

A good evidence for such a claim is that we humans have most likely asked this question since day one. And have we come any closer to an answer? Not the way I see it. We have thought alot of thoughts, but we still do not know what truth is.

After all, if God truly exists as a sentient being somewhere in the universe, would he not be prisoner to the same logic?


No, God is not bound by anything (if it exists). But that is just my personal opinion. Other than that I kinda agree with you. And Blueback is not attacking you. I don't think he means it like that at least, it's his way of discussing.

Some of things you have said that have been pointed out as wrong in that non-contradictory context. This is not personal. It is logical. The fact is, your personal truths, as stated, do not apply.

What is not a personal truth?

And if it is logical, does that make it more valid than a personal truth? Why if so?

Even God can't be sure that he created everything because there exists the possibility that there are infinite other Gods creating infinite other universes that he is not aware of.

Then it would not be a God, would it? All-knowing and all that.

Edit: Or.. well.. I can't really say that. It would contradict myself. But I can say that is not how I hope God is. I hope, that if God exist he knows everything. But yes, I agree with you.

:)

[cal]

It doesn't seem to me that one would have to understand the Complete Truth to be pretty certain that one understands an Incomplete Truth. The standard is all around us. If one understands gravity one can just test it to find out whether or not their understanding is Truth. That is why tests have to be performed over and over again; to force those exceptions to appear so we can find the holes in our understanding. For example, Thomas Edison didn't understand the Truth of how a lightbulb works, but he got to it through trial and error. It would seem that Newton understood the Truth of how gravity works without trial and error.

What do you guys think? Does this method sound like it would work to arrive at Truth?

From the book The Happiness Purpose. What do you think:

There are truths which cannot be shown to be right or to be wrong. If you choose to believe that the planets do not move in set orbits because of the laws of gravity, but because each planet is supported by an angel that acts in that particular manner, then you are unlikely to be proved wrong even though you can never prove yourself right – except by reference to a special universe of belief. The problem is that one sufficient explanation cannot exclude other sufficient explanations. The adequacy of the gravity explanation does not disprove the accuracy of your angel explanation. All it can do is to make it unnecessary.

[blueback]

Close enough. It seems like they aren't giving enough time to explaining that an alternate theory has to fit together with all the other theories, not just explain one thing in isolation. However, assuming that they provided context like that that you didn't quote, they are right on.

I heard of another theory of gravity. I think I heard of it from Scott Adams (Dilbert) but I'm not sure if it was his idea. The theory is that rather than things staying the same size and being attracted to each other (gravity) that things are not attracted to each other but they do change size. If everything in existance was doubling in size at the same rate they would APPEAR to be attracted to each other. We wouldn't be able to tell which theory was correct because we, and the instruments we are using to test with, are also changing in size at the same rate. There is no functional difference between the theories, they both work the same way.

I'm not very good at the mathematical side of things. I think that the alternate theory of gravity works as long as things are stationary but it doesn't explain the orbit of planets. I could be wrong about that. However, if I'm right it is a good example of the context I was saying needs to be included.

If someone wants to go with the gravity-angels theory they have to reconcile it with everything else in existence. No contradictions, remember. That is the key.

[cal]

Close enough. It seems like they aren't giving enough time to explaining that an alternate theory has to fit together with all the other theories, not just explain one thing in isolation. However, assuming that they provided context like that that you didn't quote, they are right on.

I heard of another theory of gravity. I think I heard of it from Scott Adams (Dilbert) but I'm not sure if it was his idea. The theory is that rather than things staying the same size and being attracted to each other (gravity) that things are not attracted to each other but they do change size. If everything in existance was doubling in size at the same rate they would APPEAR to be attracted to each other. We wouldn't be able to tell which theory was correct because we, and the instruments we are using to test with, are also changing in size at the same rate. There is no functional difference between the theories, they both work the same way.

I'm not very good at the mathematical side of things. I think that the alternate theory of gravity works as long as things are stationary but it doesn't explain the orbit of planets. I could be wrong about that. However, if I'm right it is a good example of the context I was saying needs to be included.

If someone wants to go with the gravity-angels theory they have to reconcile it with everything else in existence. No contradictions, remember. That is the key.

Maybe some angels hold some things up, some hold things apart, others push things down, and others make things go round. ~

What I'm thinking right now is that even with things that are seemingly obvious, like gravity, what we believe we understand could be a 'special universe' condition, and gravity may very well not work the same everywhere. Or maybe it does. It seems something that can't be proven by us, at least not yet. It's why I've settled on what's called 'proto-truths' right now as being what to work with, instead of believing in too many things as being 'absolutes'. But if you have anything contradictory and enlightening about this, I'd like to hear it.

The full quote from a website, to give some context to what I previously posted:

The process of truth

What happens to truths? We can consider several possible scenarios.
There are truths which cannot yet be shown to be wrong. Scientific truths of all sorts fall into this category. Further evidence or experiment or exploration may show an established idea to be quite incorrect. These temporary truths tend to be descriptive truths.

There are truths which can never be shown to be wrong. These are truths which hold in constructed universes and specially defined universes. They tend to be circular in nature in that if the universe is accepted the truth must be accepted as well. For example, if I construct a special universe in which ‘a’ equals ‘b’, and ‘b’ equals ‘c’, then in that universe ‘a’ will always equal ‘c’. Mathematical, logical and dogmatic truths fall into this group. These are all special-universe truths.

There are truths which cannot be shown to be right or to be wrong. If you choose to believe that the planets do not move in set orbits because of the laws of gravity, but because each planet is supported by an angel that acts in that particular manner, then you are unlikely to be proved wrong even though you can never prove yourself right – except by reference to a special universe of belief. The problem is that one sufficient explanation cannot exclude other sufficient explanations. The adequacy of the gravity explanation does not disprove the accuracy of your angel explanation. All it can do is to make it unnecessary.

End quote.

I can check my copy of the book, if more context is wanted about what's said here.

[Bobleplask]

Maybe some angels hold some things up, some hold things apart, others push things down, and others make things go round. ~

What I'm thinking right now is that even with things that are seemingly obvious, like gravity, what we believe we understand could be a 'special universe' condition, and gravity may very well not work the same everywhere. Or maybe it does. It seems something that can't be proven by us, at least not yet. It's why I've settled on what's called 'proto-truths' right now as being what to work with, instead of believing in too many things as being 'absolutes'. But if you have anything contradictory and enlightening about this, I'd like to hear it.

The full quote from a website, to give some context to what I previously posted:

The process of truth

What happens to truths? We can consider several possible scenarios.
There are truths which cannot yet be shown to be wrong. Scientific truths of all sorts fall into this category. Further evidence or experiment or exploration may show an established idea to be quite incorrect. These temporary truths tend to be descriptive truths.

There are truths which can never be shown to be wrong. These are truths which hold in constructed universes and specially defined universes. They tend to be circular in nature in that if the universe is accepted the truth must be accepted as well. For example, if I construct a special universe in which ‘a’ equals ‘b’, and ‘b’ equals ‘c’, then in that universe ‘a’ will always equal ‘c’. Mathematical, logical and dogmatic truths fall into this group. These are all special-universe truths.

There are truths which cannot be shown to be right or to be wrong. If you choose to believe that the planets do not move in set orbits because of the laws of gravity, but because each planet is supported by an angel that acts in that particular manner, then you are unlikely to be proved wrong even though you can never prove yourself right – except by reference to a special universe of belief. The problem is that one sufficient explanation cannot exclude other sufficient explanations. The adequacy of the gravity explanation does not disprove the accuracy of your angel explanation. All it can do is to make it unnecessary.

End quote.

I can check my copy of the book, if more context is wanted about what's said here.

I feel you deserve a hug :)

Great quote!

[blueback]

What happens to truths? We can consider several possible scenarios.

Does this mean that the author is not claiming anything that follows as true, but only spinning out hypothetical rules?

There are truths which cannot yet be shown to be wrong.
There are truths which can never be shown to be wrong.
There are truths which cannot be shown to be right or to be wrong.

If the author thinks this is true, then how can he be sure?
If the author thinks this is an hypothetical, then what is the point?

These are all special-universe truths.

I don't know about you, but when someone uses the phrase "special universe" I expect a punch-line to follow.

[Bobleplask]

I hope I am not interfering too much for the original author here, but regarding:

If the author thinks this is true, then how can he be sure?

He did already answer in what you quoted him I suppose. That he thinks there are truths which cannot be shown to be right or to be wrong.

And that is the magic punchline :)