[David Maes]

Right now, in reality, we actually don't know anything.

[volantis]

Originally Posted by David Maes Right now, in reality, we actually don't know anything.

As a Tibetan lama I've met says, even that is knowledge.

[David Maes]

Mathematics is a language which has been formed by the 'interference' between the objective and the subjective...

Because mathematics STARTS with propositions (which are accepted but not proven)... Then these propositions are being worked out, and are leading to some kind of 'general truth'. Of course this 'general truth' is subjective because it has been created by propositions (which are not proven)...

The fact that there is this 'general truth' doesn't prove the real existence of mathemathical laws in nature, it only proves that their IS a general truth; but that truth is hidden by the 'clothes' of the subjectivity of the self created propositions.

So it's just a language we speak, like French or English,... we are just giving signification... Mathematics is not caused by nature, it's caused by humans themselves. (Of course humans are a part of nature; but what I mean is nature doesn't need mathematics, only humans do.)

[volantis]

Originally Posted by David Maes Mathematics is a language which has been formed by the 'interference' between the objective and the subjective... Because mathematics STARTS with propositions (which are accepted but not proven)... Then these propositions are being worked out, and are leading to some kind of 'general truth'. Of course the general truth is subjective because it has been created by propositions (which are not proven)... The fact that there is a general truth doesn't prove the real existence of mathemathical laws in nature, it only proves that their is a general truth; but that truth is hided by the clothes of the subjectivity of the self created propositions.

In your above statement, you are doing what many have done before. Instead of finding a unique term to describe a very precise concept, you use terminology which can be easily misinterpreted, even by yourself.

The propositions you speak of are postulates. There is no need to call them "some kind of 'general truth.'" A postulate is not a truth, it is a postulate. And then you go on with, "The fact that there is a general truth...," implying that truth is somehow involved with the postulate. Truth is simply that which can be proven to be true and not false. Proof is required, and therefore truth must be empirical.

This in no way negates the reality of postulates or what is incorrectly labeled, "absolute truth." We need to keep the meaning of each concept specific if we are going to rid science of the mass confusion that dwells within it.

[Steve Hanson]

Ah, volantis, this is fun and thank you for spending some of your time discussing this subject with me. And thanks to anyone else contemplating this issue.

If I count the number of animals on the plain below me and report back to the other hunters what I see, I provide a first hand, empirical expression that will be used to determine a course of action that will be most beneficial to me and my family. But if it is before we invented numbers, I would describe what I see relative to the number of fingers on my hand. Perhaps I would say it is more than this hand but less than both hands.

I would thus use an ordinal methodology in describing the animals on the plain.

Love is a measurement of a things value relative to the one doing the loving. And love can be described using an ordinal description. If one loves something or someone, that means it is very high on that person's list of important things.

A philospher would need to account for ordinal measuring methodologies in order to correctly describe the rules for these types of things. We don't treat the creation and maintenance of a value system with the same seriousness that we create rules for measuring the speed of light or the gravitational effect shown in the cavendish experiment.

So, truth in this context, in the sense of 'absolute truth', is merely the distance between what a person thinks their value system is and what it really is. Someone once said, "to thine own self be true" and to me that means the clarity of our internal system is as important as how we relate to the external world.

Is this the essense of which you speak? If so, I agree that we need to use separate terms and we also need to understand when to use which term. Areas of overlap might be quite fascinating.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by volantis As a Tibetan lama I've met says, even that is knowledge.

As I say, even what the Tibetan lama says, even that is knowledge.

So Finally: If We Would Know The Absolute Objective, Then Perhaps We Wouldn't Know Anything At All

You Know About My Believes Of 'a Force' Created Everything..., When The 'force' Would Know Only The Absolute Objective, Then Would It Actually Know Anything At All???

[volantis]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson So, truth in this context, in the sense of 'absolute truth', is merely the distance between what a person thinks their value system is and what it really is. Someone once said, "to thine own self be true" and to me that means the clarity of our internal system is as important as how we relate to the external world. Is this the essense of which you speak? If so, I agree that we need to use separate terms and we also need to understand when to use which term. Areas of overlap might be quite fascinating.

Yes, that is essentially it.

[Brian Jakub]

Steven,

Discovering ultimate truth depends more on how objectively we frame the questions that lead us to it, than anything else.

"What's best for my family?" might more truthfully be answered by the question "should I be looking for a salad?" or "whats over the next hill?" rather than "how many animals are there on the plain?"

When looking for truth in the universe one needs to step back and ask the question "Is there a purpose to the universe?" and then objectively follow both answers, yes and no, objectively with follow up questions.

Science and philosophy should be used together to keep both objective in developing a line of questions that will have enough far-sight to lead to the truth.

Instead philosophy is the only place a positive answer to that question is being pursued to develop a line of questions.

Mainstream science is assuming a negative answer, and refuses to develop a line of questions starting with a positive answer to that initial question. They refuse to submit to philosophy for objective review. That is similar to what philosophy through religion did centuries ago. Neither gets close to finding ultimate truth. Science assumes that just because they came up with some hard data that conclusively describes some immediate truths, like the number of animals on the plain in the example above, the initial question they asked and the answer they got was correct without objective review of the initial question.

How long is mainstream science going to beat its head agianst the wall looking for the truth of a ToE before it allows objective review of the initial question and its answers. Scientists don't always make good philosophers and vice versa, so they better get together if objectivity is the key to truth.

Brian

[David Maes]

Concerning the two possible answers of the final question...

I cannot find any logical or rational way of making the secund answer 'existence is eternal' possible...

(Because you can also say 'where does this eternal existence come from'...)

Also with the fact that in this secund answer, causality cannot be objective: this automathically implies the existence of another 'force' or 'entity' to intervene...

So I think we finally logically have to accept the existence of a deity.

Or does somebody have an idea??? (Please help me!!!)

[Steve Hanson]

Brian Jacob:

Discovering ultimate truth depends more on how objectively we frame the questions that lead us to it, than anything else.

Can you give me an example of an ultimate truth? Or is there just one. Is it more correct to say, "can you give me THE ultimate truth?"
Maes likes to play if fast and loose with words and the meanings behind them. Volantis on the other hand seems to have a great respect for words. I suspect you are somewhere in between.

I know that someday I will die. And whatever it is that I am will die with me. This is an ultimate truth, perhaps THE ultimate truth. It will be the last thing that I experience. Unfortunately, I will be unable to describe the experience. And so that empirical knowledge will pass with me and remain uncommunicated. But I also know that someday you will experience the same thing, so it happens to be something that doesn't need to be communicated. Ironic, huh?

Words transmit the model we build of the world, of existence. They don't create existence. At best, they are a reflection of it and then only if the model we create inside our heads is accurate. And don't for a single second think that it's a game or unimportant or esoteric. It's a matter of survival. Words are our wings, our talons, our teeth and the strength of our body is directly proportional to the clarity of our words.

The ultimate question is very simple: "Why must we die?".