[Scoopcone]

"TRUTH" is "what any mind believes to be so".

It is also "TRUTH" that "truth" can be defined in an "infinite amount of ways".

Thus, isn't "TRUTH" and "uncertainty" both "equivalent"?

YES!

You have to learn to leave the "prison" of your own minds!

[Steve Hanson]

Scoopcone:

You have to learn to leave the "prison" of your own minds!

Uh, so, can I assume then that you are out of your mind?

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by Brian Jakub Steven, Discovering ultimate truth depends more on how objectively we frame the questions that lead us to it, than anything else. Brian

Hi, thanks for the comment.

The question I ask myself is, can we actually find the ultimate truth, if we are always giving significance to it? Of course, it can be that their is an absolute objective significance, but this is not proven.

Can you actually frame the questions that lead you, in such an objective way that you would actually be able to find the ultimate truth??

Everybody gives its own significance to it and there isn't any significance which is completely the same. Of course, a part of these significances could be absolute objective. The thing is we just don't know now, maybe we'll even never know, I don't know...

So what you say could be wrong or right, what I said was just an idea, and could also be wrong or right; maybe science will be able to prove it, maybe not.

One thing is certain, we have to enjoy life, whatever happens, in the end we'll see (or we will not); because it's still possible we only have one life!!
So the best we can do now is to enjoy it; it's like Bhoeddisme says; enjoy what you can enjoy; and throw away the things you can't enjoy or use.

There is a possibility that even this enjoying is nothing more than giving a significance to it; but I think finally it's the best you don't worry about it in an emotional way...because then it will only stop you of enjoying it.

Of course by doing this in a rational way, it can be very funny and you can actually learn things...

[Brian Jakub]

Steve,

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson Brian Jacob: 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 like to be accurate, unfortunately my brain thinks faster than it can check and recall facts.

Logically there can be only one right answer to that initial questions one must ask when looking for ultimate truth. Is there purpose to the universe? Logically can have only one answer. If the answer is yes, what's the next question. If the answer is no, why do we need anymore questions, except to try and establish a purpose to the universe so our lives have value. If our lives have value then the question "why do we die?" has significance.

Here are some ultimate truths, and I think anybody whos says they are not the truth is lying to themselves. The universe is here for a purpose, and it is for us to ask, "why are we here?". I think the complexity involved in the design of my brain and the complexity of the signals between the neurons in my brain, for me to even ask that question, is evidence enough to assume, that is the purpose to the universe. Maybe for someone who likes to ignore mathematical statistics, and play games with the second law of thermal dynamics, it isn't enough evidence. If the universe wasn't made for intelligence, then why all the order and complexity in life? The complexity arrived out of nothing, for no purpose, might be possible, but highly unlikely. But, the purpose behind the universe is for us to ask, then the next question should be, why must we die looking for the answer, or do we? Is there life after death, reincarnation, resurrection, whatever. There can be only one right answer to each of those questions, and each answer yes, no, reincarnation, resurrection, all of the above requires a universe that looks a little different.

If death is the end why ask questions at all? Life is quite meaningless to the individual, except for the personal gratifications you can bestow on yourself by fulfilling your physical and emotional urges while you are alive. Unless as an individual we are part of a larger consciousness that needs our efforts to survive. I guess discovering how to tie qm to relativity could fulfil that of those urge.

If there is reincarnation there must be a medium and complex system that carries the signals of our existence from one body to the next. If that cycle ends at nirvana or something, then what does that universe look like. Does ours already have those properties, or does it need to change and evolve?

If eternal life, death from sin, resurrection and eternal life is true then the atoms of an eternal being would look different from one that dies. What would the atoms of an eternal being look like? If we were made to live eternally, why don't our atoms and bodies look eternal now. What changed to introduce death and then changes back for eternal life after the resurrection?

The preceding paragraphs provide three follow up questions with possible solutions, to follow the answer, "yes, for us to ask why." How many scientists, in mainstream science, with lots of funding, are looking for answers to those questions. What if the answer to, "how do you tie relativity to qm?", is only answerable if you ask one of those questions. What if the answer is not possible in a universe that happened completely by chance without purpose, because the solution doesn't fit the parameters set by the questions:
How does a universe look that has no purpose?
or
How does a universe look that was made for life, but not for intelligent life to ask why?

Those are the only initial questions mainstream science is giving any weight, because they aren't objectively asking the questions. I think they want to decide the purpose behind the universe for themselves, instead of having to answer to some higher intelligence, and it is biasing there questions.

Brian

[David Maes]

If subjectivity would be a real fenomenon in science than maybe science should make it measurable somehow...

[Steve Hanson]

Hi David.

Very good observation.

After all is said and done, the Lion is still a wild lion.

Emotions are lightning calculators that indicate our deepest values. We can control them but only by understanding the values that lay beneath. The fight or flight response takes over when we don't have time to sit and contemplate. And then, hopefully, our knee jerk responses are good ones and the work that went into setting the value base was done well.

It's a survival mechanism and an amazing one too.

Sorry, just thinking out loud.

What you say is in line with what I think Volantis has observed. That there are two realms of truth. One that is relative to our relationship with existence and one that is relative to our value system. Both are necessary for survival, one for tomorrow and one for today.

Steve

[Brian Jakub]

Steve, David, Volantis

What, if the universe was created for ultimate truth, or only one right value system? Would that one look different in its physics, to one that can have more than one, or an infinite number of probable value systems and ultimate truths?

I think a universe created for us to seek ultimate truth has an ether made up of particles with some order to them. This order is needed, to give us a medium with paths to follow, so we can discover the evidence in physics that helps lead us to that truth.

What you say is in line with what I think Volantis has observed. That there are two realms of truth. One that is relative to our relationship with existence and one that is relative to our value system. Both are necessary for survival, one for tomorrow and one for today.

Both are necessary when devleoping the right questions to ask when searching for a ToE. I think Volantis is on to something in his article "A New Foundation for Physics".

Brian

[David Maes]

As you already know my philosophy of subjectivity is not proven. So I will do an attempt of making it consistent with relativity and quantummechanics, with the measurements and with the paradigm. (for me I think it's the only way to know... of course if somebody of you catch me on mistakes; then the information I'm sending is wrong or my philosophy is wrong...

(If you really believe in something, then this creates imagination...)

Of course you know that my philosophy also has a probability of being totally wrong...

[Steve Hanson]

Brian:

What, if the universe was created for ultimate truth, or only one right value system? Would that one look different in its physics, to one that can have more than one, or an infinite number of probable value systems and ultimate truths?

We have bird feeders outside the dining room window and we see all kinds of birds; hummingbirds, goldfinches, woodpecker, cardinals, all kinds. The older I get, the more I love watching the birds. They're very professional and they work their little butts off especially if the weather gets bad. Their value system isn't as complex as ours, it's more straight forward and from outward appearances all they do is eat, crap on the feeders, chase each other around, raise and feed the young.
I contemplate them. They appear not to contemplate me. But I love them. They are alive and do what they do to continue to stay alive. I've also become quite fond of watching the bees and wasps working at what they do. Busy, always they are busy.
I presume that they are happy doing what they do. They certainly appear to be happy anyway.
I think a value system has as its natural end result the happiness of the creature having the value system. It would also be tailored to the nature of the individual type of creature depending upon its physical and perceptual needs. That would imply that all humans share at least some commonalities in our value systems, infinite though they might seem.
That might color how we see the world and might actually filter our ability to see the world properly, depending on the values we hold dear.
But the world is what it is and so are we. If we choose wisely our set of values, then it might be true that we see the world clearly. Might be true. Maybe that would only affect the way we deal with the evidence of our senses.

Steve

[AntonioLao]

you know it is the truth, once you found it. If you are still searching for it then you still have not found it. Subjectively, many people have found it. Objectively, I have not found it.