[David Maes]

Originally Posted by <<>>

oh, I love thw way you wrote this!

I'm going to continue posting in this thread until I manage to conclude an idea about truth, although, I know, that the theory I arrive to will fall as everything that rises does.

Grandmaster Leo... (You are a master indeed... Thanks for helping me...)

There can never be an absolute objective truth! Because this truth wouldn't 'carry' any significance at all! I think of objectivity, concerning truth, is always subjective to, therefore this absolute objectivity can never exist, absolute objective truth is an illusion.

When do we call something 'objective'? We call something objective when the significances we give to the truth interfere with eachother, and form equal significances.
For example, the perception of 'a tree'... When you look at 'the tree', then you will have the perception of 'the tree'... When I look at 'the tree', then I also will have the perception of 'the tree'...
You know I have my own 'world' of significances and you have your own 'world' of significances... But all people of 'this planet earth' (I mean most people) will have perception of 'a tree' when they are looking at it!

So, does this prove that 'the tree' is real? NO!!! Does this prove that 'the tree' is an objective truth? NO!!! We think of that truth to be objective because our significances interfere to an equal significance of 'the tree'!

I have stated earlier that thoughts in our consciousness are build from little fragments 'flowing around' in our unconsciousness. This is what happens in what we call 'our brain'... Now, these thoughts themselves are created by the interference of several subjective fragments of significance... even ONE word ('tree' for example) which we think of being objective are interferencepatrons being subjective themselves...
So finally... everything is subjective! We can never know the objective truth, because it doesn't exist anyway!

It's 'raining' significances!

Even something like 'time' does not exist... Because TIME is the interference patron of our subjective significances, resulting in one equal significance, which is still subjective!

Time only exists in our 'heads'.
When we measure time, then we measure something which is not defined.

Also very important is CHAOS. (think of the smoke of a sigaret, or think of the secund law of thermodynamics...think of the butterfly effect...!)

I think of reality being a chaos of all possible significances! Of course, 'order' or 'kosmos' or 'structure' is also a part of chaos! This is inevitable!

We ourselves create this 'structure' or 'order' out of this chaos of significances... because we and also our significances, are of part of this chaos!

The fact that we experience time (getting older, breaking a glass) shows the real character of things we think of being real. Nothing is real!!! There is just a chaos of significances...

When we experience time, then we are just confronted with reality (which is chaotic and unpredictable!) It is us who demand time, who claim time and who give significance of time to the physical reality.

Nothing is real, everything is a significance: we are, our lifes, time is, the world is,... every 'truth' is subjective!

So... the truth, can we know it? NO!!

[Guille]

Dave,

The fact that objectivity is a concept whichis a set of lall the things that are objective, and that there are no such things as objective things, and thus, that objectivity is an empty set, doesn't impply that itself doesn't exist. Or does it? I'm not sur eo fwhat to think now. Let me a few more lifes in which to develop my philosphical undrstanding.

[mkirkpatrick]

There is a saying,way out yonder,which is that the mind is the slayer of the real,the mind will try and interpret the truth,and that which is forever constant will be explained away and distorted,you cannot in Truth really ever explain it not to anyone,truth can ever only be really understood when you your self,become the embodiment of it,become truth itself,and when that happens and it does indeed happen,make no mistake about it,you will be unable to communicate it.There is another saying,way out yonder,and that is you can add to knowledge,you can add to wisdom,but you Cannot add to truth,the very idea if you think about it is absurd.Truth is eternally present,the ever present now,it cannot ever leave that position.Part of the understanding of that real thing called truth,I think lies in the further expansion of consciousness that will then
touch the garment of this here truth,and by feeling the cloth we may also become aquainted with the Tailer.

kind regards.michael.

[Guille]

Michael,

I have was trying to reply the PM that you sended to me but it said that you have your account full. Please, eliminate any old PM so that I can give you mine.
I coudl onyl tell you through post.

You tal about truth is if it were indipendent from humans. But, if truth itself is human, the concept of truth, which is all of what truth is, is dependent on humans, then, hwo can any subset of the set of truths be independent of humans?

[mkirkpatrick]

Just a quick reply to your comment Guille,Quote" truth is somehow human"
truth which is another word for reality is an eternal constant and does not need
any human awareness to validate its beingness,truth just is,and has always been ever present in the eternal now,long,long,before man walked this earth.

kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Just a quick reply to your comment Guille,Quote" truth is somehow human"
truth which is another word for reality is an eternal constant and does not need
any human awareness to validate its beingness,truth just is,and has always been ever present in the eternal now,long,long,before man walked this earth.

kind regards michael.

no, I disagree.

Truth itself is a concept invented by humans, which impplies that any boject of the set of all truths is a human invented concept.

Of course, I know what you mean, I'll explain.

The information, i.e. the facts, of reality, have always been there. But the interpretation o fthe facts are the truths, and interpretation of something impplies an interpreter. The humans are interpreters.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by <<>>

no, I disagree.

Truth itself is a concept invented by humans, which impplies that any boject of the set of all truths is a human invented concept.

Of course, I know what you mean, I'll explain.

The information, i.e. the facts, of reality, have always been there. But the interpretation o fthe facts are the truths, and interpretation of something impplies an interpreter. The humans are interpreters.

I love the way you stated this, Guille, this is truth.

I also think the interpreters or humans, who recognize patrons in everything, also use a kind of referencesystem for their recognitions, and this is what they call 'time'. Time has been 'imported' because this idea (which we cannot touch) causes somekind of background or referencesystem in which the interpreters can identify theirselves, their environnement, and the several 'patrons' in their environnement. Also animals use this referencesystem, because it's a part of their instinct, time is a build-in instinct to make you survive as long as possible! Even evolution uses time (I mean cells).

We know there are several build-in programs in organisms: for example the urge to reproduce its own genes (sex), the urge to survive (hunger, thirst, pain, stress,...and of course the most important Program an organism needs to survive: TIME!
We 'import' a program like time to be able to recognize patrons; we see a past, a present and a futur. An animal needs time because only then it can remember that something or someone hurt it, it is the only way for it to learn.
Time is also needed to be able to estimate speed (for example for a preditor).
So there is another concept which I believe to be a build-in program or instinct: it is SPACE! We can only recognize patrons in a world when we import time and space!

Think of the world without time and space and every patron we believe that is 'real' would disappear; but the new 'world' you would discover would be without movement, would be without distance, would be eternal; everything would have to do with everything; we would see the patrons of the 'real' world.

Why don't we get rid of these instinctive illusions and try to discover the real world?

Of course there is one great advantage of experiencing time, of remembering the past and of not knowing the futur: experiencing free will!

But I think time and space or more instincts, than reality. These instinctive tools we use to survive lead to our own subjective truth. To make science more objective we have to get rid of those illusions of time and space.

This is why we all see 'a tree' when we look at it, because we all use time and space as a reference, which leads to the patrons we see!!!!!!!!!

Can we touch space?? No!! We measure a distance using the distance of something else. Only the fact that we need to use the proposition of a length of something else to measure distance gives me the feeling it's not real!
The only thing this proves is that we are referring to something else to measure a distance. (this happens with time to; Einstein combined time and space and discovered the curvature of timespace to explain gravity; but I think that even gravity might be subjective)
SO TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONNEMENT, WE TRANSLATE AND CHANGE THE INFORMATION OF OUR ENVIRONNEMENT WHICH COMES IN IN OUR BRAIN, TO INFORMATION WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH OUR BRAINFUNCTION. WE NEED TO DO THAT TO PERCEIVE, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN COMMAND YOUR BRAIN'COMPUTER' TO PERFORM SEVERAL TASKS OR COMMANDS IS TO CONVERT THE INCOMING INFORMATION INTO A LANGUAGE WHICH YOUR 'COMPUTER' CAN UNDERSTAND. You can not write a program in dos or basic when you don't know the right commands, or the right words... This is the same in our brain!!!

So our 'world' is subjective!

I think our world exists only in our brain!

What about the subconscious subjective fragments flowing around in our brain? Do those fragments experience time? I don't think so, because we are not aware of them. We just use them to think, to feel and to perceive!

Somehow these fragments are very important, because a sudden change of those fragments could cause some kind of butterfly effect which influences the whole consciousness and behaviour; it would be like a 'hurricane' in your consciousness. I think there is a lot of impredictability in human or animal behaviour!

Now my question is, could everything have to do with everything in our consciousness?? or in our unconsciousness??

There is also a disadvantage if we would know the futur; for example imagen we would know a nuclear war is coming, what would we do? We would go to war to prevent the nuclear war and eventually cause it! I believe there might be one day that we can predict it (I don't think in the near futur of course); so consider this a warning!!!!

I think of 'weight' to! How do we measure it? We compare it with another weight, but we again accepted the proposition that the object we use to compare also has a weight. That makes it subjective to, doesn't it?

[Guille]

Dave,

In your long post you present an idea which enters in the set of ideas of whcih you are either in avor or against. Do you agree with this?

Well, I will post a long reply today later to your post. I have a lot to write in it.

I just want to note that our body has two existence, body and mind. Which give us perception and thought. I will expand this in the other post.

[David Maes]

Thank you. But now there are still some ideas 'popping up'. So I have to write them down now, because else I would forget them; and tomorrow I have to work again. (sorry) If I write it down immediately, then we can jugde or discuss it... (But you don't have to answer this one, if you quote the thing I wrote before this...)

I 'see' a connection; so I sort it (two antipoles in the philosophical interpretation of quantummechanics):

[Guille]

David, I've taken a long time to respond, because I was constructing ideas about your two big posts.

OK, now, the main point that you are divulgating in the first of the big posts is that "the world" is "Our world". Ok, I must not only agree with this, but even help to defend it. For example, I know that there are around 1.5 billion people in china. This is part of my world, for it is part of my mind (and the world of an entity is the collection of all the existences in all of it's own existence, and, thus, all of what exists for me is all of what I come to either by body or mind, thought or perception). But the life of one of them, let's say he is called Kim Lee, he was born in Shangai, went to school until 16 and then he had to start working because his familly was very poor, and now he has a child and he has jsut bought a house with the mother of his son....etz, etz, well, all this, I don't know for these 1.6 billion people. So, the life of these people, i.e. their existence, isn't part of my existence: i.e. their existence isn't an element of the set of element sin my existence. Of course not, their lifes, are not reduced to mine! This may look like an obvious point, but it is really important into the understanding of "subjective worlds".

Now that this is clarifyed I can stat ewhat I really intended. Well, the mayor defendors of the idea "the world is my world" i.e. the idea of subjective worlds were the logical positivist, influenced by Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (it's ironic that he was a logical atomist, which was the main "enemy" school to the logicla positivism). But they were wrong, and Wittgenstein said so, until the end of his short life. They were wrong because they gave an "invertible significance" to the statement, so, basically, what they did was to say "the world is my world <---> my world is the world" Which is an absurd logical fallacy. Let me explain it. What wittgenstein said was that if a tree falls in a forest and I am not there to percieve it, and I have no knowledge about it (this is, the falling of the tree doesn't form part of none of my two existences), then, then tree not only hasn't fallen for me, but it doesn't even exist. But then the logical positivists interpreted it in this way: The falling of the tree or the tree have connection of no type to none of my existences, thus, the tree not only hasn't falle but doesn't exist. The bsic difference is that wittgenstein says "no tree and no falling, for me" whiles logical positivists say "no tree and no falling at all". I hope that you understand the whole importanc eo fthis argument.

I'm basically trying to say by the above paragraph that we are reduced to our existence, but existence itself is NOT treduced to our existence. Actually, existence itself is, and only is, reduced to it's own existence, which is the set of all sets of existences. So, I am telling you that the fact that you don't touch space, taste time, smelll mass, see energy, or hear forces, doesn't impply that they don't exist. And, anyway, they at least as minimum exist in your thought, and your thought exists, at least you can be sure of that, if not, read Descartes.

Now I'll discuss about the last of your posts. Ok, basically you are saying two things in it: 1. If and only if, there is an A, there is a B such that A and B are oposite, and 2. If and only if, there is an A, then there is a B such that A+A=B (where the adition sing is not necesarilly quantitative, just a symbol of connectivity, of mutual existence).

Well, first, I hoep that you don't REALLY think that there is an opposite to each "thing". There are, indeed, many things in the unvierse that have and are opposites, but not all, not alll, no, no not....

Second, it's true! I had also noticed that something and something impply the existence of the other something which is opposite! And you know what? I used it (and still do so) as the argument for the existence of time. Because if something exists there must be space, but not neccesarilly time, but in the moment there are 2 or more things, time must also exist. So if there is A and another A there must be time.

There are a good thing and a bad thing about this. The good thing is that this has concordance, i.e. harmony with mathematics, for -1x-1=1. The bad thing is that it has disonance with the very fundamental statements of aristotelian logic: A=A, and the set of A still equals A. But here, the set of A is said to be B, the bad thing is that B isn't part of A.

Anyway, I cam around a really helpfull thought into philosphical development, although it doesn't give a solution, it's a good tool. What I noticed is that, let's say, subjective+subjective=objective only works when these two are the only perspectives. What it means is that A1+A2=B is true if and only if A1 and A2 are ALL the elements of A. So the true objective view of thsi world is the conjunction of all the subjective views, including the viw of the total view itself (although this leads to russell's paradox). Also, Static+Static=Dynamic for the two statics, not for the whole of Staticity. This means that for a Subjective A1 and a subjective A2, then B is the sum of their two, the synthesis of these two, but not for let's say subjective A3, or A4....

About the question on math and nature, well, I know (not believe, know!) that mathematics is a human creation and onyl the wa in which humans describe nature because humans invented it (also, maybe it's true that there is another civilisation in another world that has their own mathematics also, but still it's of them and of us, not nature). Mathematics is the language inwhich we describe nature. The language in which nture occurs, well, I don't know what odd people call it, but I call it E-X-I-S-T-E-N-C-E.

About what I think on terrorism and war, well, that is a nother whole story. I hope one day we manage to have a chat session on politics (maybe a way of convincing Robert is that we coudl centre discussion on ethics and theoretical politics, which are both linked to philsophy and thus to TOE). Or even better, a forum on politics. Well, anyway, about war. Well, war is part of humans and humanity. You can't change that war is part of humanity, it will alwyas be ther,e in our thouights, in our knowledge, in our history, in our minds. But you CAN change that the war is in humans. Of course, it's hard. But after a long time, war could dissapear in humans, and stop occuring (but not existing: it's still in history). This is not a belief, it's a knowledge, why? Because: war is not something implicative in humans, is not a reqierement for existence. How do I know this? Well, because there are people that have never had or done war. A sort of natural selection has to happen, where all the war-like people end up dissapearing because they cannot survive the implications of stronger and stronger laws, until everybody is peacefulll, just like me (of cours,e I'm not perfect and I do get angry or agressive sometimes, but that's not war, war is deliberate violence). About terrorism, it is the same as war. I'm not a terrorist and have never done any terrorist atct, am I alive, do I exist? Yes, thus, terrorism is not necesary to exist, thus, it can dissapear. Also I think it's stupid when people say that terrorism is something caused by religions. Yes, I'm atheist, but not a blind one. Terrorism can be caused by anything, religion, sports, arts, mathematics....Even philsophy or science can produce terrorism! (and I don't mean technology for weapons, I mean to provoke it by extremes). For example, the Pythagoreans killed a mathematician who's name I can't remember, because he discovered and proved that the sqaure root of 2 was an irrational number, but as pythagoreans believed all numbers where rational, as logic was the basis for maths, then, they burned him and neglected him. Now we know he was right.