Great post. First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages:
1) Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility. Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable. I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist.
2) I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate. I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning. Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality. Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity. In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition. Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether.
Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant. Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them. If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality. Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical.
Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic." This is where things get fun. Really fun. And really, really cool.
You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic. What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure. I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size. Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same.
When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation. Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too.
The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works. However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order."
If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point: Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like? Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper. But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object? Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it?
As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity. That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension. All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope.
To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one. This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit.
Edit: Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is. My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions. I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods. I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.
Seems to me that there is one simple, major point either missing from the above, or else not elevated to the position that it actually holds. This is the fact that all observation, and investigation through observation, shows a major, basic quality about everything that is observed: cause and effect, action and reaction. Nothing that we observe or have observed comes or has come about by anything other than cause and effect. At least not that we have seen. Everything that we observe in the whole universe, appears to have come about by some kind of cause and effect. The only places that we don't see cause and effect in our observations of the universe, are where our observations are incomplete. In fact, scientifically speaking, the scientist relies on cause and effect entirely. The greater the scientist, the more he has relied on cause and effect, action and reaction. When cause and effect is applied to *mind* we see that all of our thinking has been programmed. The ideas and points in the edit, above, have been produced by cause and effect. This suggests that the idea that God can never "be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning" (number 2, above) is too extreme. God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, but He can be revealed in part by that method, that He does indeed exist, and that He is GREAT beyond understanding or nearly so. Why? Because the use of the scientific method, working through one of its basic, major methods - observation of cause and effect - eventually takes us, His children, back to Him - working back through the cause and effect method to the beginning, to God, the Great First Cause. The only other point about this is, there may be something that operates by methods other than cause and effect - besides God, that is - that we have not observed clearly enough to determine what it is. And because of our nature, we might not be able to understand that we are looking right at it when we ARE looking at it. Yet, in the whole of the observable universe where we have an understanding of what we have observed, we haven't found it. Even the abstract math of quantum mechanics that suggests that *pure random* might exist, came about through minds that used cause and effect in some form to develop the math.  If you can't conclude that God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, then you can't conclude that He can be revealed in part by that method. In other words, if you can't understand God in His entirety, then it's impossible to conclude that any "part" of God you might be witnessing is actually God. Consequently, there is no amount of empirical evidence that can lead to a conclusion that God exists. |
|
|
|
...This is Bitcointalk you little bitch. It's not your average internet forum...
Oh, this has to be up there with the best comments of all time. The best part is that it came at the tail end of an already-hilarious post. |
|
|
|
Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.
It's a game with no end. There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic. Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation". Would we all discover any truth...? no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc. Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it. I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind". Absolute truth is unavoidable. Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion. Examples: 1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth 2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc. 3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that... 4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can... Basically, this means a couple things: 1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position. 2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it. Edit: Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post. Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself. Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical. There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know." It's a *huge* difference. Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature. It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known." It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.). You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence. This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so. Great post. First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages: 1) Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility. Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable. I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist. 2) I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate. I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning. Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality. Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity. In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition. Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether. Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant. Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them. If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality. Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical. Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic." This is where things get fun. Really fun. And really, really cool. You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic. What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure. I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size. Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same. When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation. Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too. The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works. However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order." If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point: Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like? Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper. But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object? Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it? As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity. That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension. All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope. To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one. This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit. Edit: Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is. My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions. I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods. I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization. |
|
|
|
Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.
It's a game with no end. There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic. Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation". Would we all discover any truth...? no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc. Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it. I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind". Absolute truth is unavoidable. Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion. Examples: 1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth 2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc. 3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that... 4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can... Basically, this means a couple things: 1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position. 2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it. Edit: Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post. Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself. Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical. There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know." It's a *huge* difference. Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature. It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known." It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.). |
|
|
|
Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.
It's a game with no end. There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic. Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation". Would we all discover any truth...? no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc. Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it. I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind". Absolute truth is unavoidable. Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion. Examples: 1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth 2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc. 3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that... 4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can... Basically, this means a couple things: 1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position. 2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it. Edit: Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post. Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself. |
|
|
|
(let's assume Christian god = absolute truth, for the sake of argument)
How can an absolute lie be an absolute truth? The truth is, Emperor Constantine the Great created the Bible (ie. the christian god) as an instrument to regain control of his empire. So, for the sake of argument, if the christian god = absolute truth, then War = Peace, Freedom = Slavery, Ignorance = Strength.  Please reread the post. I'm invoking the assumption because the posters who I am referencing are speaking from that assumption. Let me guess, you're an atheist and you saw that statement in my post and didn't care to read the rest of the post for context, right? If you had, you'd see the very point of my post was to illustrate that at least one, and possibly all, posters here have faulty presumptions of what absolute truth is, and therefore they cannot all be correct. |
|
|
|
|
Premise 1: There must be only one absolute truth which provides reason for -- i.e. it explains -- everything (tautological).
Premise 2: There must be only one absolutely correct reason/explanation of that truth (axiom, i.e. absolute truth = absolute truth).
Premise 3: There are two or more people in this post who state belief in the Christian god (let's assume Christian god = absolute truth, for the sake of argument), but for different reasons/explanations.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the reasons/explanations provided by at least one (possibly all) of these posters is incorrect.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, at least one (possibly all) of these posters believes in something that is not absolute truth/Christian god.
|
|
|
|
And in this search, it's one thing to post links to a lot of people's work, and another to come up with your own proof. To point to someone else's work, instead of using your own origionality to get the point across, one must beg the question.. did god ever give anyone a brain to speak for themselves, or is everyone here nothing but a distant echo, a parrot repeating someone else's work?
If something is indeed a "proof" then it shouldn't matter the source. Especially in the case of abstract proofs, there is often a verifiable "best" answer which cannot be possibly be improved. If the source needs to be called into question, then it is either not actually proof at all, or the proof has been misunderstood. |
|
|
|
Ah, a non-alias account, but still a groupie.. #ban bitcointalk.org members
Ok, point taken..
1: Everywhere (apparently)
2: No-one was around to make him/her
3: No, it is not a belief, but faith in the hope of.. Edit: Charity
4: Do I have faith in that if I put my fingers in an electrical socket, I will get a fright.. No. I know I'll get a shock..
5: No, but can prove spirituality, which in turn is cause and effect.. by knowing the effect, you commit to the cause, or you dont.
6: Because they are all freemasons and back up each others lies, just look at how many cops get away with murder, by shooting kids.. their brethren back them up wether right OR wrong.. Edit: In the name of god.
7: He is not a physical presence on this sphere, so has no physical influence barring those who believe in him, not realising they are his hands, that stand idly by while no:6 is allowed to take place.. in effect, his hands are evil by allowing such attrocities to continue, and hence, his followers that do nothing are also evil. Edit: This is clearly mentioned in the bible.
8: The bible never mentions science that I am aware of.
Yeah...I'm pretty sure nobody is creating accounts to shill an off-topic religion thread. |
|
|
|
Ramen Vod!
Welcome to the tasty side!
Hail Marinara, Full of Spice, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is filled with thee. Tasty art thou amongst sauces, and blessed is the fruit of thy jar, tomatoes (although fools believe they are vegetables). Holy Marinara, Chief Amongst Toppings, Save a plate for us now, and at about 6 o’clock when dinner is served, if you would be so kind. RAmen.  Again, the FSM is an invalid rebuttal against the existence of God (though it may be applicable to most dogmatic conceptualizations thereof). |
|
|
|
There is no thing such as "god". Read some hawking and dawkins then you will understand why. + read some darwin too. Am I the only one that thinks Dawkins is a pretty awful debater? |
|
|
|
i dont know if science can prove that God exists.. but for me they dont have to prove it because no one can prove the presense of Him
It can't. This is definitive. Its scope of exploration and explanation is inadequate by definition. |
|
|
|
I have used Science as a guide above to prove in the proof that a God (or Creator) does exist.
Care to provide a link to this proof? All you are doing is showing everyone you are a brainwashed gullible fool.  sure it's on page 148  and I suppose you view me as "the brainwashed" and perhaps I could view the many as "the deceived". It's logically impossible for science to yield proof of God regardless of whether he exists. The best you would be able to do is to find corollary evidence for God in support of some broader theory. If you're looking to empirical evidence as proof for God, you've got the wrong approach. |
|
|
|
you guys are evil. Pure evil. Negative, pessimistic, and quick to judge, and never forgive. you are all probably virgins to.
Of course I plan on paying everyone back, I have been making micro payments on btcjam ever since, despite all the hate I get here.
I honestly hope the new world order throws your asses in concentration camps. Despicable people!
As for myself, I know that my intentions are pure, and people are quick to judge and misunderstand me.
I wanted to get a legitimate business investment, and I was jokingly calling it a ponzi.
But instead of asking for clarification, idiots give me (-) feedback on a damn post before even risking any bitcoins!
And you losers will gamble away tons of bitcoins on stupid scammy bitcoin dice sites.... WOW OMG SO STUPIDDDD!!!
You think I am stupid? GOOD. I HATE YOU! Ha!
You might want to consider a new account and start fresh. This probably isn't the impression you want people to have of you. |
|
|
|
Wait till somebody pens the 20th post so that your post would be the first one on the very next page, i.e. (or is it e.g.?), this post.
i.e. = "that is" e.g. = "for example" (better for your post) |
|
|
|
Excellent the religious morons are turning on each other because of their own contradictory beliefs!  Are you going to judge who is a moron without first finding out what they believe? That is the same prejudice espoused by the "fundamentalists" and radicals. Your prejudice is different???If there is no evidence that it's true, I see no reason to hear them out It's a false premise that evidence is a necessary requirement for knowledge. Evidence yields empirical knowledge, but there also exists knowledge independent of evidence. It's an invalid argument to state there is no good reason to believe in something because there is no evidence for it, and in fact all empirical phenomena is a direct consequence of the abstract laws and principles they obey. |
|
|
|
Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?" I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.
Probably because my 'belief' (as you say) is inextricably part of me. Proving myself and proving my 'belief' amounts to the same thing. You view your theory as a separate entity from yourself, I don't. I don't change. I don't better myself. Instead I accept full responsibility for myself/the way I am/my 'belief'/my 'theory'.
With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.
There are a few things I would like to say on this comment. 1) I've never said "we can't really know anything absolutely" In fact, I even said that it is possible. You've inferred this from my comments, even though I've specifically addressed this point. That conclusion came naturally for you because it is a defensive reflex.
Unfortunately such a theory can never come to exist, at least not in the sense you're alluding to. At best, you'll get the snake to eat it's own tail which is always acceptable assuming you're 100% innocently content with your theory of theories.
From this comment, it is clear that it is possible for one to "know anything/everything absolutely" as long as one is 100% happy with one's knowledge. 2) Humans' quest for 'absolute knowledge' is in direct contradiction with their way of life. One of the most sacred human motto is "To err is human." These simple words grant humanity the ability to forgive itself and forget its actions no matter how many mistakes, it makes. One of the implications of 'absolute knowledge' is that mistakes would become fatal. 3)Lastly, you don't seem to be aware of the duality of your own comment. You are effectively countering your own proposition. ---> You infer that I made an absolute statement. ---> You rebel against the absolute statement for being absolute. ---> The quest you're defending is an effort to reach exactly that: an absolute statement. it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  How am I not correct in saying you addressed my points systematically when you yourself just confirmed that you addressed them "point-by-point"? The only thing that could give this last part of your comment any meaning at all, is if you missed the fact that I actually used "missed/avoided/failed to understand" rather than just "avoided" Ok gonna take a break now. Enjoy your Sunday! 1) Your belief that proving yourself and proving your belief amount to the same thing seems to contradict your belief that a theory of reality does not amount to explaining reality. We can actually look to logic for understanding about the nature of relationships between similarities and differences, and in doing so we find that any and all differences *must* arise from similarities, i.e. "real" differences imply reductive similarities (e.g. sharing realness, etc.). To this extent, at the most fundamental level of reasoning, objectivity and subjectivity, or absolutism and relativism, are the same. This gives further credibility to the idea of a self-referential theory of reality. 2) All statements that we generate necessitate a presumption of absolutism, and it's impossible to avoid if you want to consider any thought or statement meaningful. For example, consider the statement "truth is relative" and how it necessarily rides on the back of an unspoken assumption, namely that "it is the absolute truth that truth is relative." To continue reinforcing the relativity of truth is to reinforce absolutism of the statement. "Ratio" is the root word of rationale, thereby implying that all rational statements are relational ones, including statements about absolutism. Denying any statement as absolute in *any* context (and not simply at the highest level of generality) 'a priori' renders the statement irrelevant. I inferred that you were stating that it impossible to know anything absolutely based upon your statement that "a theory is by definition impossible" coupled with your assertion that a theorist is "unable to apprehend the infinities" that surround him (which isn't much of a concern, anyway). 3) I don't rebel against any statements for being considered absolute. Absolutism and relativism are considered with regards to context, and I am most interested in the idea of forming an absolute (in terms of its scope of comprehension) theory of reality that is self-relational and describes its self in terms of itself.' 4) I used "avoided" as a catch-all for the other terms you mentioned. Nevertheless, I responded to each of your points individually, but if you feel there are any I missed or misrepresented, please let me know. |
|
|
|
@the joint Well I suppose this was to be expected. Although I never placed any such limit prior to the start of our conversation. You've systematically missed/avoided/failed to understand every single one of the points I made. Unfortunately, we're now back to these 2 comments I made earlier in the thread: Proof exists for anyone who wishes to have it. Proof is the succulent, seasonless, ever-present fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge. From newborns to centenarians, all are equally well-equipped to pluck it with ease This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science. And no, whatever word you come up with, to categorize someone making such a statement, does not encompass me. The idea of God as a supreme being promotes the concept of "survival of the fittest". Science is the subtle art of restriction, nothing more. Science and religion are exactly the same. A theory's only purpose is to exert control, whether it be over one's surroundings or other living beings. Any theory is by default impossible. Everything in the theorist's reality is of the same nature as the theorist: infinite. A theory seeks to maintain the theorist as an infinity while reducing everything around the theorist to lesser, apprehensible artifacts. A proven theory appears to endow its wielder with power, however that is only an illusion as the theory does not truly apprehend the reality of the infinities around the theorist. Regardless of how much of himself the theorist gives up for his theory, he is always aware of the inadequacy of his theory. With real power out of his reach, the theorist achieves his greatest trick when he is able to convince those around him that his theory is valid. As the newly formed bubble continues to gather faithfuls, the theorist's power over his followers becomes very real. This non-existent power is the ego. Science is borne by such. I think you'll agree with me that there is no point in me answering the remaining questions. I have absolutely no desire to prove myself. As it happens, the answers to all the questions anyone could ever ask me are to be found in my comments in this thread My original impression that you are a humble guy still stands and I wish you good fortune in all your future endeavors. (And don't worry, this does not mean that we can't chat anymore ) Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?" I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief. With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid. Furthermore, it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point |
|
|
|
1) You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one. Would you?
Ok before I even say anything on this, I would like to set up a little scenario/experiment to explore the word 'impossible'. This is the simplest and easiest to understand analogy I could come up with but do not be fooled, if you stay open minded, it should help you resolve the vast majority of tricky questions Also keep in mind that 'impossible' only equals to 'limit'. Challenge: describe the color 'red' to a person of your choice. You are free to use any means you can think of. Red is visible light with a wavelength of about 650nm.
Now imagine a world where every living being is color blind and you are the only one to see colors. You would fit in just as you fit in now and you would spend your whole life without ever knowing that you are different. This is an instance of a limit that exists without you ever being aware of it.
In that example, it's possible to become aware of the limit. Going up a notch, imagine what it is to be a grain of sand (notice that I didn't say 'what it is like') With all of your senses tending to infinity, you are still not able to apprehend the reality of being a grain of sand.
I'm gonna use this picture I've painted as a simplistic but to the point definition of an infinity (i.e something that cannot be apprehended in it's entirety by the senses. You can chase after it forever but will never actually get there) Okay, I'm imagining. It sounds like you're talking about shared experience...with sand. Going back to your question, for Langan's theory to even make any sense at all, it is imperative that everything within the universe/reality be brought down from their natural state of being which is infinite. I'll follow along with this assumption for now. I find it curious that he says, I quote "Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself." and then goes on to say "This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality" Where does he situate himself within his statement?
If he considers himself 'a part of the universe', is he not contradicting himself when he says "cannot explain the manifold itself" and then goes on to explain it anyway? Obviously, I can't speak for him, nor do I prefer to. However, this passage seems to discuss the issue:
But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof? For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level? Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox. Voilà: self-reference without paradox! It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth. Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”[/i]. The analogy that comes to my mind is that of a single living cell on an arm that identifies with the body as a whole but cannot explain the consciousness that its interaction with other cells around it help bring about. I don't think the analogy holds. Our knowledge of the Universe is born of a linkage between mind and information. Minds process information in a logical way, resulting in an observably consistent Universe. A theory of theories explains the relationship between mind and reality, i.e. theorization. We already partake in this relationship on a continual basis, so it is possible to reflect upon our cognitive relationship via metacognition, thereby objectifying it. "which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering." How is it even possible to have a complete theory if there are certain things that should not be considered. Certain things are topically irrelevant. For example, any talk of what might exist outside of reality is irrelevant. If something was real enough to affect reality, it would be included within it. So, hypotheticals, unobservables, unreals...stuff like that. There are countless other inconsistencies but we'll skip those Okay. Ok now to tackle his theory as a whole. The crux of his proposition: he explains everything within reality, (that extends to things he is not necessarily aware of) by a self-including reality. You don't necessarily need to explain things of which you're not aware if you can explain the nature of conditional phenomena in general. Things which are logically impossible to be aware of are irrelevant. It is not a stupid idea, I guess some would say it's clever, however all he's done is bypass his own sensory/intellectual limits by empowering reality with sentience. I think it's self-evident that observation gives rise to definition of real phenomena. A total lack of observation means that information isn't being processed and therefore remains unintelligble, i.e. the information isn't processed into theory. The important thing he fails to grasp is that he is still not apprehending eternity. He's merely transposed his/the current state from the confines of his physical body/mind to a near-infinite body called reality. I don't think "apprehending eternity" is any sort of primary consideration of this theory. The same limitations that apply to him also apply to the self-including reality. It's like the single living cell, giving up it's individuality and empowering its reality (the whole body) with sentience. But then we all know that the body is not everything, because there is the body's own reality. Same thing, different scale. The serpent twisting to eat it's own tail. His all-encompassing reality will never know of it's own limits if it's not aware of it. A limit only exists once you become aware of it. It seems that most of your rebuttals assume the idea that reality causes mind rather than working in tandem to beget each other. I believe this is an appropriate quote: Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is
analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect
or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of
an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).31
While this characterization of reality incorporates a circular definition of relevance, the circularity
is essential to the reality concept and does not preclude a perceptual (observational, scientific)
basis. Indeed, we can refine the definition of reality as follows: “Reality is the perceptual
aggregate including (1) all scientific observations that ever were and ever will be, and (2) the
entire abstract and/or cognitive explanatory infrastructure of perception” (where the abstract is a
syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures
distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax).
It should be noted that any definition amounts to a microscopic theory of the thing defined. The
Reality Principle, which can be viewed as a general definition of reality, is a case in point; it can
be viewed as the seed of a reality theory that we have now begun to build. In defining reality as
self-contained, this “microtheory” endows itself with a simple kind of closure; it calls on nothing
outside the definiendum in the course of defining it, and effectively forbids any future theoretical
extension of this definition from doing so either (this becomes explicit in a related principle, the
MAP). That's it for today! Okay |
|
|
|
It truly amazes me how a troll can get a discussion like this going. Applaus
Wisdom can't afford the luxury of assuming that someone claiming suicidal ideation is a troll. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
