R
Redoubtable
Guest
The Truth, the ultimate reality, is unrealizable to all but an omniety, an all-knowing being (It is important to note that omniscience demands eternality, or extrication from time.).
Existence and Reality
- Thread starter kajolishot
- Start date
R
Redoubtable
Guest
*stares, rapt, fascinated at Wesmorris' hilarious avatar*
Wahhh . . . What were you saying, Wes?
By the by, which happens to be an expression I have yet to fully understand, 'wes' is an acronym for 'world education services,' and morris was a financer of the American Revolutionary War and signer of the Declaration of Independence. he was pretty well off, until land speculation ruined him.
You should become a teacher and keep away from the realestate business.
Wahhh . . . What were you saying, Wes?
By the by, which happens to be an expression I have yet to fully understand, 'wes' is an acronym for 'world education services,' and morris was a financer of the American Revolutionary War and signer of the Declaration of Independence. he was pretty well off, until land speculation ruined him.
You should become a teacher and keep away from the realestate business.
Last edited by a moderator:
This seems likely to be spot on the the truth, although there is no need for any 'malicious entity'.
Many philosophers (esp. since Goedel) have concluded that there are limits to what we can think about the world. These limits coincide with the limits of any rational system of proofs.
The 'probe' you mention is our everyday way of thinking, (based on provable truths and falsities) which is unable to reach beyond the 'construct' we call physical existence.
Our (Western) construct of existence is NOT closed and self-consistent, that's why we cannot create a complete scientific explanation of it and why Western metaphysics is going nowhere.
I would argue that what underlies existence, the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle of evolutionary cosmology, can be known but not proved. But this is for logical reasons, not because some malicious entity is at work. It is simply a consequence of our decision that all 'knowledge' must be objective and provable. In fact we know that at least one truth is forever unprovable in any system of proofs.
Btw, as some have already pointed out, 'reality' is a subjective notion, we all perceive and experience it differently. This is known as the 'doctrine of incommensurability' in academic circles.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Best not to go through Life imagining that Reality is nothing more than a subjective notion.
Reality exists independent of our thoughts concerning it.
Truth, Our Knowledge of Reality that we speak of may or may not be a subjective notion.
If reality, if Truth, if the Knowledge of Reality that is spoken of is purely a subjective notion then our truth will be a half truth our knowledge of Reality an Illusion, we will have been beguiled by a Malicious Entity.
If Reality is but a subject notion then the Imagination of Man's Heart is Evil from his youth.
Gene.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. {every...: or, the whole imagination: the Hebrew word signifieth not only the imagination, but also the purposes and desires} {continually: Heb. every day}
Insanity, a person that looses touch with the Material, Physical World of Reality, Objective Reality; to live in a World of Illusion where even the slightest Truth is nothing more than a subjective notion of Reality.
The malicious Entity is our own Imagination, our light unto the World of Reality or Illusion, deception, Lies.
An Evil person is possessed by an Evil Spirit, a Malicious Entity, is someone that has been lead astray, has been caused to leave the straight an narrow their momentum no longer a straight angle, to go off on a Tangent, cause to Sine, by the Duplicitous nature of their own Imagination, their Knowledge of Reality an Illusion, deception, a lie, a subjective notion.
Why?
Try proving it.
It is of logical necessity a subjective notion, it can never be more. Knowledge cannot exist apart from a 'knower'.
Nonsense, this conclusion does not follow from the premise.
What?
Can't see the relevance of this.
Or this.
Imagination is what we use to convert all those electro-chemical signals into our perceptions and conceptions of the world. Without our imagination we wouldn't be aware of a world.
Why must you always imagine that there are evil spirits abroad in the world, and how come you allow yourself to imagine that they are there but assert that everything else that you imagine is a lie? it is not logical. You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose what you're going to believe in from what you imagine.
This really bothers me that there are so many of you willing to defend your own non existence.
That there is no reality.
Its like you or your philosophy has no identity of its own, and the only time you can grab at some momentary sense of life is when you argue against the truth that existence exists.
You have nothing to stand on.
You only have something to hold onto once and awhile when hints of truth come your way.
And you can only do that by denying it.
That's messed up.
You guys are like the poster boys for the saying
"You can not be certain of anything!"
Well that's great, but then how can you be certain of that.
"certainty is possible!"
But you don't want to hear that do ya.
I am sure you will just instinctively/reactively find some way to exspress it in some self defeatist way anywho.
Best of luck boys......thats all you have.
Peace Out
That there is no reality.
Its like you or your philosophy has no identity of its own, and the only time you can grab at some momentary sense of life is when you argue against the truth that existence exists.
You have nothing to stand on.
You only have something to hold onto once and awhile when hints of truth come your way.
And you can only do that by denying it.
That's messed up.
You guys are like the poster boys for the saying
"You can not be certain of anything!"
Well that's great, but then how can you be certain of that.
"certainty is possible!"
But you don't want to hear that do ya.
I am sure you will just instinctively/reactively find some way to exspress it in some self defeatist way anywho.
Best of luck boys......thats all you have.
Peace Out
I don't recall anyone suggesting that there is no reality.
Existence exists by definition, it's what 'existence' means. However physical existence may not be quite what it seems to be.
In ontological terms it is your view that has no foundation.
Logically speaking it is perfectly possible to know things that are completely unprovable.
You have not thought the issue through properly.
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
As one realizes that one is a dream figure in
another person's dream....that's total self-awareness.
moementum7, so does it bother you to think of yourself
as a dream of a dying person? How can we be for sure?
We can't be sure. What is precieved to be 'real' is simply
electrical signals and changing chemicals in our brains.
You ever notice sometimes you fall asleep at say 4:00pm
and then wake up at 4:05pm but you remember a dream
you just had that seemed to last an eternity? What if that
dream is your life? Who is to say you are not a dream
character in my dream or vice versa.
Besides, would you rather examine the nature of things
or just accept them at face value? Look closer.
another person's dream....that's total self-awareness.
moementum7, so does it bother you to think of yourself
as a dream of a dying person? How can we be for sure?
We can't be sure. What is precieved to be 'real' is simply
electrical signals and changing chemicals in our brains.
You ever notice sometimes you fall asleep at say 4:00pm
and then wake up at 4:05pm but you remember a dream
you just had that seemed to last an eternity? What if that
dream is your life? Who is to say you are not a dream
character in my dream or vice versa.
Besides, would you rather examine the nature of things
or just accept them at face value? Look closer.
Last edited:
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
invisibleone:
Simple:
Reality is your brain interperting electrical signals, no?
So what's so hard in emulating that?
During REM sleep same things happen. Only most people
have neurons that inhibit hallucinations and such during REM
sleep, and that allows your dreams to appear real while the reactions to dreams are inhibited.
Simple:
Reality is your brain interperting electrical signals, no?
So what's so hard in emulating that?
During REM sleep same things happen. Only most people
have neurons that inhibit hallucinations and such during REM
sleep, and that allows your dreams to appear real while the reactions to dreams are inhibited.
I apreciate your response Canute.
"You have not thought the issue through properly."
Exactly what issue is that?
"You have not thought the issue through properly."
Exactly what issue is that?
R
Redoubtable
Guest
Humans, or any other 4-dimensional sentient beings for that matter, can only create substitutionary models of the Reality, the Truth. These models are our respective and often divergent paradigms of the Greater Reality. This is why people disagree so often. However, I must INSIST that one keep inhernet human limitation in mind. No meager human will ever know the Truth; the general human paradigm is sharply confined to guess-work by the physical frailties of the brain and body.
This is because the Truth is the eternal stuff (matter and energy), and all arrangements, or events, formed thereof with the ever-forward movement of the present, the temporal generatrix as I call it; this stated definition could be conveyed as "all knowledge". We are only a part of the Truth, a particular event within the context of all the arrangements of stuff with the passage of time (cosmic history). We, as a part, a mere atom, are subject to the changing of the whole, and cannot fully discern the whole to which we belong, the "all knowledge".
We can, however, have intuitive inklings and conjecture moronically, as I will now do only for my own pleasure.
Given all aforementioned understandings, it may be noted that the Greater Truth could only be known by an eternal and omniscient being, an entity that could perceive the repetitive progression of existence in an instant. A being to whom history would not appear as a dynamic parade of disarray, a thing of change and of time, but instead, an object, changeless, constant.
Who would this being be?
Verily, it is better to ask What would It be?
It would not be anything of our feeble caliber, but something greater.
A 5-dimensional consciousness, perhaps? That is certain, but then should we not see Its 4-dimensional character, Its mass or energy?
Now, there is a solution to that seeming dilemma too! It could simply be all the matter and energy in the Universe! The five-dimensional consciousness could have a five-dimensional body constituted by our 4-dimensiona cosmic history, made-up of all events! That seems an adequate answer.
This consciousness is all matter and energy, since matter and energy are eternal. Furthermore, It is omniscient as It can be fully aware of all four-dimensional events, which are, in fact, features of Its body. The reason for which it can know everything is not because it exists in the realm in the "know," but in that of the "be".
As I asserted before, the Truth, the Greater Reality, is all matter and all energy and all arrangements thereof with the passage of time. The proposed 5-dimensional conscience is all matter and energy, the eternal stuff. Did not I say that this could be called "all knowledge"? God, if you must call It that, is the ultimate Truth, the Greater reality. God is the eternal stuff and all knowledge which is of that stuff.
Well, that's what I think, at least.
Post Scriptum:
Some vindictive Nihilists may now state quite justifiably that I have proven God to be dead, or at least dumb. After all, consciousness is what makes intelligent life, as consciousness is fundamentally the search for new knowledge. God, being the "all knowledge," would by implication be dead or unintelligent.
I have a reminder by which I hope to resolve this contention:
I did state that God would be a 5-dimensional consciousness. This is because God would not be the Truth, the Greater Reality, the "all knowledge," all matter and energy within the 5-dimensional realm. God would be a conscious being searching for new knowledge in Its own realm while maintaining a full awareness of it's body, our cosmos.
Post Post Scriptum:
Much of this hinges on the notions that time is limitless, matter and energy are eternal, and there is a finite amount of those stuffs in the Universe. I addressed these to some extent in this post of mine (first post on page, I believe).
This is because the Truth is the eternal stuff (matter and energy), and all arrangements, or events, formed thereof with the ever-forward movement of the present, the temporal generatrix as I call it; this stated definition could be conveyed as "all knowledge". We are only a part of the Truth, a particular event within the context of all the arrangements of stuff with the passage of time (cosmic history). We, as a part, a mere atom, are subject to the changing of the whole, and cannot fully discern the whole to which we belong, the "all knowledge".
We can, however, have intuitive inklings and conjecture moronically, as I will now do only for my own pleasure.
Given all aforementioned understandings, it may be noted that the Greater Truth could only be known by an eternal and omniscient being, an entity that could perceive the repetitive progression of existence in an instant. A being to whom history would not appear as a dynamic parade of disarray, a thing of change and of time, but instead, an object, changeless, constant.
Who would this being be?
Verily, it is better to ask What would It be?
It would not be anything of our feeble caliber, but something greater.
A 5-dimensional consciousness, perhaps? That is certain, but then should we not see Its 4-dimensional character, Its mass or energy?
Now, there is a solution to that seeming dilemma too! It could simply be all the matter and energy in the Universe! The five-dimensional consciousness could have a five-dimensional body constituted by our 4-dimensiona cosmic history, made-up of all events! That seems an adequate answer.
This consciousness is all matter and energy, since matter and energy are eternal. Furthermore, It is omniscient as It can be fully aware of all four-dimensional events, which are, in fact, features of Its body. The reason for which it can know everything is not because it exists in the realm in the "know," but in that of the "be".
As I asserted before, the Truth, the Greater Reality, is all matter and all energy and all arrangements thereof with the passage of time. The proposed 5-dimensional conscience is all matter and energy, the eternal stuff. Did not I say that this could be called "all knowledge"? God, if you must call It that, is the ultimate Truth, the Greater reality. God is the eternal stuff and all knowledge which is of that stuff.
Well, that's what I think, at least.
Post Scriptum:
Some vindictive Nihilists may now state quite justifiably that I have proven God to be dead, or at least dumb. After all, consciousness is what makes intelligent life, as consciousness is fundamentally the search for new knowledge. God, being the "all knowledge," would by implication be dead or unintelligent.
I have a reminder by which I hope to resolve this contention:
I did state that God would be a 5-dimensional consciousness. This is because God would not be the Truth, the Greater Reality, the "all knowledge," all matter and energy within the 5-dimensional realm. God would be a conscious being searching for new knowledge in Its own realm while maintaining a full awareness of it's body, our cosmos.
Post Post Scriptum:
Much of this hinges on the notions that time is limitless, matter and energy are eternal, and there is a finite amount of those stuffs in the Universe. I addressed these to some extent in this post of mine (first post on page, I believe).
Last edited by a moderator:
This is true for all beings, including an omniscient one, since it has been proved that no model can model the thing that's doing the modelling. That is to say that no model can be infinitely recursive. A model implies something that exists apart from the model, and which is therefore not modelled in the model.
This assumes that there is a single 'Greater Reality', which is highly arguable.
What do you mean by the Truth? Certainly no human will ever know all there is to know. However I don't see why a human cannot know as much as it needs to know to understand the basic truth about our existence.
Don't agree with this. It is possible to go beyond guess work, although admittedly not by any axiomatic system of thinking, which is by definition based on guesswork.
Not sure what this means. It is true that I had toast for breakfast - but I wouldn't want to call this a Truth. Also the Truth must surely include what lies beyond temporality, and not be confined to it.
I don't agree that it has to be done moronically, although I do agree that it usually is.
What is the Greater Truth? Is it 'all knowledge'? Wouldn't it be better to say that the Truth is what remains true under all circumstances, that which is non-contingent on any other other truths, in other words the ultimate truth. I don't like the idea that knowledge is truth, or that the Truth is all knowledge. It suggests that to know the Truth it is necessary to know what I had for breakfast.
All physically extended substances are subject to change. The only thing that we know of that (theoretically) isn't necessarily so is consciousness, since it is unextended.
I'm not so sure.
Fair enough.
That makes some sense, but it's confusingly anthropomorphic. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that it is consciousness that gives rise to the physical universe, that consciousness is the substance that forms the substrate of existence or the fundamental field?
Agree with the sentiment but this is self-contradictory. In the realm of the 'be' knowledge does not exist, there is just be-ing. By your defintion knowledge is a feature exlusive to the other dimensions.
So God=all knowledge=Greater Reality=Truth=all matter=the eternal stuff. I feel that if there is no distinction between these terms you are left with an empty argument.
It has distant echoes of what I think as well. But as it is I don't think it's logical.[Well, that's what I think, at least.
Who says consciousness is 'the search for new knowledge'? This para. is logically weird.
Hang on. I thought you said that the fifth dimension was the 'be', not the 'know'.
It seems impossible that time is eternal. Timelessness is a better candidate.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Where, when, how and by whom was this proven.
It's a proof from mathematics often discussed in relation to Goedel. Unfortunately, as you've just made me realise, I have no idea where, when, how etc it was proven. I will find out and get back to you. I should know this.
Having said that I think you'll find that the statement is pretty obviously true without any formal proof.
consistent observation is reality
Ah, we're getting somewhere now. I'd actually weaken your criteria somewhat. For me observation is the key with the big assumption (so far proven) that reality is consistent. In particular, if you can't observe either A or not A, then the difference is irrelevant. For example, is there a God or not? Since, no one has yet to formulate an reproducible observation that will prove or disprove that God exists despite millenia of debate, then the question is irrelevant for the present (except to discuss and perform reproducible observations).
Causality isn't a requirement. For example, we would consider the assembly of people of a certain distinguishable type (say philosophers) to be an event. But this event can be due to a future cause (eg, they are assembling for a soon to occur conference) or even by random chance (ie, it has no cause).
Ah, we're getting somewhere now. I'd actually weaken your criteria somewhat. For me observation is the key with the big assumption (so far proven) that reality is consistent. In particular, if you can't observe either A or not A, then the difference is irrelevant. For example, is there a God or not? Since, no one has yet to formulate an reproducible observation that will prove or disprove that God exists despite millenia of debate, then the question is irrelevant for the present (except to discuss and perform reproducible observations).
Causality isn't a requirement. For example, we would consider the assembly of people of a certain distinguishable type (say philosophers) to be an event. But this event can be due to a future cause (eg, they are assembling for a soon to occur conference) or even by random chance (ie, it has no cause).
The proper statement of Goedel's Theorem is that any sufficiently complex system of axioms has statements which cannot be proven within that system of axioms. I think the Theorem specifies sufficient conditions for when the Theorem holds. In particular, it shows that the usual base for mathematics, Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms and the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) is such a system.