Do we need more?

Ok, we both began with a common understanding of what a cup and what a table are. You claimed the cup is on the table over there ----->,

I looked over there and verified that I did see a cup on the table. Since we are not both standing directly in front of the cup that you claim is on the table, I would think that the next step would be to verify that we are both looking at the same cup and table.

Perhaps we need to step up to the table together and verify that we are indeed seeing the same cup on the table. Also we need to verify that we are discussing an actual cup and table as you did not include any other characteristics in your claim I am looking for the actual cup & table complete with common functionality. For example, we could be looking at a card board cut out or a wall painting. Facsimilies of things are not the actual things being discussed - are they?

I think this is a very profound and telling post.

Every example that you've given in your post here is an example of scientific truth about conditions of the Macro Physical Universe.

I personally accept scientific truths. I accept the mechanics of the macro physical universe within their domain of applicability.

So is that what you are discussing here?

The science of Classical Physics?

I thought that you were attempting to address some deeper philosophical notions of truth?

This is where I agree with others who say that it can be extremely confusing when Science and Philosophy are mixed together in a single forum.

We've been through this so many times before.

There is a difference between scientific truths of the macro universe, and philosophical truths of whatever may exist beneath that facade.

In fact, this has indeed been revealed by Modern Science. The macro scientific observations that you have listed above are all Classical Science.

Modern science has recognize that the foundational essence of the things we see in the macro world is totally different from the macro world that it gives rise to.

~~~~

You say,...


Have you defined the domain of your X's in this statement?

In terms of the domain of macro physics, your X's here have validity. But in terms of a deeper philosophical underpinning they may not. They may not have any validity at all.

You are attempting to take classical logic and use it universally for all philosophical notions without having justified this action.

~~~~~

If the Eastern Mystics are right, then your logical statement above could potentially lose all meaning at the quantum level.

The Eastern Mystics postulate that life is but a dream. They imagine that a consciousness, or "mind" precedes the physical macro world and actually gives rise to it.

If their postulate is true, then your statement that, "Believing X does not not make X so." is inapplicable to the cosmic mind.

Whatever the cosmic mind can imagine (i.e. believe to imagine) can indeed become physically manifest.

In fact, there are whole philosophies based on this notion. Some people believe that whatever you believe in terms of an afterlife will actually become true for you. There is even a joke about this where a Buddhist dies and finds himself in paradise. He's being shown around by another Buddhist who has been there for a while. Suddenly a bunch of people arrive that died in a plane crash. No sooner do they arrive then the ground opens up and they are swallowed into the the abyss. The surprised Buddhist asked, "What was that all about". His guide answers, "Oh those were Christians, they'll have it no other way".

It very well may be that the foundational truth of reality is indeed entirely dependent upon imagination and belief of this mysterious consciousness.

You keep talking about "the cup on the table". But that's just a reference to the macro world and Classical Physics.

I've already accepts all of that. The Macro World comes for FREE with the Eastern Mystical view.

~~~~

All you are really doing Creative is attempting to demand that everyone restrict their philosophy to the notion of Classical Physics, and you are simply refusing to consider any other possibilities beyond that. You call them "illogical" which may be justified if the only "logic" that you will consider is "Classical Thinking".

In that sense I will agree with you complete.

I offer you the following logical statement for analysis:

IF you restrict all philosophical thought to that of classical physics, THEN, it does indeed become true that believing in X does not make X so.

If I accept your hypothesis in this logical statement, then I must also accept your conclusion.

However, it is your hypothesis that I'm not prepared to accept. And therefore your conclusion is moot from my perspective.

As someone who claims to understand logical thinking you should fully understand precisely why it is that I do not accept your philosophy. I simply do not accept your hypothesis. I am not going to restrict my philosophical thinking to the idea of classical physics.

It's really that simple Creative.

Both Jeanniebean and I have been attempting to convey this to you for several years now. But you don't seem to realize what we are saying.

We are simply saying that we don't accept you hypothesis that all of philosophy should be reduced and restricted to the limitation of classical physics.

We suggest that it may very well be true that there exists a universal mind or consciousness that goes beyond classical physics, and that this unrestricted cosmic consciousness is somehow the true essence of our very own consciousness. It gives rise to the limitations that we experience as the laws of classical physics in order to provide a consistent dream.

When this dream is over, it provides other scenarios. There may not be any limitations as to what this mysterious cosmic consciousness can conjure up using pure imagination.

As they say, "With God all things are possible"

With man they are not. This is because as a mortal human we have been embedded in This Dream which does indeed have it's restrictions and constraints.

But there is no reason to assume that this is the truth of all of reality. That is an unwarranted premise. Especially in light of the discoveries of Modern Science.

You are basically attempting to convince other people that they should accept the premise that Classical Logic, and Classic Physics is all that exists, and that we have no reason to consider anything more than this.

We are attempting to explain to you that we feel that we do have reasons to consider other possibilities. The discoveries (and current speculations) or Modern Science actually support the notion that the underlying essence of reality may indeed be quite different from Classical Logic and Classical Physics.

Modern Physics often refer to the observations of the quantum world as, "Weirder than we can even imagine".

That's where Modern Science is today.

All you are really doing is asking us to go back to the days of Classical Thinking. I've been there, and I'm not going back. It took me a lifetime of studying the Modern Sciences to actually move forward beyond that. I'm definitely not going back to the limitations of classical thinking now.

I simply see no reason to do that. That would be a step backwards from where I current am. Why would I want to do that?

Your demand that everyone should restrict their philosophical thinking to that of Classical Physics and Classical Logic is simply unwarranted. You have no basis for that.

Modern Science itself is currently in the process of moving beyond all of that.

This reality is a dream. Scientists cannot disprove that statement.

This reality is holographic. Scientists cannot disprove that statement.

The closer scientists look at the substance of this reality, the more the above statements appear to be possible.

There are actually scientific theories being offered up that black holes may actually serve as holographic projectors.

I was actually shocked to hear this in a lecture by a very prominent and highly respected astrophysicist, Alexei Filippenko, Professor, Berkeley Astronomy Department.

Now he wasn't supporting this idea mind you, but in one of his lectures he explained it a bit and said the these ideas are actually being considered. He even mentioned that the first reaction by most people is to ask how a black hole could be a 'projector' since nothing can escape from it. However, when viewed as a quantum projector this idea actually works within the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics.

Obviously it's not a popular theory, nor does it have all the details worked out. But evidently it's being considered enough that Filippenko thought it was worth mentioning in a lecture on astronomy and astrophysics.

So these kinds of ideas are actually out there in the scientific community today.

In order to verify the claim... yes.

For the claim to be true... no. The claim is true if and only if the cup is on the table.

Abra, your post is a strawman, not a scientific one - mind you.

Michael can speak for himself.

Why should I listen to what you say? You, yourself have admitted that you do not believe your own thoughts are true.

But Creative, if in my mind those things are true, you saying, proving they are not will not change the truth for me. All it will do is further your belief that they are not.

Philosophically speaking of course,

Scientifically speaking if a scientist says this is true, it has been verified to utmost available and you can bet that it can withstand scrutiny.

Personal truth is true to the person, no matter what. The personal belief will be true until the believer no longer believes it and then it will become false to them. But beliefs are hard to let go of.

Scientific truth is true to many people because they have tested it and tried it and it came to be the same for all the tests and trials. Much more reliable but still not infallible.

The only infallible truth is that I am, I do, I feel, I see, I hear, I taste, etc...

Truth is not what one believes to be the case. Belief is. In a believer's mind their belief is true. That is how belief works. We're not talking about belief thought, we're talking about truth.

Truth is what makes belief true, not belief itself. We can know this because we know that false beliefs exist. Not believing X does not make X false. Believing X does not make X true.

Belief is insufficient for truth.



You're confusing truth with belief.

1. Personal belief is held to be true by the person, no matter what. Holding that the belief is true does not make it true, it makes it believed. Holding that the belief is false, does not make it false, it makes it not believed.

There is no need in all this "scientifically" vs. "philosophically". That distinction sets out a difference in epistemic criterion, not a distinction in truth.

"Strawman" is a term used for 'arguments'.

I'm not even attempting to "argue" with you Michael.

I'm just trying to communicate to you that I don't restrict my philosophical thinking to Classical Physics.

No argument required.

You either understand what I'm communicating to you, or you don't.

It does for the presentation that you continually express.

You have yourself continually given classical physical examples of what you consider to be "truths".

The cup is on the table for one.

And these:


These are all entirely based on macro classical physics.

I've already given you all of that. Macro classical physics is indeed obviously a part of reality.

What I am saying is that it's obviously not ALL of reality. We know know that there exists physics that does not adhere to these classical notions.

So, in other words, I accept your classical notions of 'truth' in terms of classical physics. That's a GIVEN as far as I'm concerned.

But clearly that's not the question of these MODERN TIMES.

So as long a you continually hold up macro physical examples of what you consider to be "truth" then you are working entirely within the constraints of classical physical thinking.

You apparently are not willing to move beyond that.

And that's fine!

But acting like everyone else should remain attached to classical thinking in these modern times is no longer a reasonable expectation, IMHO.

More semantics. More strawman arguments. I'm not interested.

If you wish to engage my position, at least get it right.

You are correct. I am speaking of what someone believes to be true.

Beliefs are the truth for a person.

Scientifically speaking beliefs are theories and truth is fact or the closest you can come to it.

But for a person their beliefs are their truths.

Therefore truth is subjective.

Look at me. I come to the forums and I write my beliefs all over the place. I verify some of them with other sources but they are still what I believe to be true.

I get accused all the time of acting as if what I say is the truth for everyone and they tell me it is not.

But it is my truth. I defend it as such. I disbelieve those who speak out against it.

Is it true in the scientific realm? Probably not, even with my sources, there is a chance of misinformation and it has never been verified at the horses mouth

For me it is better if someone says "this is fact" because then I know there is a way of verifying it rather than it is the truth.

In that case Michael, I have absolutely no idea what your position is because every example you have ever given is a classical physics example.

So if you have any other ideas beyond that I have no clue what they might be I can't read your mind, and I have never seen you post anything other than the standard classical view.

I know I know we were told as kids that there is only one truth and that is the honest one. But you can have four people at the same event and they will all have a different "truth" to tell.

So truth is subjective when dealing with people.

This is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities here.

It could be that a listener understands what a speaker is saying better then the speaker themself. That would be a logical consequence of a listener's knowing what it would take for a speaker's claim to be true while the speaker does not.



Wrong again. One need not know anything at all about classical physics to know that the above claims are the way things are. They are based in objective states of affairs(fact).

If you wish to engage my position, at least get it right.

Those are matters of fact, not "truths".

Facts according to classical physics.

If they are not truths then what is truth Creative?

Name one thing that is "truth."

If you are simply saying that they are "true statements" then that is an agreement that the statements are facts... (based in objective states of affairs)

These "states of affairs" are according to classical physics.

Only if the person does not know the difference between true belief and false belief. Truth being that difference.



It does not follow from the fact that people call belief "truth" that truth is subjective.



Yes your belief is what you believe to be true.



Those who accuse you of acting as if your belief is "the truth" for everyone have confused belief with truth. Your claiming that your belief is your "truth" just further confuses the matter at hand.

Belief is insufficient for truth. If belief equaled truth. Everyone's belief would be true. False beliefs exist, and we know this. Because we know that, we also know that everyone's belief cannot be true just because they believe that it is. Therefore, we can only conclude that truth is not subjective... belief is.



Anytime someone says "This is the truth" they are confusing their own belief with truth.



No it's not. A person's rendition of an observed event is not truth. It is a recollection. The recollection is true IFF it corresponds to fact/reality; the way things are; the case at hand.

Facts are states of affairs. States of affairs were around long before "classical physics" came on the scene. Therefore, facts are not according to classical physics. The entire classical/modern approach here is nothing more than a strawman argument. My position does not invoke, nor require these avenues of thought in order to be understood. The approach itself, like all strawman arguments, does not address what has been said, address things that do not matter to what has been said, and breed only confusion in the minds of those who do not see them for what they are...

Something other than what is being claimed.

They are a sign of an attention problem.



Our understanding truth is not that simple. Truth, itself, is irreducible. There is no "one thing" that is truth. Truth is connective. It is an irrevocable mental engagement. It is central to everything thought, believed and/or known. It requires a thinking subject for it's instantiation, but it is not subject to thought/belief. Rather thought/belief is subject to truth presupposition, because it is necessarily contingent upon 'loose' truth/reality correspondence for it's very formation.

One cannot think about that(whatever that is) without first thinking/believing that that is there(wherever there is).



Statements of/describing fact are not facts themselves. Facts are states of universal affairs. True statements correspond to fact/reality. True statements are not facts. Therein lies some confusion here.

Paying very close attention to the claims being made helps to reduce such misunderstandings.

'The cup is on the table' IFF the cup is on the table.

The subject is a statement, the predicate is the placemarker for a state of affairs, the conditional sets out truth conditions(that which would make the claim true).