What is Truth?

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Recently I have found interesting papers touching the subject of this thread. I suggest they are is worth reading and discussing:

Comments to Neutrosophy

Carlos Gershenson

School of Cognitive and Computer Sciences
University of Sussex
Brighton, BN1 9QN, U. K.

Another interesting paper (long, 11 MB) is "Neutrosophic Dialogs" by Florentin Smarandache and Feng Liu. Smarandache is a mathematician, logician, philosopher and artist, originally from Romania, now at Gallup's Institute. Feng Liu is a Chinese IT expert, working on AI, a Buddhist.
 

Tigersoap

The Living Force
ark said:
Recently I have found interesting papers touching the subject of this thread. I suggest they are is worth reading and discussing:
Comments to Neutrosophy

Thanks a lot Ark,

I've just read the first article so far.
I can't say I understood everything he said yet but I think I get where is he going in part and what has been discussed in this thread (and to my incomplete perspective, it reminds me of Ibn al-'arabi as well).
You can only expand the facets of what you see and understand as to see the whole and thus coming closer to the reality as it is but it seems that there might be no end to discovering truth because it is an open system but it also depends if you want to get closer to being or not osit.
That's an humbling perspective as you can never be sure, only less-unsure ;).
 

Ryan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for sharing these. Dr. Gershenson's comments are (perhaps a-are?) well worth reading, osit. The longer paper about Neutrosophic dialogues (what I have read of it so far) contains much interesting commentary by Lui Feng that provides a good alternative to what seems like cryptic and somewhat solipsistic statements by Smarandache - for example:

Sm: Imaginary is more real than the reality
LF: (utterly subjective idealism)

Sm: “I thought the truth is universal, continuous, eternal” (Mircea Eliade, <Oceanografie>). Of course, it is not
LF: (Absolute truth doesn’t non-exist).

Sm: The exterior world is real, but dependent on our consciousness. Therefore, it is not real.
LF: (This is utterly subjective idealism. The same world can appear in different images, e.g., the ant’s world, the lion’s world, the ordinary person’s world and the sage’s world. The “sage” is merely an ordinary individual who is not bewildered by different realms or phenomena.)

I do not know much about Buddhism or Neutrosophy, yet Feng's commentary reads in a humble and pragmatic way to me. He also seems aware of the limits of his knowledge (or at least states so), which feels like a healthy attitude to take regarding abstract realms such as metaphysics and philosophy.

Taking as a foundation that objective truth exists (what I think Dr. Gershenson means by 'a-being'), my own experience has shown me that feedback from others is a crucial part of seeking truth, although the responsibility for critical thinking and decision making remains one's own. Belief cannot substitute for knowledge, or the point of the search for objective truth is moot, osit.

This thread re-appeared at an opportune time as I pondered this subject, so thanks again.
 

John G

The Living Force
Physics, Buddhism, Sufism, etc. do seem to be saying a lot of the same things. There's the yin-yang Divine Names binary bits for building sacred and not so sacred information/geometry/lattices. People do things with lattices having 24, 240, and almost 200,000 nearest neighbors for example and though the 200,000 might be more accurate, it's less understood than the smaller ones and still wouldn't be the ultimate most generalized model. I've seen category theory and simplex physics mentioned as more general but I don't know anything about category theory other than I saw the word recursive in reference to someone's use of it (which made it sound perhaps Ark-like). Simplex physics is every point connected to every other point and I don't think anything practical has been done with it. The 2nd article also kind of describes the Cs idea of firm intent without expectation, the watched pot never boils, Zeno effect in physics kind of thing.
 

Leo40

Jedi Master
I have read Ark's hypothesis with great interest. It seems to me that truth is related to consciousness.
We are in 3D. Therefore our consciousness is 3D. We also know from Kurt Gödel that a system can not
be "proven" with in the system. To do that one has to move outside of it.
If we relate the Densities with Consciousness we see that to get a clear picture os 3D reality we would
have to look at it from 4D. Now, consciousness is evolving and Man can make conscious efforts to
evolve his consciousness. Then we have the problem of communication. If a person wants to trasmit
knowledge gained from a "higher" perspective who will understand that person?
Maybe I am just confused.
 

PepperFritz

The Living Force
Hello Leo, welcome to the forum.

It is difficult to address the questions you raise without knowing the degree to which you are familiar with ideas, concepts, and works that this forum is based on.

Perhaps you could post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc. We can start from there.....

:)
 

John G

The Living Force
Leo40 said:
We also know from Kurt Gödel that a system can not be "proven" with in the system. To do that one has to move outside of it... If a person wants to trasmit knowledge gained from a "higher" perspective who will understand that person? Maybe I am just confused.

Not proving in the pure math sense that Gödel meant does not by itself prevent one from coming up with very useful theories. For me, Gödel ultimately means that even if one does come up with the math that describes all that is, one would still have the "unknowable god" question of why there had to be anything at all to be described by the math.

The Cs said something like you don't have to understand the sky to fly an airplane. Thus time travel, wormhole, quantum jump, etc. kinds of physics/math theories can be developed.
 

luke wilson

The Living Force
What is the truth?

I was wondering if I could get some clarification over something that should be obvious. I seem to be lost in abit of a maze where I am losing my bearings.

Yesterday, it turned out that, the horoscopes were off and there was this new 13th sign called Ophiuchus which got inserted into the horoscopes and pushed all the other dates out of whack. So you could be a different sign than you originally thought.

This brought abit of a mini-dilemma to me. How do I know exactly what is the truth or to be more accurate, objective truth? See, I was living all my life thinking I was a different sign and I had multiple collaborations from all the different horoscopes and stuff which all use the 12 signs and now, in the blink of an eye, there is a new one. Ok, I start to believe this. What happens if there is another one and another one? I still will not have a choice but to believe it. I will do my research, best I can, look for collaborating evidence and If I find it, I take it, taking into account sources that can be trusted and those that cant eg, the PTB. However, I have never looked up in the sky and noticed any of this constellations, so I just take what I am told. This is the case with many other things. This is infact how the majority of my life is built. I try and adhere to truth and try and wash away the propaganda but how does one know exactly what is the truth without actually testing everything rigorously down to the minutest assumption they have of themselves? I mean, this is just impractical, if one did this, one wouldnt have time to do anything else. We would all be slaves to testing and collaborating everything with our own eyes and hands instead of taking anyones word for it.

In science they say you make a hypothesis and then you do an experiment and then you wait and see if the experiment collaborates your hypothesis and if it does, you have arrived at a truth. Ok, I get this, this is why science is worshipped on an altar today. What about if we bring a different paradigm into the picture, what about if we say we see and interpret the world in a subjective way. So, from that, whatever we devise to measure or test will only be collaborating our subjectivity. Does that make sense? Maybe that is why science is just spinning out of control because, the nature of subjectivity is that, it keeps changing and that is why they really cant agree on much out there. Maybe the theory of everything, is a theory that describes the whole breadth of our subjective perception of the universe interms of forces etc but doesnt go anywhere near the underlying objective truth??

Anyways, interms of us individuals and our own personal growth in this place we find ourselves in, how do we know, what we know or think about ourselves is the truth?

As far as I know, the mission is, try and allign yourself to the truth(objective) and you will evolve and grow. The truth interms of our reality and the reality out there but this is a near impossible mission because of multiple barriers that are in the way. So from a 3D level point of view, what truth are we meant to be alligning ourselves next to? Just need abit of clarification because I am abit confused if not abit lost.
 

Mikey

The Living Force
Re: What is the truth?

luke wilson said:
How do I know exactly what is the truth or to be more accurate, objective truth?

I don't think that there are several types of truth. If it's a truth, then it's objective. And you know it when you verify if the data can be mapped to reality.

luke wilson said:
However, I have never looked up in the sky and noticed any of this constellations, so I just take what I am told.

This might be the root of the dilemma that you have described.

luke wilson said:
I try and adhere to truth and try and wash away the propaganda but how does one know exactly what is the truth without actually testing everything rigorously down to the minutest assumption they have of themselves?

I'm afraid that testing seems to be an integral part of finding the truth.

luke wilson said:
I mean, this is just impractical, if one did this, one wouldnt have time to do anything else. We would all be slaves to testing and collaborating everything with our own eyes and hands instead of taking anyones word for it.

I wouldn't describe it as being slavery. For some, it's the only way of living; for others, not. Everone chooses between those two.

luke wilson said:
What about if we bring a different paradigm into the picture, what about if we say we see and interpret the world in a subjective way. So, from that, whatever we devise to measure or test will only be collaborating our subjectivity. Does that make sense?

If you're subjective, and you're lucky, your assumption might even be right. But that goes under another name: guessing.

luke wilson said:
Maybe the theory of everything, is a theory that describes the whole breadth of our subjective perception of the universe interms of forces etc but doesnt go anywhere near the underlying objective truth??

What good would be a theory of everything that doesn't go anywhere near the underlying objective truth?

luke wilson said:
Anyways, interms of us individuals and our own personal growth in this place we find ourselves in, how do we know, what we know or think about ourselves is the truth?

The scientific method: researching and testing.

luke wilson said:
As far as I know, the mission is, try and allign yourself to the truth(objective) and you will evolve and grow. The truth interms of our reality and the reality out there but this is a near impossible mission because of multiple barriers that are in the way.

I think you're right, it's an almost impossible mission, depending on who undertakes it.

luke wilson said:
So from a 3D level point of view, what truth are we meant to be alligning ourselves next to? Just need abit of clarification because I am abit confused if not abit lost.

I'd say, the truth that is right in front of our noses; truths that can be uncovered during our normal, daily existence.

Edit: The Cassiopedia entry on truth is interesting!
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Re: What is the truth?

Hi luke. I agree 100% with Data. Blame the PTB for ponerizing the word Truth. We seek objectivity. Where we find it, we can find the Truth, but people have a tendency to see it the other way 'round.

Truth has become a mushy, hyrdra-headed word with many connotations and when you read something containing this word, you can't really be sure how the writer is using it. That's why I prefer the word objective and objectivity, (or at least honesty) because those words represent what is Real regardless what a person thinks about it.

So, may I answer your question as if you were using 'objectivity'?

luke wilson said:
I try and adhere to truth and try and wash away the propaganda but how does one know exactly what is the truth without actually testing everything rigorously down to the minutest assumption they have of themselves? I mean, this is just impractical, if one did this, one wouldnt have time to do anything else. We would all be slaves to testing and collaborating everything with our own eyes and hands instead of taking anyones word for it.
[...]
Anyways, interms of us individuals and our own personal growth in this place we find ourselves in, how do we know, what we know or think about ourselves is the truth?

We can take a lesson from the C's, OSIT. Don't have the exact transcript handy, but when they were asked about "what is objectivity", the answer pointed to recognizing subjectivity as it relates to how we have come to understand an "atom".

As I understand it, 'objective' is the ground, or "first condition" (before a consciously/unconsciously biased interpretation enters the picture). As such, a useful focus is to try and work on understanding 'subjectivity'. As one example, it's easy enough to notice the difference between some kind of physical manifestation and how one is interpreting what it is, or in some way giving it a significance that differs relative to something else.

Hope this is not confusing.

If you want something to practice, then try spending an entire day without thinking about yourself at all. Just 'do' and keep busy, no matter what it is. Allow the possibility of being able to sense yourself as if the self is defined by what you are doing in a particular situation. If you want to get a deeper sense of self from this experience, then, at the end of the day, recap the day and look for any common denominators in all that you 'did' that day, or take note of your feelings and any resistances you experienced towards keeping busy.

If you decide you like this experiment because it is teaching you something, you can continue it and use it to locate psychological blocks that generate negative feelings that EE practice might be able to process for you.

Processing emotion clears the eyes so you may 'see'.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: What is the truth?

luke wilson said:
In science they say you make a hypothesis and then you do an experiment and then you wait and see if the experiment collaborates your hypothesis and if it does, you have arrived at a truth. Ok, I get this, this is why science is worshipped on an altar today. What about if we bring a different paradigm into the picture, what about if we say we see and interpret the world in a subjective way. So, from that, whatever we devise to measure or test will only be collaborating our subjectivity. Does that make sense? Maybe that is why science is just spinning out of control because, the nature of subjectivity is that, it keeps changing and that is why they really cant agree on much out there. Maybe the theory of everything, is a theory that describes the whole breadth of our subjective perception of the universe interms of forces etc but doesnt go anywhere near the underlying objective truth??

Curiously, I just read an article today about this:

The Truth Wears Off

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/221621-The-Truth-Wears-Off

In recent years, publication bias has mostly been seen as a problem for clinical trials, since pharmaceutical companies are less interested in publishing results that aren't favorable. But it's becoming increasingly clear that publication bias also produces major distortions in fields without large corporate incentives, such as psychology and ecology. [...]

the problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results. [...]

scientists find ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis, disregarding what they don't want to see. Our beliefs are a form of blindness. [...]

Nevertheless, the data Ioannidis found were disturbing: of the thirty-four claims that had been subject to replication, forty-one per cent had either been directly contradicted or had their effect sizes significantly downgraded. [...]

hey quickly discovered that the vast majority had serious flaws. But the most troubling fact emerged when he looked at the test of replication: out of four hundred and thirty-two claims, only a single one was consistently replicable. "This doesn't mean that none of these claims will turn out to be true," he says. "But, given that most of them were done badly, I wouldn't hold my breath." [...]

According to Ioannidis, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls "significance chasing," or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance - the ninety-five-per-cent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. "The scientists are so eager to pass this magical test that they start playing around with the numbers, trying to find anything that seems worthy," Ioannidis says. In recent years, Ioannidis has become increasingly blunt about the pervasiveness of the problem. One of his most cited papers has a deliberately provocative title: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. "It feels good to validate a hypothesis," Ioannidis said. "It feels even better when you've got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that's why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven" - he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins - "you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it's true."

That's why Schooler argues that scientists need to become more rigorous about data collection before they publish. "We're wasting too much time chasing after bad studies and underpowered experiments," he says. The current "obsession" with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design. He notes that nobody even tries to replicate most science papers - there are simply too many. (According to Nature, a third of all studies never even get cited, let alone repeated.) [...]

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. ... The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. ... Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. [...]

Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can't bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren't surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that's often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

So much bias! It doesn't help, doesn't it? Still, I'm reminded of a quote from Secret History:

To Be or Not To Be

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/ssupplement2.htm

It is the work of making the physical vehicle "down here," receptive to what one chooses to align with "up there," as opposed to trying to forcibly change something "up there," in order to have it "down here." And this process is very much involved with what is called "discernment." [...]

Evil is REAL on its own level, and the task of man is to navigate the Cosmic Maze without being defiled by the Evil therein. This is the root of Free Will. Man faces a predicament as REAL as himself: he is forced to choose - to utilize his knowledge by applying it - between the straight path which leads to Being, and the crooked paths which lead to Non-Being. Human beings are required to discern between good and evil - consciousness energy directors - at every stage of their existence in this reality.
 

go2

Dagobah Resident
I have read this thread a number of times in recent months as I try to understand the forum’s repeated observation that I exhibit “black and white” thinking. The division of perception into two is part of the mental process of looking for similarities and differences as I attempt to assign meaning and significance to my perceptions. I look for ‘true’ and ‘false’, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘up’ and ‘down’, ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, ‘involution’ and ‘evolution’, ‘growth’ and ‘decay’, ‘black and white’, etc. as I divide my senses, thoughts, and feelings into twos. Now, after months of pondering the dualist tendency of ‘black and white’ thinking, I see I am Third Force Blind.

Reality is not divided into twos; it is my thinking which divides reality into twos as one step of a dynamic process of comprehension. I stop with the division of reality into twos, not understanding that this is only one step in a dynamic process of understanding the meaning and significance of reality. I am stuck in dualism of my own mind, because I though dividing reality would establish meaning and significance. I am Third Force Blind. I divide reality into ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, ‘true’ and ‘false’, etc. and there I stop in my perfect dream of absolute certainty. Dualism as the end philosophy or result of thought and experience is incomplete. I need to consider that dividing perception into twos is necessary to establish poles and that the meaning and significance of reality is the dynamic relationship of the interaction of these poles established by dividing perceptions.

The esoteric metaphor of the ‘child’ as the result or reconciliation of relationship between ‘man’ and ‘woman’ illuminates reality as the result of interaction of the two established poles of ‘true and false’, ‘black and white’, ‘objective and subjective’, ‘up and down’, ‘good and evil’, etc. I must not stop when I have divided the world; I am the reconciling instrument as I struggle with ‘yes and no’, ‘true and false’, etc. So, I must go on and search for or create the ‘child’, which in its turn becomes a pole of another Law of Three creation in the great universe. Only the First Principle was unchanging and absolute, the created universe is an eternal division into twos and the reconciliation of twos into a ‘child’, a new unified perception of reality. So, I am bound to admit that truth is relative and always changing(dynamic) unless I am speaking of the First Principle of God.

This pondering leads me to consider the possibility that ‘objective reality’ is a reconciliation of the ‘subjective’ pole and the ‘objective’ pole of the dynamic Law of Three. ‘Subjective’ is the initiating or male Force, ‘objective’ is the resistance or passive Force. ‘Objective reality’ is the Third Force result of the interaction of 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'.

These thoughts could be another dream, but today the Law of Three offers me a way to understand ‘black and white’ thinking and the relativity of truth at each level of existence, except at level of the First Principle. I am not satisfied with these thoughts, but I have wanted to post them for several weeks to see if the network can offer other perspectives. I am the ‘blind man’ excitedly describing the elephant I stumbled into.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
go2 said:
These thoughts could be another dream, but today the Law of Three offers me a way to understand ‘black and white’ thinking and the relativity of truth at each level of existence, except at level of the First Principle. I am not satisfied with these thoughts, but I have wanted to post them for several weeks to see if the network can offer other perspectives. I am the ‘blind man’ excitedly describing the elephant I stumbled into.

I think the vast majority of people are 'third force blind' - there is (false) certainty/security in black and white thinking, which is one of the reasons that it is the thinking of the child. There is a sense that some order or control can be created over the world if things are put neatly into their places of 'right' and 'wrong' (or all/nothing) no matter what/when/where/why. It often creates a feeling of uncertainty and insecurity to open up to the realization that there IS a subtlety of thought that must be employed in order to see the Truth of any situation. This subtlety of thought opens ones eyes to the Third Force and, thus, to a more objective view of 'anything'. It's an important realization to come to, go2 - and I think it will be rewarding for you to move forward applying it to your thinking. I do think, however, that Objective truth can be found on levels other than the 'First Principle' - it can be found in many, if not all, faces of god throughout all creation if one is able to perceive it. Just my thoughts, though.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
go2 said:
These thoughts could be another dream, but today the Law of Three offers me a way to understand ‘black and white’ thinking and the relativity of truth at each level of existence, except at level of the First Principle. I am not satisfied with these thoughts, but I have wanted to post them for several weeks to see if the network can offer other perspectives. I am the ‘blind man’ excitedly describing the elephant I stumbled into.

I don't know that you're 'third force blind'. If you exhibit black and white thinking, it is likely the same as anyone else: with regard to a particular subject or point of view.

We could probably say that the 'Third Force' IS the context and background from which discernment of anything is made. No matter what a person says or believes, or what the subject is, my experience so far is that there is always a wider and deeper perspective possible and available.
 
Top Bottom