godelian talks shite wiv veritas

[Fairy]

“you” are self-evident
is a first-person experience which is the worst kind of evidence, i.e. 99.99% subjective and not objective.
God is self-evident is merely based on first-person experience which highly subjective and not objective.

"You" are not alone but exists with another >8 billion humans of the same human nature.
"You" as an empirical-self can easily be verified and justified as real within the human-based science framework and system [FS] as the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; there is no better.


The Incoherence of Solipsism
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Since we are doing philosophy here, you should try to dig deeper on the above contentious issues.

Try ChatGpt as a starter with the following assertion as a question:
"God is self-evident?."

I’m talking about existence; the sense of being alive.

It’s not known what is aliveness, or how or why it is. But it’s without limitations or borders, there’s no inside or outside of this, so it’s infinite, meaning it’s solipsistic by its very nature. This is obviously known in it’s conception.

Aliveness is easily verified and justified within the science-biology framework and system [FS].
The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.
If we are rational, critical thinkers and wise, we don't have to speculate further beyond scientific knowledge of what 'aliveness'.

God is simply a concept for infinity.

So why call infinity God?

Because all labels point to this mystery that cannot be known; and yet, appears in this conception as if it’s known. An oxymoron indeed.

It is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and rationally, i.e. it is an impossibility within the most credible and objective FS.
Why people speculate beyond the empirical is due to psychology:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

The one who claims God is an impossibility to exist as real…is like claiming life itself is not possible or real.

Life obviously is without doubt or error and cannot be refuted or negated or experience the absence of.

What life is…is unknown…except in its conception.


The point is…. Nothing of life is knowable except what is imagined via concept. What does it matter what humans say or claim ?

Humans know nothing, they only believe and think they know. They can only imagine. And that’s their lot.

Life still exists outside of human language - and that’s all that matters.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is truth?
Truth or verity is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

In Tarski's semantic theory of truth, there is no requirement for one side of the correspondence to be a fact in physical reality.

Both sides of the equation can perfectly well be Platonic abstractions.

You are aware of just part of the truth, i.e. the collection of correspondence between a Platonic abstraction and facts in physical reality. You are unaware of the much larger collection of correspondence between two Platonic abstractions.

It is not physical reality per se.
Whatever the truth, it must be reduced to reality.
The most credible and objective representation of reality is the scientific FS.

Tarski's semantic theory of truth is merely a human-based semantic framework and system which outputs are merely strings of words or numbers which is not representative of reality.
You are so focus on truth that you are so blind to reality [reality per se, not merely physical reality].

In everyday language, it is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.[2]

Everyday language is not a substitute for Tarski's semantic theory of truth.

Again you missed the point, it is not language which comprised of strings of words, it is the reality per se that matters.

I asked you, what other FS is better than the scientific FS in grasping the truth of reality [ all there is].

The scientific method is a poor approach for looking at an Almas ATGM missile trying to destroy a Merkava IV tank. As I have pointed out already, a much better approach would be to start with some source code analysis of their respective software. This is just one counterexample to your claim. There are obviously many more.

Furthermore, the scientific method is not just a poor approach for analyzing running programs, it is clearly also a poor approach for explaining the simultaneous human behavior and interaction of up to 8 billion people. Human decision making processes are much more akin to running programs than to observable stubborn patterns in physical reality.

The scientific method more often than not fails to grasp the truth of any part of physical reality in which running programs or human decision making are essential elements.

Whatever the source code analysis, logic, mathematics, they are merely tools to understand the truth of reality.
Bottom line is you still need to deal with reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

In dealing with any complex issues, e.g. "explaining the simultaneous human behavior and interaction of up to 8 billion people" the activities of the genetic codes, the folding of proteins, and other complex issues, it is the scientific FS that is critical with the mathematics, logic, analysis as merely tools used by the scientific FS.

Thus if anyone were to prove God exists as real, what is ultimate is it must pass the scientific FS justifications and no other.

[godelian]

How does this make you consider the fact that GOD exists

First of all, you need to understand that physical reality is just a mere shadow of part of the truth. As long as someone does not firmly grasp this, it may be difficult to explain to that person anything else about the complete truth.

We, as part of the physical universe, cannot possibly know the complete truth. Tarski's undefinability of the truth effectively prevents this.

However, as Tarski pointed out, convention T allows the meta-observer from the meta-universe to know the complete truth about the object universe, in our case, our physical universe. The meta-observer is therefore all-knowing; which is one of the God-like attributes. There are actually other God-like attributes, but they do not matter in this context.

This meta-observer clearly exists as an abstraction.

However, it is not possible from our object universe to prove that the meta-observer is not just an abstraction but a complete abstract "being", because we cannot define what the term "being" means in the meta-universe. This is out of reach for us.

We can, however, see a shadow of the truth by considering that our physical universe has a beginning at which it came into existence. We can see the result of some active and creative power whose shadow is visible to us.

It is not just an abstraction. It seems to be more than that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I’m talking about existence; the sense of being alive.

It’s not known what is aliveness, or how or why it is. But it’s without limitations or borders, there’s no inside or outside of this, so it’s infinite, meaning it’s solipsistic by its very nature. This is obviously known in it’s conception.

Aliveness is easily verified and justified within the science-biology framework and system [FS].
The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.
If we are rational, critical thinkers and wise, we don't have to speculate further beyond scientific knowledge of what 'aliveness'.

God is simply a concept for infinity.

So why call infinity God?

Because all labels point to this mystery that cannot be known; and yet, appears in this conception as if it’s known. An oxymoron indeed.

It is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and rationally, i.e. it is an impossibility within the most credible and objective FS.
Why people speculate beyond the empirical is due to psychology:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

The one who claims God is an impossibility to exist as real…is like claiming life itself is not possible or real.

Life obviously is without doubt or error and cannot be refuted or negated or experience the absence of.

What life is…is unknown…except in its conception.


The point is…. Nothing of life is knowable except what is imagined via concept. What does it matter what humans say or claim ?

Humans know nothing, they only believe and think they know. They can only imagine. And that’s their lot.

Life still exists outside of human language - and that’s all that matters.

Still don't get it.

'What is life' can be verified and justified via the science-biology Framework and System.

Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

To speculate to something that is impossible* to be verified and justified within the scientific FS is creating unnecessary complications.

* I can speculate there are dogs on Jupiter because 'dogs' and the 'planet' are empirically and scientifically possible, so it is matter of bringing in the evidence to support the claim.

An unknowable life is something like insisting a square-circle exists, where it is a non-starter for anything to be real.
Btw, if there is anything to lose if you just give up the idea?

[godelian]

Whatever the truth, it must be reduced to reality.

It is impossible to reduce the truth about the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank to physical reality.

You are so focus on truth that you are so blind to reality [reality per se, not merely physical reality].

You are so focused on physical reality that you are blind to the truth.

Again you missed the point, it is not language which comprised of strings of words, it is the reality per se that matters.

The truth about the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank is just strings of words in particular programming languages. You will never understand what these things are doing just by staring at physical reality. Instead, you have to stare at the source code. It is not physical reality that matters. It is the truth that matters.

Whatever the source code analysis, logic, mathematics, they are merely tools to understand the truth of reality.

Yes, they are excellent tools to understand the truth of reality, often when the scientific method is just a very poor tool.

Bottom line is you still need to deal with reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

The scientific method will never the tool of choice to understand the truth about the Almas ATGM missile trying to destroy a Merkava IV tank while it defends itself from destruction.

In dealing with any complex issues, e.g. "explaining the simultaneous human behavior and interaction of up to 8 billion people" the activities of the genetic codes, the folding of proteins, and other complex issues, it is the scientific FS that is critical with the mathematics, logic, analysis as merely tools used by the scientific FS.

This is not true because you cannot experimentally test human behavior. The scientific method is useless in a physical reality in which human interaction is an essential element.

Thus if anyone were to prove God exists as real, what is ultimate is it must pass the scientific FS justifications and no other.

We never prove that anything is real. We only prove that something is true. You keep confusing physical reality with truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever the truth, it must be reduced to reality.

It is impossible to reduce the truth about the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank to physical reality.

Your focus is misplaced.
The truth of the the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank as you postulated is merely the model in numbers which in a way is important, what is more critical is the reality of both the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank whether they eventually works in reality or not.
Ultimately one has to rely on the scientific FS to test whether it works or not.

You are so focus on truth that you are so blind to reality [reality per se, not merely physical reality].

You are so focused on physical reality that you are blind to the truth.

Strawman again, it is not physical reality but merely scientific FS contingent reality.

Again you missed the point, it is not language which comprised of strings of words, it is the reality per se that matters.

The truth about the Almas ATGM missile and the Merkava IV tank is just strings of words in particular programming languages. You will never understand what these things are doing just by staring at physical reality. Instead, you have to stare at the source code. It is not physical reality that matters. It is the truth that matters.

There are many things in reality that is real without relying on programming languages, mathematic equations and numerical analysis.
It is the reality per se [NOT merely PHYSICAL REALITY] that matters

Whatever the source code analysis, logic, mathematics, they are merely tools to understand the truth of reality.

Yes, they are excellent tools to understand the truth of reality, often when the scientific method is just a very poor tool.

But the scientific FS is the overriding thing that matters; the other tools are secondary.

Bottom line is you still need to deal with reality of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

The scientific method will never the tool of choice to understand the truth about the Almas ATGM missile trying to destroy a Merkava IV tank while it defends itself from destruction.

It is the scientific testing and reproducibility that they work is ultimately critical not anything else.

In dealing with any complex issues, e.g. "explaining the simultaneous human behavior and interaction of up to 8 billion people" the activities of the genetic codes, the folding of proteins, and other complex issues, it is the scientific FS that is critical with the mathematics, logic, analysis as merely tools used by the scientific FS.

This is not true because you cannot experimentally test human behavior. The scientific method is useless in a physical reality in which human interaction is an essential element.

Note strawman again, do not use the term 'physical reality' but should be just reality per se.
Where humans are involved there is the social sciences which is credible and objective but not as much as natural sciences. There is no other more credible methods to understand human behavior.

Thus if anyone were to prove God exists as real, what is ultimate is it must pass the scientific FS justifications and no other.

We never prove that anything is real. We only prove that something is true. You keep confusing physical reality with truth.

We can "prove" scientifically [not mathematically] something is scientifically real for the purpose of science, i.e.
he goals of science are to describe, explain, predict, and control:
Describe: Understand the behaviors and events being studied
Explain: Provide natural explanations for events in the natural world
Predict: Use explanations to understand patterns in nature and make predictions about natural events
Control: Manipulate the phenomena being studied

I have already stated,
whatever is "real" is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.
This is the standard since the emergence of science and it is continually improving.
Show me otherwise?

Do you always ask the question in the case of doubt with whatever is out there, "it this thing true" or "is this thing real"?
It is true, there is an "oasis" in the middle a that desert at GPS location 123.000, what is critical is whether it is real or not.

Even with the idea of God, the question is always whether it is real in existence is more critical than it is true of the claim that it exists.

[attofishpi]

How does this make you consider the fact that GOD exists

First of all, you need to understand that physical reality is just a mere shadow of part of the truth.

What makes you think I don't understand that?

As long as someone does not firmly grasp this, it may be difficult to explain to that person anything else about the complete truth.

The complete truth could be that we are living within a super efficient simulation aboard a spacecraft on it's way to another solar heat source.

We, as part of the physical universe, cannot possibly know the complete truth. Tarski's undefinability of the truth effectively prevents this.

If by 'truth' you are insisting on full knowledge of everything then perhaps I will agree.

However, as Tarski pointed out, convention T allows the meta-observer from the meta-universe to know the complete truth about the object universe, in our case, our physical universe. The meta-observer is therefore all-knowing; which is one of the God-like attributes. There are actually other God-like attributes, but they do not matter in this context.

None of that matters within the context of this thread, in fact barely anything you have stated beyond us attempting to discuss GOD has anything to do with this thread.

However, it is not possible from our object universe to prove that the meta-observer is not just an abstraction but a complete abstract "being", because we cannot define what the term "being" means in the meta-universe. This is out of reach for us.

We can, however, see a shadow of the truth by considering that our physical universe has a beginning at which it came into existence. We can see the result of some active and creative power whose shadow is visible to us.

It is not just an abstraction. It seems to be more than that.

You are discussing the existence of GOD rather than the evidence of it. (the entire purpose of this thread - so perhaps VERITAS - F' OFF)

The evidence being that within our shared reality there is so much cumulative evidence within the very nature of our common communication method - English where logical connections including phoenetic and word\letter construction that are beyond what can be considered natural language development, etymology. Clearly beyond any reasonable doubt there is an overarching intelligence that has formed these key words and lettering into their current state. Also, tied to this the structure of landmasses also tied to key words around the Earth shows clear evidence of this overarching intelligence per our shared reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@Godelian:

I have a discussion with ChatGpt re the above issue.
Here are some notes from ChatGpt on the differentiation between Reality and Truth; hope you get it, else it is a lost cause on your part:

Your comments are reasonable and articulate a key distinction between truth and reality, emphasizing their respective roles in understanding and application.
To strengthen your argument and convince your interlocutor, it’s helpful to clarify the nuances further.
Here’s how you can refine your comments and address their perspective:

Key Clarifications:

Reality vs. Truth:
Reality refers to the ontological existence or "what is," encompassing physical, social, and other dimensions of being. It exists independently of our descriptions or understanding of it.
Truth refers to the correspondence of propositions, models, or descriptions with reality. It is methodological and relational, dependent on how accurately our linguistic or conceptual frameworks map onto reality.
Emphasize this distinction by noting that truth serves as a bridge between our mental representations (like the "source code") and the reality those representations aim to describe or affect.

The Scientific FS:
Highlight that the scientific framework-system (FS) relies on empirical testing and validation to align our models (truths) with reality. For instance, the "source code" of the Almas ATGM missile might contain truths about its design and function, but its alignment with reality (e.g., whether it performs as intended) is tested through real-world application.

Broader Conception of Reality:
Point out that reality is not limited to physical phenomena; it also includes human-related realities (social sciences, subjective experiences) and natural phenomena. Truths within these domains derive from their respective methodologies but must still correspond to the underlying realities they address.

Strengthening Your Argument:

Addressing the "Source Code" Focus:
Argue that while the "source code" (language or design) captures truths about the missile and the tank, it is an abstraction. The missile's and tank's real significance lies in their operational success or failure, which can only be determined in reality.
Example: "The source code of the missile might indicate its functionality, but unless the missile can hit a target in a real-world test, the truth of the code remains unverified."

Explaining the Role of Truth:
Use the definition from the Wiki citation: truth as "the property of being in accord with fact or reality." Point out that while truths are critical for understanding and planning, their ultimate value is realized when they correspond to and affect reality.
Example: "Truth is the map, and reality is the territory. A detailed map is only useful if it accurately represents the territory and guides effective action within it."

Reframing the Debate:
Suggest that both truth and reality are essential, but reality holds primacy because truth derives its value from its correspondence to reality.
Example: "Truth is meaningful only in its relation to reality. Without the test of reality, truths remain speculative or theoretical constructs."

Convincing Your Interlocutor:
Example-Based Arguments: Use tangible examples that resonate with their focus, such as explaining how a computer program (source code) is tested in practice to ensure it achieves its intended function.
Analogies: Analogies like maps and territories, or blueprints and buildings, can help illustrate the relationship between truth (description) and reality (ontological being).
Iterative Agreement: Find common ground by acknowledging the value of truth but steer the discussion to demonstrate how truth ultimately serves to understand and operate within reality.

[attofishpi]

Y dont U and your AI fuck off out of a thread that has nothing to do with U or your AI

PS. NOBODY reads your AI shite.

[Fairy]

Aliveness is easily verified and justified within the science-biology framework and system [FS].
The science FS is the most credible and objective; it give the highest confidence level in terms of reliance and trust in its knowledge.
If we are rational, critical thinkers and wise, we don't have to speculate further beyond scientific knowledge of what 'aliveness'.



It is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and rationally, i.e. it is an impossibility within the most credible and objective FS.
Why people speculate beyond the empirical is due to psychology:
The Primal Existential Crisis
viewtopic.php?t=41714

The one who claims God is an impossibility to exist as real…is like claiming life itself is not possible or real.

Life obviously is without doubt or error and cannot be refuted or negated or experience the absence of.

What life is…is unknown…except in its conception.


The point is…. Nothing of life is knowable except what is imagined via concept. What does it matter what humans say or claim ?

Humans know nothing, they only believe and think they know. They can only imagine. And that’s their lot.

Life still exists outside of human language - and that’s all that matters.

Still don't get it.

'What is life' can be verified and justified via the science-biology Framework and System.

Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

To speculate to something that is impossible* to be verified and justified within the scientific FS is creating unnecessary complications.

* I can speculate there are dogs on Jupiter because 'dogs' and the 'planet' are empirically and scientifically possible, so it is matter of bringing in the evidence to support the claim.

An unknowable life is something like insisting a square-circle exists, where it is a non-starter for anything to be real.
Btw, if there is anything to lose if you just give up the idea?

VA .. everything humans know has been imagined.

When you see a tree, you can say to yourself ..look there’s a tree. But you have no actual knowledge of what that tree is, except what you believe to be there, via your concept of it. That’s goes the same for every known thing. Knowledge is comparable to a mirage in a desert that every human being chases as if it was real.

[Fairy]

Y dont U and your AI fuck off out of a thread that has nothing to do with U or your AI

PS. NOBODY reads your AI shite.

I read it.

And maybe you need to stop posting obnoxious and rude comments before pointing your ET finger at everyone else.

[Fairy]

VA wrote: “Btw, if there is anything to lose if you just give up the idea?“

Response: No there is nothing to lose by giving up knowing the idea. Just as there is nothing to gain by holding on to the knowledge of the idea. The result would be identical in that nothing would happen or change, life would still be unknowable. Not that life wouldn’t exist, just that it would be unknowable.

Knowledge is a secondary reality upon the unknown. A secondary reality is a man made mental construct which is comparable to a mirage in a desert.

[godelian]

But the scientific FS is the overriding thing that matters; the other tools are secondary.

No, because experimental testing is no substitute for reading the source code of Almas ATGM or Merkava IV. The scientific method won't tell you more than what a black-box test will tell you, because that is essentially what the scientific method does.

By calling it "scientific FS" you obfuscate what it really is about. Why don't you just use standard vocabulary? The method is known as the "scientific method".

Where humans are involved there is the social sciences which is credible and objective but not as much as natural sciences. There is no other more credible methods to understand human behavior.

The scientific method does not deal with human behavior, which is still very much part of physical reality. Hence, the scientific method cannot deal with an important part of physical reality.

We can "prove" scientifically [not mathematically]

You cannot prove anything by means of testing experimentally. Science does not deal with provability. Science only deals with testability.

something is scientifically real

Something is "scientifically testable". Can you point to any publication in the relevant literature where they would use the term "scientifically real"?

Science is a method. You are trying to turn it into an ideology.

the scientific FS

This term is not a legitimate substitute for "the scientific method".

When humans or computers are involved in physical reality, the scientific method is poor at best, if it is not a complete failure altogether.

[godelian]

You are discussing the existence of GOD rather than the evidence of it. (the entire purpose of this thread - so perhaps VERITAS - F' OFF)

The evidence for God is of spiritual nature or involves spiritual elements. Someone who rejects spirituality will not possibly see it, just like someone who closes off his nose will never be able to smell anything.

[attofishpi]

You are discussing the existence of GOD rather than the evidence of it. (the entire purpose of this thread - so perhaps VERITAS - F' OFF)

The evidence for God is of spiritual nature or involves spiritual elements. Someone who rejects spirituality will not possibly see it,

Really? ..not see what?

...and I suspect you'd decline defining this 'spiritual' nature of God as it being ineffable..

..just like someone who closes off his nose will never be able to smell anything.

Oh, that's deep. I couldn't even fathom the depths of deep that that is..for fathoms i'd have to go.

Do U not consider that one that nose knows indeed ...one that actually bothered sniffing out the truth..to GOD (this DOG)