Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ah - even something complex may be the simplest accounting for all the facts. Whether any particular sindividual understnads it is irrelevant.

I shall put it another way:
Given a set of facts, the explanation which accounts for them in the most simplest manner must be correct. Exterraneous explanatory elements must then be irrelavant, since they would be accounted for in the simpler explanation.

It sounds like you're speaking of both Ockham's razor and the need for increased vocabulary. Sorry about that, that's just me right now. I guess I hate leaving my comfort zone because I hate making mistakes. I've found that my points are clearer to understand. The more words I use the more people I include. I'm just lazy. What's the point, death is knocking at my door. I have a whole bunch of excuses. Do you want to hear more GOD, I slay me sometimes. At least now that I've gotten older I can laugh at myself. Who knows, maybe this being alone crap is kinda making me loopy.

Lol.
Hey - if you are really very close to death (and I have the utmost respect and compassion if you do).
If you would indulge me, and see I have no ulterior motive here except an earnest dialogue :
What comforts you, so close to death as you express?
Do you move toward that passage in confidence of a well lived life? Or relief? Or horror?

You do not have to answer if you feel this too much for this forum. I will totally understand.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes, the way I phrased it, was full of possible linguistic misinterpretation, Unfortunately I wasn't an Engligh major, in case you hadn't noticed.

What I meant to say was: With a definition of Truth as: "All that actually exists," I feel it acknowledges the essence of truth such that it defies possible human misinterpretation, of any specific truth of actual existence, that we would be attempting to uncover, which is in fact why the concept was born in the first place. I really have a problem understanding why people don't understand this simple concept.

Here you go, probably the most trusted dictionary in the world:
sound:
"1 vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear." - Copyright © 2011 Oxford University Press -

Not to mention that I had a secret security clearance for and worked with the US DOD analyzing both electromagnetic and acoustic energy related to target detection. That's both light and sound, respectively, for the laymen out there.

Arising_uk wrote:SpheresOfBalance first response is in BLUE. Except original quotes of SpheresOfBalance in boxes provided by Arising_uk.
SpheresOfBalance second response is in RED.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yes, the way I phrased it, was full of possible linguistic misinterpretation, Unfortunately I wasn't an Engligh major, in case you hadn't noticed.

Not sure you need much study to see the issue here?

What I meant to say was: With a definition of Truth as: "All that actually exists," I feel it acknowledges the essence of truth such that it defies possible human misinterpretation, of any specific truth of actual existence, that we would be attempting to uncover, which is in fact why the concept was born in the first place. I really have a problem understanding why people don't understand this simple concept.

Do you mean 'Absolute Truth' as ""All that actually exists,""? As I'm not sure how things being true or not depends upon "All that actually exists,"? Just that some things exist or not as the case may be.
OK Arising_uk, All I'm saying is that truth is all the actually exists thus is absolute but that since we are in an ever changing universe the absolute changes with the universe. Here's an example (keep in mind that the example is not to be taken seriously, but it's point is): There's this asteroid in deep space that both you and I find in our university observatories. You claim that it's pink and I claim that it's blue. We both have PhD's in Astrophysics but you have a little better clout and notoriety such that the community accepts your evidence as the truth and not mine. twenty years later we advance to the point of being capable of capturing the asteroid and bringing it to earth, we do and find that in fact it is green. We then would know that what I had said (blue) and you had said (pink) and everybody believed as truth was in fact merely belief and that the truth was that it was green because green is how it "actually existed." (Keep in mind that in this example the green solution is the pinnacle of that asteroids understanding.) Actual existence determines truth and nothing else, neither you nor my, nor anyone elses belief. Only actual existence can bear out truth. Our job us to simply uncover it. That's it, nothing fancy, extremely simple.

Here you go, probably the most trusted dictionary in the world:
sound:
"1 vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear." - Copyright © 2011 Oxford University Press -

Not to mention that I had a secret security clearance for and worked with the US DOD analyzing both electromagnetic and acoustic energy related to target detection. That's both light and sound, respectively, for the laymen out there.

What's a "vibration"? Whats 'energy' come to that? The problem with dictionaries is that whilst very useful they are circular.
You see Arising_uk, you can't do what you just did, as it negates what you just said. A language is nothing more than a dictionary full of words and rules in using them. If you negate either the words meaning or the rules in using them then you can't speak that language. Dictionaries are just about standardization because with out them we would each speak a different language and thus not be capable of communicating. For instance if you thought that the definition of "pink" was blue and I thought the definition or "pink" was pink then we couldn't talk about pink. At least not that we could both understand what the other was talking about.

I defy you to give me an example of circular in the dictionary, as you propose.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that trees make 'vibrations' when they fall and no-one is around but it does leave us in the position that if no-one is around no 'sound' is actually made as it fall's!? Its things like this that made the Idealist have a 'God' as the universal perceiver.
To me this sounds as though you are contradicting yourself. Could you do me a favor and attempt to state it clearer for me?

Whats the difference between "acoustic" and "electromagnetic" 'energy'?

Electromagnetic energy is a stream of photons that exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space.

Acoustic energy is a sequence of mechanical waves that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.

lancek4 wrote:Sorry sob -

Ok I understnd: you are saying: definition: "Absolute truth is all that actually exists".
Ok great. But as we proceed to ask what the terms of the definition mean, it seems to negate what you have been arguing earlier
Then it only indicates that while you thought you understood me, you actually didn't. Remember when I told you that only I could tell you when you understood me. Because that's the only way it can happen with certainty.

And besides, such a definition is meaningless as we goto define the involved terms.
Not at all, it's impossible for you to prove it! Or I guess that it would be more appropriate to say that the only thing you'd be proving is that: you just claimed, that what you just claimed, is meaningless!
It amounts to saying "x=y"
Incorrect! You must have failed algebra!

lancek4 wrote:Sorry sob -

Ok I understnd: you are saying: definition: "Absolute truth is all that actually exists".
Ok great. But as we proceed to ask what the terms of the definition mean, it seems to negate what you have been arguing earlier
And besides, such a definition is meaningless as we goto define the involved terms. It amounts to saying "x=y"

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Sorry sob -

Ok I understnd: you are saying: definition: "Absolute truth is all that actually exists".
Ok great. But as we proceed to ask what the terms of the definition mean, it seems to negate what you have been arguing earlier
Then it only indicates that while you thought you understood me, you actually didn't. Remember when I told you that only I could tell you when you understood me. Because that's the only way it can happen with certainty.

And besides, such a definition is meaningless as we goto define the involved terms.
Not at all, it's impossible for you to prove it! Or I guess that it would be more appropriate to say that the only thing you'd be proving is that: you just claimed, that what you just claimed, is meaningless!
It amounts to saying "x=y"
Incorrect! You must have failed algebra!

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Sorry sob -

Ok I understnd: you are saying: definition: "Absolute truth is all that actually exists".
Ok great. But as we proceed to ask what the terms of the definition mean, it seems to negate what you have been arguing earlier
Then it only indicates that while you thought you understood me, you actually didn't. Remember when I told you that only I could tell you when you understood me. Because that's the only way it can happen with certainty.

And besides, such a definition is meaningless as we goto define the involved terms.
Not at all, it's impossible for you to prove it! Or I guess that it would be more appropriate to say that the only thing you'd be proving is that: you just claimed, that what you just claimed, is meaningless!
It amounts to saying "x=y"
Incorrect! You must have failed algebra!

So, are you not saying 'Ab Truth is all that actually exists, but our knowledge for any moment may be incorrect (distortion, relative), yet we only have the knowledge we have right now and so must deal as we deal'
So, am I correct in saying that there appears two Absolutes? One which we posit now, upon which we function day to day, and then one which may be 'beyond' that, since we may be incorrect right now in our knowledge ?

lancek4 wrote:Ok I understand now, what I saw before.
I will not rehash it. We are indeed at a stalemate.

But what is great is that our excahnge helps me situate terms. I hope you have gained from our dialogue likewise. .

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ok I understand now, what I saw before.
I will not rehash it. We are indeed at a stalemate.

But what is great is that our excahnge helps me situate terms. I hope you have gained from our dialogue likewise. .

Of course I have, but we're not done yet, one more thing is required and that's your simplified version of the above point of mine, Please?

Thank You, Kind Sir!

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Ok I understand now, what I saw before.
I will not rehash it. We are indeed at a stalemate.

But what is great is that our excahnge helps me situate terms. I hope you have gained from our dialogue likewise. .

Of course I have, but we're not done yet, one more thing is required and that's your simplified version of the above point of mine, Please?

Thank You, Kind Sir!

I will try.
We exist in a universe of physicality, the actual, which functions and is manifested in particular ways. I will call this actual universe : of objects.
Human beings are likewise such objects.
Like childeren we grow in understanding of this actual universe. Our knowledge, which is ususally called science, gains understanding through methods that likewise that universe allows and yields for us so we might learn more about it and hopefully one day come upon a unified general theory which explains the universe in its entirety. And thus we would come to knowledge of the absolute truth.
Humans have a capacity for comeing to understandings of the world which is incorrect, whether because of insifficient data or faulty method or mental deficiency. Yet still such individuals assert such truth gained by such faults as true, though it is a distortion of the truth. The only way to determine what is actually true is by methods or priciples which have been shown through trial and error to yield dependable results. The accumulation of results by this manner is identifies what is most propbably absolutly true. And this process which slef corrects, this method, indicates a motion of progressive knowledge.
I guess that's a good attempt at synopsis


But I believe AUK might have a better tact for addressing our stalemante. . Peace.

lancek4 wrote:I would say that my post is a good statement of what I am let to see of Ab Truth also. It supplies that by which I negotiate life, the condition of knowledge.
Yet I would say that this is a mere mythology, relative in nature, not Ab Truth in the 'sense' that we 'know' of it.

My querry involves 'being'. If in include my knowledge, my self knowing as I do, in the 'actual things of the universe, I come upon the problem:
As I aatempt to 'escape' from this phenomenon of my self knowing, and looks to the things 'out there' that is of my above synopsis, I am left with the curious element that it is really just me in my knowing that allows me to process the object, as above in my synopsis. I am left with a paradox.

So I ask: what is This that I come upon a paradox?