Conditions/Subjectivity/Absolute Truth

[Edgarcito]

It seems like if there is any absolute truth, it resides between conditions.  People, science, you name it.........reality resides with conditions/subjectivity....non-static conditions on top of that.  I gather math could be used to describe conditions or lack there of?  I don't know, I'm asking.  Outside of this, my mind says that we would have to understand the infinitely small to really find truth....or even any relationships within the subjectivities, patterns, that hold true.    And I'm not sure we can do that. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No thanks.  I had word salad for lunch.

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No thanks.  I had word salad for lunch.

Yeah, but here's the point....why, if our reality is subjective, and ultimately it is, would we continue to debate, or make available these forums to discuss such.  I don't get it.  If there is no absolute truth within a non-static state, what's the gd point.  I'm right, no, I'm right, you're a prick.  No, prick is just transient within our reality.  Go bitch about it over there. 

 

If anyone had the truth, then I was hoping you bastards had it.  Again, the challenge is you talk like you have it, but you don't.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To which truth do you refer?

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To which truth do you refer?

Here's just a thought.... "reaction diffusion"  could be  "condition-truth"

[Edgarcito]

I attempted to link a video to Turing's reaction diffusion model.  Not sure what happened.  Let me look.

 

[midniterider]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I attempted to link a video to Turing's reaction diffusion model.  Not sure what happened.  Let me look.

 

 

It worked. I watched it. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm still confused about what you're asking.  If "everything is subjective", why would you look for "absolute" truth?  And why would you think we would have it?

[midniterider]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yeah, but here's the point....why, if our reality is subjective, and ultimately it is, would we continue to debate, or make available these forums to discuss such.  I don't get it.  If there is no absolute truth within a non-static state, what's the gd point.  I'm right, no, I'm right, you're a prick.  No, prick is just transient within our reality.  Go bitch about it over there. 

 

If anyone had the truth, then I was hoping you bastards had it.  Again, the challenge is you talk like you have it, but you don't.

 

 

 

I thought the generally accepted viewpoint by the majority of ex-believers was that reality was absolute/objective. Same truth for everyone. Christians feel the same way, right? 

 

Ex-Christian: There is one reality for all people and no God in it. 

Christian: There is one reality for all people and a God is in it .

 

Now and again I watch a fascinating youtube video about how the brain assembles a picture of reality from visual input, fills in the blanks with what the brain thinks ought to be there, though it is not really there and then proceeds from a faulty view of reality.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm still confused about what you're asking.  If "everything is subjective", why would you look for "absolute" truth?  And why would you think we would have it?

A Creator, origins, truth, nothing , no conditions, Grace.  And I think Turing was on to the same concept from my very cursory look at his work.  I would guess that math, out of everything would give us an understanding in itself of what is absolutely true....a function perhaps, that through conditions, describes reality.  For example, if we knew the forces of infinitely small then it would be easier to define reality.  But we don't...and probably can't.  So then we turn to math to remove subjectivity/conditions from reality.  So if I can define something mathematically, then I should be able to understand the functions that brought that reality.  Then you have to ask is there any consistency in the functions?  Can the same defining function(s) describe everything if you take them far enough to their beginning? 

 

It seems futile to continue to argue if RNP has a different reality through conditions than does Ed or M.  Yet here we are calling each other names.  I'm just speculating that there IS a function that describes what we see.  And if there is, you know what this means brother......check----mate.  lol.  Thanks for entertaining this pre sleep meandering of thoughts.

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I thought the generally accepted viewpoint by the majority of ex-believers was that reality was absolute/objective. Same truth for everyone. Christians feel the same way, right? 

 

Ex-Christian: There is one reality for all people and no God in it. 

Christian: There is one reality for all people and a God is in it .

 

Now and again I watch a fascinating youtube video about how the brain assembles a picture of reality from visual input, fills in the blanks with what the brain thinks ought to be there, though it is not really there and then proceeds from a faulty view of reality.

 

 

I just don't believe that there is really an objective state, rather that our reality is densities of conditions...

 

Edit:  Which in my tiny brain goes along way in describing evolution.....this arrangement of conditions proved more successful than another.....just writing this down for my own good, thanks. 

[midniterider]

I will take that idea that there is no objective state. 

 

If there's a Jesus for you, but not for me, we ought to all be able to just get along. The Great Commission might need to be altered or removed in that case. That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure why 100% agreement on reality is a necessity. People dont agree anyway .... and somehow society continues. 

[florduh]

I'm just a simple guy and not much for philosophical rabbit holes. Seems to me that "truth" which I take as to mean "reality" is something that actually exists regardless of anyone's opinion. 

 

God, which is what I assume you are getting at, is something that, like anything else, either really exists or it does not. The thousands of definitions for the god concept only muddies the water further. However, in the case of any god existing, it either does or does not exist and one's opinion about it doesn't make it any kind of reality. Belief in any invisible, undetectable supernatural thing is not that believer's reality, it is merely his belief.

 

But I'm just a simple guy. 

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, florduh said:

I'm just a simple guy and not much for philosophical rabbit holes. Seems to me that "truth" which I take as to mean "reality" is something that actually exists regardless of anyone's opinion. 

 

God, which is what I assume you are getting at, is something that, like anything else, either really exists or it does not. The thousands of definitions for the god concept only muddies the water further. However, in the case of any god existing, it either does or does not exist and one's opinion about it doesn't make it any kind of reality. Belief in any invisible, undetectable supernatural thing is not that believer's reality, it is merely his belief.

 

But I'm just a simple guy. 

In this scenario, density of conditions IS truth within the realm of our understanding.  I'm just suggesting using math to remove conditions and see if there is a commonality.....which to me suggests an author.....or maybe not.  Certainly not understanding if Mr. Turing can move one direction and make a prediction, why can't you take the prediction and move backwards.

 

To your last statement.....it changes the perception drastically.  One scenario you are looking at an objective blob of facts.....the other you are looking at a set of conditions.  They ARE facts in one sense as we have defined them.  Just thinking the density of conditions could define culture, belief, education, etc.  Does this mean that the particular manifestation Astreja  is any more unworthy than Ed?  I gather her conditions sucked at some point as did mine.  But they are still the TRUTH in each scenario.  So this brings us to what conditions prove successful in this big game of conditions.....don't doctors, teachers, parents, priests, (website forums), all set out to change conditions?  Heck, the instruments I use in my lab are there to replicate conditions so that I might accurately define reality.  Even in that, there are tolerances between instrument sitting on the same bench. 

 

I just think it an idea of how we might view each other that would help being successful.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

57 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm just suggesting using math to remove conditions and see if there is a commonality.....which to me suggests an author....

So, 2+2=god.  Gotcha.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

But they are still the TRUTH in each scenario.

 

So the argument is, "My unfounded belief is the same thing as fact."

 

[WalterP]

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1952.0012

 

Here's a link to the abstract of Turing's paper, Edgarcito. Below is the abstract.

 

It is suggested that a system of chemical substances, called morphogens, reacting together and diffusing through a tissue, is adequate to account for the main phenomena of morphogenesis. Such a system, although it may originally be quite homogeneous, may later develop a pattern or structure due to an instability of the homogeneous equilibrium, which is triggered off by random disturbances. Such reaction-diffusion systems are considered in some detail in the case of an isolated ring of cells, a mathematically convenient, though biologically unusual system. The investigation is chiefly concerned with the onset of instability. It is found that there are six essentially different forms which this may take. In the most interesting form stationary waves appear on the ring. It is suggested that this might account, for instance, for the tentacle patterns on Hydra and for whorled leaves. A system of reactions and diffusion on a sphere is also considered. Such a system appears to account for gastrulation. Another reaction system in two dimensions gives rise to patterns reminiscent of dappling. It is also suggested that stationary waves in two dimensions could account for the phenomena of phyllotaxis. The purpose of this paper is to discuss a possible mechanism by which the genes of a zygote may determine the anatomical structure of the resulting organism. The theory does not make any new hypotheses; it merely suggests that certain well-known physical laws are sufficient to account for many of the facts. The full understanding of the paper requires a good knowledge of mathematics, some biology, and some elementary chemistry. Since readers cannot be expected to be experts in all of these subjects, a number of elementary facts are explained, which can be found in text-books, but whose omission would make the paper difficult reading.

 

Please look closely at the two sentences I've highlighted.

 

The phenomenon of morphogenesis, which gives rise to recurring patterns in nature is... triggered by random disturbances.

 

So, the possible mechanism by which genes give rise to recurring patterns in the anatomical structure of organisms is due to... random disturbances.

 

Therefore, according to Turing's theory, the structures we see in nature are caused by nothing more than the random action of molecules.

 

It would therefore seem that on the molecular level there is no absolute truth other than random chance.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[AntiChrist]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It seems like if there is any absolute truth, it resides between conditions.  People, science, you name it.........reality resides with conditions/subjectivity....non-static conditions on top of that.  I gather math could be used to describe conditions or lack there of?  I don't know, I'm asking.  Outside of this, my mind says that we would have to understand the infinitely small to really find truth....or even any relationships within the subjectivities, patterns, that hold true.    And I'm not sure we can do that. 

 

 

Yum.

[Edgarcito]

16 hours ago, WalterP said:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1952.0012

 

Here's a link to the abstract of Turing's paper, Edgarcito. Below is the abstract.

 

It is suggested that a system of chemical substances, called morphogens, reacting together and diffusing through a tissue, is adequate to account for the main phenomena of morphogenesis. Such a system, although it may originally be quite homogeneous, may later develop a pattern or structure due to an instability of the homogeneous equilibrium, which is triggered off by random disturbances. Such reaction-diffusion systems are considered in some detail in the case of an isolated ring of cells, a mathematically convenient, though biologically unusual system. The investigation is chiefly concerned with the onset of instability. It is found that there are six essentially different forms which this may take. In the most interesting form stationary waves appear on the ring. It is suggested that this might account, for instance, for the tentacle patterns on Hydra and for whorled leaves. A system of reactions and diffusion on a sphere is also considered. Such a system appears to account for gastrulation. Another reaction system in two dimensions gives rise to patterns reminiscent of dappling. It is also suggested that stationary waves in two dimensions could account for the phenomena of phyllotaxis. The purpose of this paper is to discuss a possible mechanism by which the genes of a zygote may determine the anatomical structure of the resulting organism. The theory does not make any new hypotheses; it merely suggests that certain well-known physical laws are sufficient to account for many of the facts. The full understanding of the paper requires a good knowledge of mathematics, some biology, and some elementary chemistry. Since readers cannot be expected to be experts in all of these subjects, a number of elementary facts are explained, which can be found in text-books, but whose omission would make the paper difficult reading.

 

Please look closely at the two sentences I've highlighted.

 

The phenomenon of morphogenesis, which gives rise to recurring patterns in nature is... triggered by random disturbances.

 

So, the possible mechanism by which genes give rise to recurring patterns in the anatomical structure of organisms is due to... random disturbances.

 

Therefore, according to Turing's theory, the structures we see in nature are caused by nothing more than the random action of molecules.

 

It would therefore seem that on the molecular level there is no absolute truth other than random chance.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I had just taken a very very brief look at Mr. Turing's work.  I was using it more as an analogy.....random disturbances being different conditions......creating different outcomes.  And also trying to describe an understanding deeper than the molecular level.  Just some thoughts I had the night before in the near sleep state.....when the brain does cool stuff.

 

Thank you sir.

[WalterP]

I had just taken a very very brief look at Mr. Turing's work.  I was using it more as an analogy.....random disturbances being different conditions......creating different outcomes.  And also trying to describe an understanding deeper than the molecular level.  Just some thoughts I had the night before in the near sleep state.....when the brain does cool stuff.

 

Thank you sir.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That's ok Edgarcito.  My pleasure.

 

But when it comes to going to different levels, you can go to any level you like (big or small) and science will not give you any hint or indication of a creator.

 

The role of science is to describe physical reality without invoking anything that is not physical.  

 

Of course, you are entirely free to interpret what science says about physical reality in a non-physical way.  That is your choice.

 

But then your non-physical interpretation of the physical is no longer within the realm of science.

 

You have crossed over into metaphysics and philosophy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.