What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[aik]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

aik, perhaps delusional was not the best choice of words.  I do believe you are an honest man.  I believe you really belive what you are are saying about your beliefs.  But I also believe your beliefs about Christianity and Jesus are so strong that it creates a "blind spot" in the subjects we are discussing on this forum.  You believe we are not being rational and are concerned for our souls, and we believe you are not being rational. So where to go from here?   Best wishes!  

I love your patience, Weezer. I wish to learn it from you. Thank you. 

 

Let us be together for a while if it does not bother people here. I hope for the better result. 

[aik]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

@aik

 

I'd like to say that I'm glad your feeling better and are able to make replies again. You had said you would reply to my above post before getting sick. No worries, just when you get time. Wanted to remind ya since its been a few weeks. 

 

DB

Yes, you are right. Thank you. I'll try to address it. 

[walterpthefirst]

Posted 22 hours ago

In this period i found out about a new telescope james webb which has been shocking the atheists with its new discoveries. The telescope shows that the scientific knowledge concerning universal things, origins and astronomic calculations are merely relative but in most very hypothetic. So that even the scientists when they speak for sure they cannot know it crrtainly. 

 

 

If you have no problem with science and you do understand how it works, why did you write this, aik?

 

What was the point you were trying to make?

 

Please explain.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, aik said:

 

Let us be together for a while if it does not bother people here. I hope for the better result. 

 

What is the better result you are hoping for?  This is not a "chat" forum.  It is a debate forum and perhaps others wish to have further debate, but I have nothing further to add.  We both have came to our own conclusions, you have read my 14 page essay, and I have no further arguments.

[walterpthefirst]

Posted Monday at 08:42 AM

Posted 22 hours ago

In this period i found out about a new telescope james webb which has been shocking the atheists with its new discoveries. The telescope shows that the scientific knowledge concerning universal things, origins and astronomic calculations are merely relative but in most very hypothetic. So that even the scientists when they speak for sure they cannot know it crrtainly. 

 

 

If you have no problem with science and you do understand how it works, why did you write this, aik?

What was the point you were trying to make?

Please explain.

 

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

 

I see that you are online aik.  So please be so kind as to answer my two questions.

 

I realize that you are not here to argue science, but my questions are not about science itself.  They are about why you wrote about the new discoveries being made by James Webb Space Telescope.  I would like to understand why you wrote about these discoveries and what point you were trying to make.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Perhaps another way of phrasing it is that maybe there are degrees of tentative-ness.  What separates a scientific Theory from a scientific Model is the likelihood that some new data point, or observation, might completely overturn the currently accepted thought.  It is pretty well established that, with the String Model for example, at any given moment, some new calculation could come along and upset the entire apple cart.  This is not nearly as likely to happen with the Theory of Evolution, which has more evidence supporting it than any other scientific Theory.  Yet Evolution is still accepted tentatively; because new evidence might still come along to enhance our current understanding.  And each branch on the evolutionary tree is accepted tentatively; because some new discovery might come along that rearranges the branch.

 

However, nothing within the Theory of Evolution, including the Theory itself, is accepted as tentatively as the Models of Abiogenesis or Big Bang.  These ideas are much more tentative than Gravity or Quantum Mechanics.

 

I would suggest an even higher degree of tentative-ness exists for such things as the Amplituhedron, Spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, Dissociation Processes within the Spatially unbound Field, Decorated Permutations, and Geometric Shapes beyond Space-Time.  Perhaps there is enough evidence to consider them as possibilities; but not yet nearly enough to accept them as realities.

 

This brings us to a deeply philosophical question, which I am most unqualified to answer: 

 

Is there Truth in Possibility?

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely with Walt in having a threshold of evidence that must be met before I'm willing to accept, or even consider, a claim.  But I'm also with Josh on the idea that not all truth can necessarily be supported by science.  Between the two, and I think both gentlemen would agree, lies the application of logic and reason. 

 

Someone elsewhere recently was trying to present my acceptance of NDEs being a non-material experience as being on the level of believing in zombies and unicorns. I think he suffered from black and white thinking. Either you have 100% confidence or 100% distrust. Nothing in between. He felt that any idea that wasn't peer reviewed, experimented,  replicated and given the nod by the scientific community then it was on the level of unicorns. I guess that kind of thinking works because I see a lot of it on another website. 

 

I'm really glad to hear you say that 'not all truth can necessarily be supported by science.' I think this is a more balanced way to investigate reality. Philosophy can also reveal truth. Logic is within the umbrella of philosophy. 

 

It doesn't seem like Josh just jumps on the bandwagon accepting every crazy notion that people come up with. He has studied a variety of philosophies and I think has probably found a lot of similarities in them and is enjoying his investigation into them. He's not saying anything patently absurd, imo. 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I suppose that the key really does lie in one's contentment with where one is in life.  Where's the sense in having a spirituality, or worldview, if it doesn't lead one to a deeper contentment and happiness in life?  If evidence alone is enough to be content,  well, be content with it.  If something more is needed, wanted, or even just of passing interest,  then, hell, be content with that.

 

Contentment is the goal, really, isn't it. Walter is content with determining reality based on science and its evidence. Josh is content with exploring philosophies outside of a strictly evidence based construct. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Fair enough, sir. What are your thoughts on eastern sages who suggest the practice of self-inquiry as a means to enlightenment? They will say, "I'm not asking you to believe, just to find out for yourself through practice of self-inquiry or mindfulness.

 

A very good question.

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is this.  If I were to practice self-inquiry I'd have to access my memories and experience base to do so.  Which would be those of a retired Englishman.  For what the eastern sages recommend to be valid there would have to be some kind of overlap between me, a Uruguayan farmer, an Inuit fisherman, a Japanese bus driver and a Ethiopian lawyer.  Also between me and an ancient Mesopotamian, a Dark Age Finn, a Renaissance Spaniard, a Enlightenment Maori and a Victorian gold prospector from Ireland.  This is assuming, of course, that what they recommend applies to all humans everywhere and everywhen.

 

They might be right.  I just don't know.  But for me, that kind of universal application would have to be necessary.  Otherwise, why do it?  Why should the process of self-enlightenment be limited to people of a certain time, a certain place or a certain mindset?

 

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

And what are your thoughts of living enlightened masters like Eckhart Tolle or Adyashanti? Or long dead masters like Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi? Are they full of baloney? If someone lives a daily non-dual experience that most people in the general public cannot easily reproduce , is it legit? 

 

Well, they might be masters or they might not.  Until I actually try what they recommend I won't know for sure.  So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.  It seems hubristic of me to blithely dismiss them because what they say falls beneath my threshold of credulity.

 

Having said that, did you notice that I positioned Josh's Primary Consciousness model at the top of the items that fell beneath my line of credulity?  That is, as close to the line as I could place it.  I'm on record as saying that I'm sympathetic to it and can see the elegance and simplicity of it.  Therefore, even though it fails my test of evidence, I do not dismiss it as readily as I dismiss such nonsense as Christianity or Santa Claus.

 

I'd probably do the same for the enlightened masters you mention, midnitelrider.

 

They wouldn't clear the line of my credulity but I can see that they have something of value to offer and so I'm kindly disposed towards them.  Speaking personally, I'm much more inclined to put store in wisdom derived from human observation of reality than so-called wisdom handed down by a god that must be submitted to under penalty of eternal torture.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A very good question.

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is this.  If I were to practice self-inquiry I'd have to access my memories and experience base to do so.  Which would be those of a retired Englishman.  For what the eastern sages recommend to be valid there would have to be some kind of overlap between me, a Uruguayan farmer, an Inuit fisherman, a Japanese bus driver and a Ethiopian lawyer.  Also between me and an ancient Mesopotamian, a Dark Age Finn, a Renaissance Spaniard, a Enlightenment Maori and a Victorian gold prospector from Ireland.  This is assuming, of course, that what they recommend applies to all humans everywhere and everywhen.

 

They might be right.  I just don't know.  But for me, that kind of universal application would have to be necessary.  Otherwise, why do it?  Why should the process of self-enlightenment be limited to people of a certain time, a certain place or a certain mindset?

 

 

Well, they might be masters or they might not.  Until I actually try what they recommend I won't know for sure.  So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.  It seems hubristic of me to blithely dismiss them because what they say falls beneath my threshold of credulity.

 

Having said that, did you notice that I positioned Josh's Primary Consciousness model at the top of the items that fell beneath my line of credulity?  That is, as close to the line as I could place it.  I'm on record as saying that I'm sympathetic to it and can see the elegance and simplicity of it.  Therefore, even though it fails my test of evidence, I do not dismiss it as readily as I dismiss such nonsense as Christianity or Santa Claus.

 

I'd probably do the same for the enlightened masters you mention, midnitelrider.

 

They wouldn't clear the line of my credulity but I can see that they have something of value to offer and so I'm kindly disposed towards them.  Speaking personally, I'm much more inclined to put store in wisdom derived from human observation of reality than so-called wisdom handed down by a god that must be submitted to under penalty of eternal torture.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I'm glad you are willing to entertain degrees of credulity. Or degrees of possibility. Even if my stuff never goes above your line. lol 

 

 

Thanks, Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

... a retired Englishman. 

I didn't know it was possible to retire from being an Englishman.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

The first thing that comes to my mind is this.  If I were to practice self-inquiry I'd have to access my memories and experience base to do so.  Which would be those of a retired Englishman.  For what the eastern sages recommend to be valid there would have to be some kind of overlap between me, a Uruguayan farmer, an Inuit fisherman, a Japanese bus driver and a Ethiopian lawyer.  Also between me and an ancient Mesopotamian, a Dark Age Finn, a Renaissance Spaniard, a Enlightenment Maori and a Victorian gold prospector from Ireland.  This is assuming, of course, that what they recommend applies to all humans everywhere and everywhen.

This is what Josh, and the Buddha both, mean when they speak about the oneness of existence and consciousness.  The overlap does exist; we just can't perceive it because our minds are not enlightened.  Not saying they're right; just explaining. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Speaking personally, I'm much more inclined to put store in wisdom derived from human observation of reality

For me, meditation is observing reality, without the distraction and "noise" of my own conceptions, perceptions, and judgments.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm glad you are willing to entertain degrees of credulity. Or degrees of possibility. Even if my stuff never goes above your line. lol 

 

 

Thanks, Walter.

 

 

 

No problem midniterider.  

 

 

I've used the word hubris already today and I'll use it again.  I'd be the one practicing hubris if I blithely dismissed everything that fell below my line of credulity.  But when it comes to things that appear coherent and non-contradictory, like the wisdom of the east and Josh's model I can't do that.  That's why I rate them as highly as I can.

 

Whereas, incoherent and highly contradictory stuff like Christianity I can and do dismiss.  If there is a greater and deeper truth to reality then it simply cannot be as incoherent as Christianity, nor as riven with as many fatal contradictions.   When people choose to overlook or dismiss Christianity's incoherence and contradictions, they are doing so for purely emotional reasons.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I didn't know it was possible to retire from being an Englishman.  

 

It happens when you pop your clogs.

 

[walterpthefirst]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is what Josh, and the Buddha both, mean when they speak about the oneness of existence and consciousness.  The overlap does exist; we just can't perceive it because our minds are not enlightened.  Not saying they're right; just explaining. 

 

Well, they could be right, couldn't they Prof?

 

We already know that life is deeply interconnected on many physical levels, so why not on another level that is currently beyond our perception?

 

Do you remember the magazine Omni that ran from 1978 to 1997?  I recall a science fiction story where the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence was given a new twist.  Telepaths on board the first starship from Earth discovered that the stars themselves were alive!  They were also searching for intelligent aliens by following faint bursts of raw ego energy from regions of deep space.

 

Our current understanding of the stars tells us that they are just dead matter.  But what if they aren't?  Then the entire universe would be alive and the life cycle of the stars would be somewhat similar to our own.  We are assembled, atom by atom, live for a while and then release our atoms back into the wider universe.  Much like a star.

 

Of course this notion falls way below my threshold of credulity - but new evidence would change that.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

For me, meditation is observing reality, without the distraction and "noise" of my own conceptions, perceptions, and judgments.

 

I meditate too, Prof.

 

For twenty minutes each morning and have done so for years.  Eliminating the 'noise' was a problem at first, but less so now.  My reason for doing so isn't so much to do with observing reality but settling my mind for the day ahead.  Centring myself, if you like.

 

Each to their own path, I suppose.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

45 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I meditate too, Prof.

 

For twenty minutes each morning and have done so for years.  Eliminating the 'noise' was a problem at first, but less so now.  My reason for doing so isn't so much to do with observing reality but settling my mind for the day ahead.  Centring myself, if you like.

 

Each to their own path, I suppose.

 

 

 

Oh, I certainly use meditation for centering myself, too.  For sure.  But, here's a thought for you:

 

Cogito ergo sum. 

 

Descartes first coined this indubitable phrase in 1637; and it was the only statement to which he still held as true after he applied his Methodic Doubt.

 

I think; therefore I am.

 

As we have already discussed, the only thing any of us can be absolutely certain about is the existence of our own consciousness.  That is it.  That is all that I can be certain of.  I cannot even be certain of my own experiences; because I am compelled to wonder, "Am I experiencing consciousness, or am I conscious of experiences?"  Or both?  

 

But I know that my consciousness exists; and the only thing I know does exist is my consciousness.  The implication of this is that everything else that I perceive as existing--the stars, zebras, Ms. Professor, Atlanta--all of it, for all intents and purposes, exists within my own consciousness.  And that is the only existence I can be sure of as concerns everything else that "exists."  If something exists outside of my own consciousness, my consciousness would still have to exist in order for me to be aware of it.  Therefore, nothing that I am aware of can exist independently of my own consciousness.  

 

This is why Descartes considered this one phrase,  and only this one phrase, to be indubitable. 

 

So, if I consider meditation to be a deliberate and considered examination of my own consciousness (which I do), that means that when I meditate in this form, I am actively observing existence itself and whatever "reality" that entails.  I would imagine someone who is actually good at meditation, like midniterider's Zen masters, would probably understand a lot more about "reality" than a simple punter like myself.  

 

But, I'd have to examine my own consciousness to understand, or even perceive, it like they do.  At least, I think so... therefore, I am so?

 

Maybe...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Of course, something could exist outside of my consciousness without me being aware of it; but I'm not quite ready to pop my clogs just yet. 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, if I consider meditation to be a deliberate and considered examination of my own consciousness (which I do), that means that when I meditate in this form, I am actively observing existence itself and whatever "reality" that entails.  I would imagine someone who is actually good at meditation, like midniterider's Zen masters, would probably understand a lot more about "reality" than a simple punter like myself.  

 

 

Mindfulness is self-inquiry. I think you're right. What is inside your consciousness? Everything.  

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Of course this notion falls way below my threshold of credulity - but new evidence would change that.

 

 

If something falls below your threshold of credulity, does this mean you refuse to think about it? Does this mean it isn't fun to think about it? 

 

There's a number of things that fascinate me like paranormal stuff. Part of me says it's nonsense, but part of me says it isnt. Sometimes my threshold wavers up and down but it's still a personal interest and I like reading about it. 

[walterpthefirst]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps another way of phrasing it is that maybe there are degrees of tentative-ness.  What separates a scientific Theory from a scientific Model is the likelihood that some new data point, or observation, might completely overturn the currently accepted thought.  It is pretty well established that, with the String Model for example, at any given moment, some new calculation could come along and upset the entire apple cart.  This is not nearly as likely to happen with the Theory of Evolution, which has more evidence supporting it than any other scientific Theory.  Yet Evolution is still accepted tentatively; because new evidence might still come along to enhance our current understanding.  And each branch on the evolutionary tree is accepted tentatively; because some new discovery might come along that rearranges the branch.

 

However, nothing within the Theory of Evolution, including the Theory itself, is accepted as tentatively as the Models of Abiogenesis or Big Bang.  These ideas are much more tentative than Gravity or Quantum Mechanics.

 

I would suggest an even higher degree of tentative-ness exists for such things as the Amplituhedron, Spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, Dissociation Processes within the Spatially unbound Field, Decorated Permutations, and Geometric Shapes beyond Space-Time.  Perhaps there is enough evidence to consider them as possibilities; but not yet nearly enough to accept them as realities.

 

This brings us to a deeply philosophical question, which I am most unqualified to answer: 

 

Is there Truth in Possibility?

 

I'm sorry Prof but I must have overlooked this post.  Let me remedy that oversight.

 

I'd submit that there might be truth in possibility, if we accept the following premises.

 

1.   All empirical science is necessarily tentative, always leaving room for future possibilities.

2.  Quantum mechanics seems to be telling us that absolute certainty is impossible, leaving only probabilities.

3.  It seems that the human condition is to necessarily be unsure of anything (except math?) to absolute precision.

 

Taking the above together I submit that human truths are necessarily tentative and not absolute, necessarily relative and not absolute, necessarily probable and not absolute. 

 

Which leaves me to conclude that there can only be truth for us in possibility.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh, I certainly use meditation for centering myself, too.  For sure.  But, here's a thought for you:

 

Cogito ergo sum. 

 

Descartes first coined this indubitable phrase in 1637; and it was the only statement to which he still held as true after he applied his Methodic Doubt.

 

I think; therefore I am.

 

As we have already discussed, the only thing any of us can be absolutely certain about is the existence of our own consciousness.  That is it.  That is all that I can be certain of.  I cannot even be certain of my own experiences; because I am compelled to wonder, "Am I experiencing consciousness, or am I conscious of experiences?"  Or both?  

 

But I know that my consciousness exists; and the only thing I know does exist is my consciousness.  The implication of this is that everything else that I perceive as existing--the stars, zebras, Ms. Professor, Atlanta--all of it, for all intents and purposes, exists within my own consciousness.  And that is the only existence I can be sure of as concerns everything else that "exists."  If something exists outside of my own consciousness, my consciousness would still have to exist in order for me to be aware of it.  Therefore, nothing that I am aware of can exist independently of my own consciousness.  

 

This is why Descartes considered this one phrase,  and only this one phrase, to be indubitable. 

 

So, if I consider meditation to be a deliberate and considered examination of my own consciousness (which I do), that means that when I meditate in this form, I am actively observing existence itself and whatever "reality" that entails.  I would imagine someone who is actually good at meditation, like midniterider's Zen masters, would probably understand a lot more about "reality" than a simple punter like myself.  

 

But, I'd have to examine my own consciousness to understand, or even perceive, it like they do.  At least, I think so... therefore, I am so?

 

Maybe...

 

Hmmm...  this is big.  Too big for to respond to right now.  Let me think on it.

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

If something falls below your threshold of credulity, does this mean you refuse to think about it? Does this mean it isn't fun to think about it? 

 

Not at all, midniterider.

 

Christianity falls below my threshold of credulity, but I think about it a lot.  Especially when debating Christian apologists here.  For me its not just fun to think about stuff that's below the line, but also a necessity.  "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."  Just because a given thing isn't currently supported by evidence, that doesn't mean that it won't be in the future, causing it rise to the line or above it.

 

I'd be a fool to be dogmatic about everything below my credulity threshold.  Keeping an open mind keeps dogmatism at bay.  

 

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

There's a number of things that fascinate me like paranormal stuff. Part of me says it's nonsense, but part of me says it isnt. Sometimes my threshold wavers up and down but it's still a personal interest and I like reading about it. 

 

Agreed.

 

I'm hoping that Josh hasn't been put off by my scepticism.  That he's still engaged in this thread.  That's because, like you, I still enjoy thinking about possibilities and such like.  And there's something that's come to my mind overnight that I'd like to bring to Josh's attention - assuming that he doesn't already know about it.

 

So... I suppose I'd better start a fresh post, specifically for him.

 

Thank you Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

Here's something that might be of interest to you.

 

If we tentatively accept that the Amplituhedron is some kind of geometrical substrate to reality, is there the possibility that echoes of that geometry exist at higher levels of reality - ones that are within the reach of our instruments?  This notion, that echoes of something beyond our reach are 'imprinted' in reality first came to my attention in cosmology.  Some theorists have speculated that patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation might hint at events prior to inflation.  If we can use the word 'prior' in a kind of a-temporal and a-spatial way.  

 

To my knowledge this is no more than speculation and so far there has been no evidence to support that idea.  But to remain open minded and open to new possibilities we should not blithely dismiss these speculations.  A balance should be found between scepticism and speculation.  So, in the spirit of that thought, let me expound.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/SU-4-multiplets-of-qqq-baryons-made-of-u-d-s-and-c-quarks-a-the-2120-multiplet_fig1_327392355

 

 

When you follow the link to Researchgate.net you may well have to wait a few seconds while the security of your connection is tested and you are asked if you are a human or a bot.  The above diagrams are the result of mapping out the charge, spin and masses of quarks within baryon particles.  However, the technical details are secondary to the point I'd like to illustrate, Josh.

 

A question.  Are these shapes simply a human construct, resulting from the way information is presented or is there something truly geometric about the fabric of reality?  I don't know the answer.  I don't know if anyone knows the answer.  But for me, the fact that these quarks all seem to line up in such a highly organized pattern can't be an accident.  I'm not suggesting design here.  Just the possible presence of a deeper organizing principle at work.

 

In our macro world carbon atoms arrange themselves neatly, rank upon file, in a diamond.  They do so because they are following a deeper organizing principle derived from the electrons orbits of each atom.  And I submit that in these quark multiplet diagrams we are seeing hints of something similar.  Something deeper than the level at which quarks exist might be causing them to arrange themselves in this highly organized way.  Is this a hint of the Amplituhedron imprinting its geometry on higher levels of reality?  I don't know and again, I don't know if anyone knows the answer.  But I would suggest that we keep our minds open to the possibility.

 

 

Ok, on a slightly different note, when you study these diagrams, does your eye spot other degrees of geometrical connection between the quarks?

 

Here's what I see.  On the lowest triangle of the lower diagram there's an isolated quark (Up, Down, Strange) right in the centre.  But look!  It's exactly equidistant between six other quarks on the perimeter of the triangle.  UDD, UUD, UUS, USS, DSS and DDS.  Lines drawn between those six would intersect exactly where the UDS quark sits. 

 

If we go the upper diagram and focus on the pair of UDS quarks, isolated in the middle of the hexagon, something similar happens.  The UDS pair is exactly equidistant from the surrounding six quarks on the hexagon perimeter.  If we draw three new lines upwards from the UDS pair they meet the three other pairs on the perimeter of the second-level triangle, forming an inverted tetrahedron with the UDS pair at its apex. 

 

I don't doubt that if I could rotate these diagrams in three dimensions I would probably see other connections and other geometrical shapes would 'pop' out.  Are these connections and shapes really meaningful?  Am I just reading things into these diagrams that aren't really there?  I don't know Josh.  But I hope that you will now see that even though I am naturally sceptical, I'm still open-minded enough to treat your ideas with respect and to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have further thoughts on the possible geometries of reality, but they can wait.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm sorry Prof but I must have overlooked this post.  Let me remedy that oversight.

 

I'd submit that there might be truth in possibility, if we accept the following premises.

 

1.   All empirical science is necessarily tentative, always leaving room for future possibilities.

2.  Quantum mechanics seems to be telling us that absolute certainty is impossible, leaving only probabilities.

3.  It seems that the human condition is to necessarily be unsure of anything (except math?) to absolute precision.

 

Taking the above together I submit that human truths are necessarily tentative and not absolute, necessarily relative and not absolute, necessarily probable and not absolute. 

 

Which leaves me to conclude that there can only be truth for us in possibility.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

So, then Truth itself only really exists as a possibility.  Not a "real" or "actual" thing; but only a possible ideal which we can get close to, or more precise, without ever attaining the "real" thing.  Hmm...