Classical Truth and Beyond

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Do you see the problem with Absolute Truth, here, Ed?  Even with the same set of indisputable facts in front of them, these two gentlemen cannot agree on a correct interpretation.  How much more difficult must it be when the facts are replaced by faith, without evidence, in the intangible?

[walterpthefirst]

I put the question of z values to the scientists at Physicsforums and they confirm that Pantheory's use of the value of 1 is correct.

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-value-of-z-redshift-equals-apparent-superluminal-recession.1056624/#post-6959107

 

I'm not sure how you get a value of 8, since Siegel's article gives a distance of 13 to 15 billion light-years, which from the table corresponds to a redshift of between 1 and 2. A redshift of 8 corresponds to a time the light has been traveling of just over 13 billion years, but Siegel's article talks about distance, not time.

I therefore apologise to Pantheory for saying that he was wrong.

 

I was the one at fault and in error.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

32 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you see the problem with Absolute Truth, here, Ed?  Even with the same set of indisputable facts in front of them, these two gentlemen cannot agree on a correct interpretation.  How much more difficult must it be when the facts are replaced by faith, without evidence, in the intangible?

 

 

Good point, Prof.

 

 

However, in most cases where the facts are available to all, human error (mine) is usually the cause of disagreement.

 

But as you point out, in matters of faith, where there is no evidence to be interpreted, how is it possible to even glimpse the truth?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

Good point, Prof.

 

 

However, in most cases where the facts are available to all, human error (mine) is usually the cause of disagreement.

 

But as you point out, in matters of faith, where there is no evidence to be interpreted, how is it possible to even glimpse the truth?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

You went with the information you had until new information was made available, at which point you acknowledged your error and adjusted your stance.  In the absence of Absolute Truth, that is really the best any of us could hope to do.  

 

This is possible when a) new information becomes available and b) one is open to learning/receiving said information.  In matters of faith, unfortunately, new information cannot be forthcoming, nor would the faithful be open to it if it were.  For faith is the information from beginning to end. 

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you see the problem with Absolute Truth, here, Ed?  Even with the same set of indisputable facts in front of them, these two gentlemen cannot agree on a correct interpretation.  How much more difficult must it be when the facts are replaced by faith, without evidence, in the intangible?

Yeah, no, no biggie.  I perform a very routine procedure(s) during the day.  Every once in a while, I just try to imagine what the sub-atomic picture looks like.  I still don't agree with Walter or Pantheory in that I believe the answers, the rules to the universe, are in the very small interactions we are yet to understand.  I do agree with Pantheory in that if we knew, then an absolute would be within our grasp.  (Paraphrasing him....that understanding is straightforward).  Our place in the order won't allow it imo.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I do agree with Pantheory in that if we knew, then an absolute would be within our grasp. 

But, do you not see the inherent flaw, Ed?  Walt and Pan do know, but still cannot agree, which necessarily means that even "the facts" aren't Absolute like you're looking for.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Yeah, no, no biggie.  I perform a very routine procedure(s) during the day.  Every once in a while, I just try to imagine what the sub-atomic picture looks like.  I still don't agree with Walter or Pantheory in that I believe the answers, the rules to the universe, are in the very small interactions we are yet to understand.  I do agree with Pantheory in that if we knew, then an absolute would be within our grasp.  (Paraphrasing him....that understanding is straightforward).  Our place in the order won't allow it imo.

 

Ok then Ed...

 

 

On the basis of what evidence do you believe that the rules of the universe are to be found in the very small interactions we are yet to understand?

 

This is your chance to lay out your evidence for us to read.

 

Would you do that please?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You went with the information you had until new information was made available, at which point you acknowledged your error and adjusted your stance.  In the absence of Absolute Truth, that is really the best any of us could hope to do.  

 

Agreed.

 

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is possible when a) new information becomes available and b) one is open to learning/receiving said information.  In matters of faith, unfortunately, new information cannot be forthcoming, nor would the faithful be open to it if it were.  For faith is the information from beginning to end. 

 

I've tried to explain to Ed that new absolute information will not be forthcoming from the very small interactions he mentioned.  Quantum indeterminacy sees to that.

 

This is not a problem that new and better engineering can overcome - its an unavoidable obstacle to our knowledge that's built into the very fabric of reality.

 

In a similar way, no better telescope will ever allow us to see distant galaxies as they are today.  We can only ever see them as they were, long ago.

 

This is another limitation to our knowledge that is built into the way the universe works.  One that cannot be overcome by human ingenuity or future technology.

 

 

But if he wishes to ignore these realities I suppose he can always go with faith.

 

 

 

Thank you, 

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, do you not see the inherent flaw, Ed?  Walt and Pan do know, but still cannot agree, which necessarily means that even "the facts" aren't Absolute like you're looking for.

So, you are saying there are no "rules" to reality?  You keep saying that science corrects itself....and I agree, but the correction is our correction, not reality.  The implication is there are rules to the universe.  Just because we are unable to perceive them....  Pan says that people agree that the field has a density?  How can nothing have a density?  So just in our brief conversation here, I have observations that don't make sense to your explanation but do have to mine.

 

1) Science corrects itself to high certainty.... the implication is that there is 100% certainty.

2)  The field apparently has an agreed to density.... the implication is it's not nothing, but something.

3)  My rudimentary thoughts lead me to believe the "something" of two helps define the certainty of 1.

 

I'm not that bright, but I don't think my thoughts are radically abstract....

 

Thx.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed.

 

 

I've tried to explain to Ed that new absolute information will not be forthcoming from the very small interactions he mentioned.  Quantum indeterminacy sees to that.

 

This is not a problem that new and better engineering can overcome - its an unavoidable obstacle to our knowledge that's built into the very fabric of reality.

 

In a similar way, no better telescope will ever allow us to see distant galaxies as they are today.  We can only ever see them as they were, long ago.

 

This is another limitation to our knowledge that is built into the way the universe works.  One that cannot be overcome by human ingenuity or future technology.

 

 

But if he wishes to ignore these realities I suppose he can always go with faith.

 

 

 

Thank you, 

 

Walter.

People routinely speculate on mechanisms.  I've explained this was all I was/am doing given my lack of knowledge.  And how the tables turn.  I remember conversations ago where I had to prise this statement you just made into the conversation...

 

Thx.

[Edgarcito]

And Walter....per my earlier post...."our place in the order won't allow it" was a direct confession.  What more did you want.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

People routinely speculate on mechanisms.  I've explained this was all I was/am doing given my lack of knowledge.  And how the tables turn.  I remember conversations ago where I had to prise this statement you just made into the conversation...

 

Thx.

 

We're not party to your memories, Ed.

 

If you want us to actually understand what conversations you're referring to, then you're going to have to cite them.

 

Or you could just assert that the tables have been turned and leave everyone else none the wiser.

 

It's up to you.

 

 

You started this thread seeking a little more clarity about classical truth and beyond, didn't you?

 

So if you want our input on that, doesn't it work both ways?

 

Don't you have some responsibility to give more clarity about the things people are not party to - like your memories?

 

As I said, it's up to you.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And Walter....per my earlier post...."our place in the order won't allow it" was a direct confession.  What more did you want.

 

A little more clarity might help, Ed.

 

 

You say that it is implied that there are rules to the universe and that we are unable to perceive them.  Presumably because our place in the order won't allow it?

 

If you acknowledge this, then why are you still seeking to find something that you admit you cannot find?

 

Surely the reasonable and logical thing to do is work with what you have and not to desire what you cannot have?

 

The Prof and I acknowledge that certain things are forever unknowable to us and we are content with that.

 

Can you be content with that?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So, you are saying

Let's stop right there so that I can point out that, no, I am not saying anything; and certainly I am not saying whatever you're saying I'm saying.  No, I am simply observing that even when there is certainty, as in the case where objective facts are discussed between two learned scientists, there tends to still be differences in interpretation and disagreement.  Because, while "the facts" might be objective, they are not Absolute. 

 

What hope, then, of faith, without facts, leading to an Absolute?

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let's stop right there so that I can point out that, no, I am not saying anything; and certainly I am not saying whatever you're saying I'm saying.  No, I am simply observing that even when there is certainty, as in the case where objective facts are discussed between two learned scientists, there tends to still be differences in interpretation and disagreement.  Because, while "the facts" might be objective, they are not Absolute. 

 

What hope, then, of faith, without facts, leading to an Absolute?

I understand.  I didn't adequately address your statement.

 

"Uncertain" why you would wish to turn this to a religious discussion.  Let me know please sir, and we will head that way,

 

Thx.

 

Edit:  Let me just say this please....

 

What if the mechanisms were known....the elementary mechanisms, and the puzzle were complete.  Then math confirms and there is really nothing other left than just calculating the absolute truth.  Then apply that to biological systems like humanity, where our brains are actually producing one outcome but the absolute truth is another?

 

Can you not see religion, Christianity, in this statement?  Can you not see room for forgiveness and grace in this plot?

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We're not party to your memories, Ed.

 

If you want us to actually understand what conversations you're referring to, then you're going to have to cite them.

 

Or you could just assert that the tables have been turned and leave everyone else none the wiser.

 

It's up to you.

 

 

You started this thread seeking a little more clarity about classical truth and beyond, didn't you?

 

So if you want our input on that, doesn't it work both ways?

 

Don't you have some responsibility to give more clarity about the things people are not party to - like your memories?

 

As I said, it's up to you.

I don't know where to find the data produced from CERN or am smart enough to interpret or know someone other than Dr. F that might have the ability.  And truthfully, I don't have much extra time.....so it's largely a process of imagination for me Walter.  Thx.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A little more clarity might help, Ed.

 

 

You say that it is implied that there are rules to the universe and that we are unable to perceive them.  Presumably because our place in the order won't allow it?

 

If you acknowledge this, then why are you still seeking to find something that you admit you cannot find?

 

Surely the reasonable and logical thing to do is work with what you have and not to desire what you cannot have?

 

The Prof and I acknowledge that certain things are forever unknowable to us and we are content with that.

 

Can you be content with that?

 

 

I suppose we could ask the same of the people that have spent who knows how much money on research.....the colliders, the telescopes.  I don't know Walter, other that we want to know...

[Edgarcito]

I suggest we write a movie script based on humanity actually finding the mechanisms and revealing the truth....and unveiling our misunderstandings.  Probably would do better in the theaters than what's happening in church these days....  

[walterpthefirst]

48 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know where to find the data produced from CERN or am smart enough to interpret or know someone other than Dr. F that might have the ability.  And truthfully, I don't have much extra time.....so it's largely a process of imagination for me Walter.  Thx.

 

We're not party to your imaginings either, Ed.

 

So, if you want to keep on mentioning things from your memory or your imagination, but don't want to describe them to us (because you don't have the time) then why bother mentioning them at all?

 

If you're not going to make the effort to bring us up to speed as to what you remember or what you imagine, then what's the point?

 

You want our input to help you investigate the Absolute, but when we ask you to put in the work to clarify what you mean, you won't do it.

 

Speaking frankly, I can't see what's in this dialogue for us.

 

You ask us to do all the work but won't do any when we ask you.

 

How is that helpful or fair?

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

45 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I suppose we could ask the same of the people that have spent who knows how much money on research.....the colliders, the telescopes.  I don't know Walter, other that we want to know...

 

Ok, so can you please explain and describe why YOU want to know?

 

If you, yourself, don't actually know why you want to know then perhaps now's a good time to find out.

 

And if you do already know, then please tell us.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We're not party to your imaginings either, Ed.

 

So, if you want to keep on mentioning things from your memory or your imagination, but don't want to describe them to us (because you don't have the time) then why bother mentioning them at all?

 

If you're not going to make the effort to bring us up to speed as to what you remember or what you imagine, then what's the point?

 

You want our input to help you investigate the Absolute, but when we ask you to put in the work to clarify what you mean, you won't do it.

 

Speaking frankly, I can't see what's in this dialogue for us.

 

You ask us to do all the work but won't do any when we ask you.

 

How is that helpful or fair?

 

 

 

 

 

Walter, amigo, you patronizing bastard....just accept that there may be nothing in this conversation for you....and it's ok.  If you were using my memories for YOUR assertions, I guarantee you have them on record....  So yes sir, please just quit participating.  I'm unclear why you always turn to badgering people.  Why do you do that.  It might be helpful to you to answer that question.  

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I understand.  I didn't adequately address your statement.

 

"Uncertain" why you would wish to turn this to a religious discussion.  Let me know please sir, and we will head that way,

 

Thx.

 

Edit:  Let me just say this please....

 

What if the mechanisms were known....the elementary mechanisms, and the puzzle were complete.  Then math confirms and there is really nothing other left than just calculating the absolute truth.  Then apply that to biological systems like humanity, where our brains are actually producing one outcome but the absolute truth is another?

 

Can you not see religion, Christianity, in this statement?  Can you not see room for forgiveness and grace in this plot?

 

What if there were no suffering in the world?

 

What if there were world peace?

 

What if there were no crime?

 

 

Suffering, war and crime are REAL, Ed. 

 

Asking a 'What if?' question as if the mechanisms could be known is not dealing with the issue.  That's just wishful thinking.  That's not facing up to reality.

 

Do you want to deal with reality as it really is in this thread or not?

 

 

There's a saying on my side of the pond that goes like this, "You're waving a red rag at a bull."   It means that if some trigger word or phrase is uttered, someone will be triggered by it.   I suspect that there's a degree of that at work, here in this thread, on your part.  The Prof and I tell you that you can't have something and the more we tell you that the more you want what you can never have.  Just because you like to defy and deny and resist.  Because you like to fight more than you like to actually listen and learn.  

 

Any truth in that?

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, amigo, you patronizing bastard....just accept that there may be nothing in this conversation for you....and it's ok.  If you were using my memories for YOUR assertions, I guarantee you have them on record....  So yes sir, please just quit participating.  I'm unclear why you always turn to badgering people.  Why do you do that.  It might be helpful to you to answer that question.  

 

I only badger (i.e., ask for clarity and explanation) when there's none around.

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What if there were no suffering in the world?

 

What if there were world peace?

 

What if there were no crime?

 

 

Suffering, war and crime are REAL, Ed. 

 

Asking a 'What if?' question as if the mechanisms could be known is not dealing with the issue.  That's just wishful thinking.  That's not facing up to reality.

 

Do you want to deal with reality as it really is in this thread or not?

 

 

There's a saying on my side of the pond that goes like this, "You're waving a red rag at a bull."   It means that if some trigger word or phrase is uttered, someone will be triggered by it.   I suspect that there's a degree of that at work, here in this thread, on your part.  The Prof and I tell you that you can't have something and the more we tell you that the more you want what you can never have.  Just because you like to defy and deny and resist.  Because you like to fight more than you like to actually listen and learn.  

 

Any truth in that?

 

 

 

 

No, other than it's fun to think about the interactions at that level... the affinity, the non.  It's legal for me to consider that in my spare time without exciting the bull.  Hope you caught the pun....lol...some light humor.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

"Uncertain" why you would wish to turn this to a religious discussion.  Let me know please sir, and we will head that way,

I haven't mentioned religion, nor am I concerned one way or another which direction the conversation leads.  At present, I've offered nothing more than my own observations and related questions, the most obvious of which is if "fact" doesn't point to an Absolute, then how will faith ever do so?  If you equate faith with religion, that is understandable; but the two are not necessarily the same. 

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

What if the mechanisms were known....the elementary mechanisms, and the puzzle were complete.  Then math confirms and there is really nothing other left than just calculating the absolute truth.  Then apply that to biological systems like humanity, where our brains are actually producing one outcome but the absolute truth is another?

 

Can you not see religion, Christianity, in this statement?  Can you not see room for forgiveness and grace in this plot?

There are plenty of "What if..." scenarios that would just as easily lead to forgiveness and grace.  Some involve religion; others do not.  But, certainly, if more people were capable of seeing the Big Picture, this world might just be a better place as a result. 

 

The problem I see with your approach is that it assumes a Bigger Picture than what we actually have.  We have this world, these resources, these people, this life; and we can make grace a reality with what we have.  Granted, it's an uphill battle and we'd be fighting politicians, corporations, and greedy billionaires for every inch of the way.  But it is possible (theoretically) in the here and now. 

 

But you are looking for something outside of the Big Picture to come in and put everything right the way it should be.  There's simply no evidence that anything beyond the Big Picture exists; and certainly no reason to believe that this metaphysical Something would fix the Big Picture if it did exist.  WE are the Absolute, Ed.  There simply isn't anything else we can depend upon but ourselves.