P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:05 am

1. Being is cause for other being thus only one cause exists and that is being. Being is the first ever-present cause that exists through time and space (being) but is beyond it (it is rooted in nothing).

2. Evidence is an FSK thus not only does the FSK reduce to another FSK, resulting in an obscure self-referentiality, but evidence results in further evidence (ie 1 evidenced by a single apple resulting in 1+1=2 as evidenced by two apples, one evidence results in another evidence).

3. Evidence is an abstraction as it is an interpretation, as such the empirical is useless without the abstract. To further justify this point all empirical phenomenon when observed result in memory, this memory is an abstraction that allows us to localize a part (an individual phenomenon) from the whole (all phenomena).
see
viewtopic.php?p=574869#p574869
Being is absolute as only being exists; it is a thing in itself as it is without comparison considering "being relative to being" leaves us only with "being".
As I had stated in the other thread you have gone off topic from the philosophical contexts,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by bobmax »

There is a fundamental difference between "existing" and "being".

Existence is staying there.

While being is staying nowhere.

Although it may seem paradoxical, being does not exist.

Being is!

Being is the same being true.

Being = Truth

So Truth does not exist: Truth is.

There are a lot of reasons why Truth can not exist.

The main, to me, is to allow the existence
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 11:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:36 am
OK I missed mentioning per day. I spent up on average 8 hours and up to 12 hours each day, every day for > 4 weeks to finish the course that involved more than 500 questions [some easy some very tough computations] to answer.
Ooof, you must be a real slow learner

https://www.edx.org/course/principles-of-biochemistry
Estimated 15 weeks
4–6 hours per week

You should have finished that on one week if you were 12 hour days.
Why don't you try and prove it to me you can do it in one-week. Btw, it warns you the course is going to be tough.

Note the requirement for the course is for someone who had college level in chemistry or biology.
I only have high school chemistry and physics, so I have to brush and catch up on chemistry [graduate level] and physics [basic] from Youtube not from the course which assume one already is familiar with chemistry, biology, mathematics and physics.
It was only a matter of time before you went and tried to claim some extra level of stolen valour I suppose.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 6:47 am what I am and other scientists are proposing
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:07 am There is a fundamental difference between "existing" and "being".

Existence is staying there.

While being is staying nowhere.

Although it may seem paradoxical, being does not exist.

Being is!

Being is the same being true.

Being = Truth

So Truth does not exist: Truth is.

There are a lot of reasons why Truth can not exist.

The main, to me, is to allow the existence
The terms 'existence' and 'being' are contentious and complex terms in philosophy.
As such it is awkward for you to throw in your views without reference to some sort of philosophical background.

In philosophy, being is the material or immaterial existence of a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property[1] of being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win ... existence/

Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

To be "in accord" it must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] of which the scientific FSR is the most credible and reliable.

Thus whatever one need to infer of any truth, fact or knowledge, one must also start with grounding it to a FSR prefer the most credible one.
Any other edges to that truth we then resort to philosophical reasonings.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:37 am To be "in accord" it must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] of which the scientific FSR is the most credible and reliable.
There's never really been a competent argument to establish that bit tbh.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:37 am To be "in accord" it must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] of which the scientific FSR is the most credible and reliable.

Thus whatever one need to infer of any truth, fact or knowledge, one must also start with grounding it to a FSR prefer the most credible one.
Any other edges to that truth we then resort to philosophical reasonings.
It seems to me that for you Being is something objective, stable, waiting only to be known.
But that's not the case at all!

Nothing can ever be objective, because what lies behind every possible something is Chaos.
Being is a being in storm!

The agreement that derives from a common reference system is only a foregone conclusion.
It has nothing to do with the Truth.

Because the Truth asks you and only you to answer.

Science itself developed only by renouncing the possession of Truth. And this renunciation is made in the name of one's faith in the same Truth.

Truth that appears as nothing.
Every scientist worthy of it necessarily has this faith.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 9:37 am To be "in accord" it must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] of which the scientific FSR is the most credible and reliable.
There's never really been a competent argument to establish that bit tbh.
Ahhhh, the irony!

He appeals to the Framework/System of "competent argumentation" to establish that things must be conditioned upon such a frameworks.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:23 am
see
viewtopic.php?p=574869#p574869
Being is absolute as only being exists; it is a thing in itself as it is without comparison considering "being relative to being" leaves us only with "being".
As I had stated in the other thread you have gone off topic from the philosophical contexts,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I am not talking about a certain kind of thing but rather the totality of being. The totality of being exists beyond the mind as it formless because it has no comparison. Now if we where to say this formlessness is the grounds for mind then we can say the totality is mind. If this is the case "mind" is a thing in itself as it is dependent only on itself, however as dependent only on itself it is dependent on nothing as only it exists.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:33 pm

Being is absolute as only being exists; it is a thing in itself as it is without comparison considering "being relative to being" leaves us only with "being".
As I had stated in the other thread you have gone off topic from the philosophical contexts,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I am not talking about a certain kind of thing but rather the totality of being.
The totality of being exists beyond the mind as it formless because it has no comparison.
Now if we where to say this formlessness is the grounds for mind then we can say the totality is mind.
If this is the case "mind" is a thing in itself as it is dependent only on itself, however as dependent only on itself it is dependent on nothing as only it exists.
How can you verify and justify this 'totality of being' is real?

Note,
Whatever is real as facts, truths and knowledge must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
IF you can justify 'totality of being' is real, then it has to be conditioned, i.e. cannot be dependent on itself.

The point is the "totality of being" a thing-in-itself is an illusion thus illusory.
Btw, Kant has already justified why a thing-in-itself cannot be real but rather it is an illusion.

Why people like you think it is real and by itself is because you have been deceived by your crude reasons.

Note Kant on your "totality of being" i.e. the thing-in-itself {mine} read it carefully;
Kant in CPR wrote: 1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.

3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.

5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:40 am
As I had stated in the other thread you have gone off topic from the philosophical contexts,
  • [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I am not talking about a certain kind of thing but rather the totality of being.
The totality of being exists beyond the mind as it formless because it has no comparison.
Now if we where to say this formlessness is the grounds for mind then we can say the totality is mind.
If this is the case "mind" is a thing in itself as it is dependent only on itself, however as dependent only on itself it is dependent on nothing as only it exists.
How can you verify and justify this 'totality of being' is real?

Note,
Whatever is real as facts, truths and knowledge must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
IF you can justify 'totality of being' is real, then it has to be conditioned, i.e. cannot be dependent on itself.

The point is the "totality of being" a thing-in-itself is an illusion thus illusory.
Btw, Kant has already justified why a thing-in-itself cannot be real but rather it is an illusion.

Why people like you think it is real and by itself is because you have been deceived by your crude reasons.

Note Kant on your "totality of being" i.e. the thing-in-itself {mine} read it carefully;
Kant in CPR wrote: 1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.

3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.

5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
You cannot test everything without the test being subject to itself thus leaving it as nothing.

1. How can you verify and justify what reality is without first subjecting it to an assumption?

2. You are assuming conditionality is necessary for truth while ignoring the fact that conditions being dependent upon conditions leaves conditionality as fundamentally nothing because of there being no comparison considering only conditionality exists.

3. A totality exists because there is only existence. Existence is the totality. Existence cannot be tested without the test being tested by itself.

4. If the totality is no-thing it is not subject to proof or disproof as to prove no-thing is no-thing and to disprove no-thing is no-thing. No-thingness is beyond knowledge.
Post Reply