25

# Absolute truth?

guigus

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:35 pm
@north,
north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

the absolute truth , and there are billions of them

if you get into the depth of what makes anything , anything , they all come about because the combination of this or that , atoms , elements , molecules etc, can not do otherwise

combination(s) produce a type of indentity unique to the resultant object

hence why an arm does not become an insect etc

And what makes the elements that combine?

what makes the elements ?

just to make sure , is this what your actually asking ?

What else could it be?
0 Replies

north

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:42 pm

people absolute truth is not about abstract thought , of any kind

absolute truth is about simplicity of what is around us the enviroment and out there

certain things do certain things because they can do no other

hence why water is not a tree and a tree is not oxygen etc.
guigus

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...in my rule book [...] sets do not contain themselves by definition...

If a set cannot contain itself, then it cannot contain all sets, because it is itself a set---one it does not contain. Then, you can only have a set containing all other sets, by which the very notion of all sets will totally depend on you as the only one conceiving of such a totality: you become the set of all sets. Unfortunately, this prevents you from being aware of anything (as you already put it so well), again destroying the notion of "all sets."
guigus

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:50 pm
@north,
north wrote:

people absolute truth is not about abstract thought , of any kind

absolute truth is about simplicity of what is around us the enviroment and out there

certain things do certain things because they can do no other

hence why water is not a tree and a tree is not oxygen etc.

The path to absolute truth begins with the identity between being and nothingness, and although this is just the first step, without it you will never make the last one.
0 Replies

north

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:59 pm

arguing mathematics is not the way to get to the answer of absolute truth and never will be

the Absolute truth is more about the root of mathematic which is the physical for it is the physical that gave us the Universe , us and the ability to think in mathematical terms
guigus

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:11 pm
@north,
north wrote:

arguing mathematics is not the way to get to the answer of absolute truth and never will be

the Absolute truth is more about the root of mathematic which is the physical for it is the physical that gave us the Universe , us and the ability to think in mathematical terms

You are perfectly right: the only reason I am "deconstructing" the mathematics of some other guys here is precisely to show that absolute truth is beyond mathematics. Quoting Einstein:

Quote:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
north

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:14 pm
@guigus,

north wrote:

arguing mathematics is not the way to get to the answer of absolute truth and never will be

the Absolute truth is more about the root of mathematic which is the physical for it is the physical that gave us the Universe , us and the ability to think in mathematical terms

Quote:
You are absolutely right, and the only reason I am "deconstructing" the mathematics of some other guys here is precisely to show that absolute truth is beyond mathematics.

okay

0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:25 pm
@guigus,
...already expecting a fair reply, there finally...lets see what can be said upon it...
...Such set of all sets has different property's from being sub sets...it is reasonable then to call it something else once it is more then any other and somewhat odd...
...a "set" of all other sets its not itself a normal set once it is not bounded but rather the bounder...it cannot be computed...It cannot compute either, it cannot move, it is the computation done and finished...it would feel more appropriated to call it instead the only set of all sub sets.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Tue 23 Aug, 2011 10:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...when the sub-set of all other subsets, finishes computation and completes, with itself thus completed, establishes then the only and final set of all subsets...the function is finalized.
0 Replies

Dasein

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 08:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
That which is not actual and I enquire about makes me lacking...
Nuff said! If you want to present your 'self' as lacking and use it to hide from the rest of us that is ok and we will no longer attempt to inform you that you are fooling yourself. However, if you had any courage you would have informed all of us prior to spewing your bullshit and sucking all of us into it.
Dasein

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 08:04 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...who said measurement is unresolvable ? relative measurement or comparative measurement is a part in absolute measurement which is not for your teeth...absolute measurement is not awareness of measurement but the whole of the measuring itself, BEING ! (not enquiry)
Absolute measurement is unresolvable to you that are a part and not the whole...
...and the Whole in turn in "its measuring" does not measure, IT is !...
Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . . this is more of your personal "entanglement".
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 08:44 am
@Dasein,
...yeah, nuff said, when it comes to debate what questions do mean...
...your problem is that you don´t have enough knowledge to even grasp at what I am talking about...not that I care much.
Dasein

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 09:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...yeah, nuff said, when it comes to debate what questions do mean...
...your problem is that you don´t have enough knowledge to even grasp at what I am talking about...not that I care much.
Your problem is that I DO grasp what you're talking about. Your recognizing that I grasp it is what is causing you to attempt to minimize my knowledge thereby reinforcing your "authoritarian" stance because you know that it is YOU that doesn't grasp what YOU are talking about.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 09:40 am
@Dasein,
...there is no diversity without relative and comparative measurement, or without incompleteness, that which you like to call in your jargon reference group, the experience of be-ing there, and thus less alone the sense of awareness which is yet resulting from the measuring of the measuring and that works as a temporal search for completeness...that is, the possible which is not yet actual...that which will bring final order to all relative measurements...that which will complete the macro final function...
...in such light diversity is an "effect" of incompleteness or, of that which we understand as a "process" the a posteriori, a function under way that is not yet resolved and that after resolution makes explicit the primitive reason of its value...

...you don´t have the slightest clue of what I know or don´t know nor even the means to evaluate my competence...be it because I don´t follow a formal classic description by the book of what I come to learn, be it because I am "disorganized" due to the complexity of what I know, be it my English, or finally and bluntly, because you lack the intelligence to navigate what I mean when I am not sufficiently explicit in clarifying the damned biggest puzzle there is to be resolved...
Dasein

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 10:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am absolutely clear that you have an adequate (for you) intellectual explanation of what you are talking about, however, you don't fully grasp or know what you are talking about.

The more intellectual explanation you give, the more you become entangled in your illusion and the more you refuse to entertain the remote possibility that you are wrong. That is your downfall no matter how much you attempt to discredit my intelligence.

Stop being a jerk.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:08 pm
@Dasein,
...that is a fair counter...
( if you knew me personally you would know that actually I am a very friendly jerk nevertheless)
Fil Albuquerque

1
Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...still the very same thing could be said of you and your pall group...do you entertain the remote possibility of being wrong ? I don´t think you do...and on my account, on my perspective the probability, the odds, are not in your favour regarding how little you clarify or develop what you mean...as I see it the odds are far better with me...but then I acknowledge it is just my point of view while you not for once admit so since you showed up in this forum...
Dasein

1
Thu 25 Aug, 2011 10:20 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...still the very same thing could be said of you and your pall group...do you entertain the remote possibility of being wrong ? I don´t think you do...and on my account, on my perspective the probability, the odds, are not in your favour regarding how little you clarify or develop what you mean...as I see it the odds are far better with me...but then I acknowledge it is just my point of view while you not for once admit so since you showed up in this forum...
The odds will always be in your favor. It is your conclusions which you are explaining/defending. You can't not explain/defend them as long as you don't step outside of the box created by your conclusions and presuppositions. This is the way it is for everybody unless you disentangle your 'self' from traditional thinking.

As for clarifying what I have to say, your parameters for clarification are dictated by your conclusions and presuppositions which dictate your position and I will never be able to clarify to your satisfaction.

The first thing is to recognize that the conclusions which you are explaining/defending were not of your making. Martin Heidegger says in Being and Time that
Quote:
When tradition becomes master, it does so in such a way that what it “transmits” is inaccessible, proximally and for the most part, that it rather becomes concealed. Tradition takes what has come down to us and delivers it over to self-evidence; it blocks our access to those primordial 'sources' from which the categories and concepts handed down to us have been in part quite genuinely drawn. I makes us forget that they have had such an origin, and makes us suppose that the necessity of going back to these sources is something we need not even understand. If the question of Be-ing is to have its own history made transparent, then this hardened tradition must be loosened up, and the concealments which it has brought about must be dissolved.
What he is saying is that the tradition most of us have memorized doesn't come close to the 'primordial sources' of who you are. The tradition covers up who you are and if you don't take up the task of uncovering the 'primordial sources' you will never know who you are.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 25 Aug, 2011 01:09 pm
This is the closest description I have seen in so far that goes more or less according with my on intuition and explanation of what reality really is...those of you that have followed with more attention and more closely my own account on the subject will immediately noticed the resemblance with my function to function algorithm world...enjoy it !

0 Replies

guigus

1
Sat 27 Aug, 2011 07:44 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...already expecting a fair reply, there finally...lets see what can be said upon it...
...Such set of all sets has different property's from being sub sets...it is reasonable then to call it something else once it is more then any other and somewhat odd...
...a "set" of all other sets its not itself a normal set once it is not bounded but rather the bounder...it cannot be computed...It cannot compute either, it cannot move, it is the computation done and finished...it would feel more appropriated to call it instead the only set of all sub sets.

Either the set of all sets is a set, and then it shares with all other sets their essential properties (if they are indeed essential), or it does not share with any other set its essential properties, by which it is no longer a set (again, if those properties are indeed essential).

### Related Topics

Truth vs. Fact - Question by atchoo522
What is truth? - Question by Torii
The truth about life - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is truth subjective or objective? - Discussion by Taliesin181
Responsible Guilt or Guilty or Innocent - Discussion by MsKnowledgebased
Church vs Bible, What to believe? - Question by papag

1. Forums
2. » Absolute truth?
3. » Page 38