Absolute truth?

Talking of Relativity...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/neutrinos

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

It might. Some of the turns the pursuit of this theory is taking seem to be somewhat unexpected. But the initial ambition is a matter of physics and finding a theory that "unifies" gravity with the other natural forces in one comprehensive theory.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

The expression "theory of everything" means a theory capable of explaining everything that exists

Does that include all those things we believe exist without actually having any "evidence" beyond our own perception and what we want to believe?

Like I said earlier, "everything" is a concept that has meaning in certain contexts, and I am afraid that this concept as the ultimate absolute it a bit too vast for anyone to be forming theories about.
So, the "theory of everything" means one theory that explains all the physical forces of the universe, in the terms of physics and how it relates to the world. I do not know what that includes and what it doesn't include.. I guess we will know more if such a theory is ever completed. If we are to believe contemporary physicists, they are getting close.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

'Believing' and 'knowing' are not the same thing.

You use the word 'believing' to 'hide' in hopes that people will not discover that you are actually unaware of what you're saying.

Aren't you getting a little sick and tired of all this talk about 'meaning'? I know I am. How could there possibly be a 'universal' concept of 'meaning' which holds true for every existing individual? To use the word 'meaning' is not only arbitrary but could only exist through its own presupposition.

You bring what is called 'meaning' into the 'world' for your 'self'. 'Concepts' cannot have 'meaning', only an arbitrary agreeable 'fix'.

Do you ever really read what it is you're typing? Or do you just check the words and see how each one flows with the last one to create some sort of 'storyline'?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The expression "theory of everything" means a theory capable of explaining everything that exists

Does that include all those things we believe exist without actually having any "evidence" beyond our own perception and what we want to believe?

Why don't you try to be a little rigorous for a change? Everything includes everything. Simple, isn't it? Therefore, it includes all misconceptions, prejudices and illusions, and all theories, whether correct or not.

Cyracuz wrote:

Like I said earlier, "everything" is a concept that has meaning in certain contexts, and I am afraid that this concept as the ultimate absolute it a bit too vast for anyone to be forming theories about.

Everything is neither vast nor narrow: it is just everything. It is not complicated: any child can understand the concept. No theory of everything is required to understand the concept--it is quite the opposite.

Cyracuz wrote:

So, the "theory of everything" means one theory that explains all the physical forces of the universe, in the terms of physics and how it relates to the world.

No, this is your theory of what a theory of everything might look like. By definition, a theory of everything is a theory that explains everything, period. The day we find it, then we will be able to tell how it looks like, and not a second before.

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not know what that includes and what it doesn't include.

Than stop pretending you do.

Cyracuz wrote:

I guess we will know more if such a theory is ever completed. If we are to believe contemporary physicists, they are getting close.

Don't guess: stick with what you know, namely, that everything means all there is (just pretend you are a child).

4 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It might. Some of the turns the pursuit of this theory is taking seem to be somewhat unexpected. But the initial ambition is a matter of physics and finding a theory that "unifies" gravity with the other natural forces in one comprehensive theory.

The question about everything is much older than Physics: it was born in the Greece of the word "physis," from which today's word "physics" eventually derived. That question about all there is was eventually called "philosophy," a word you probably never heard about.

0 Replies

@guigus,

I've always had the feeling that "everything" and "nothing" are the same.To make it personal, when I die I will become both nothing and everything. While I am alive I am "some thing" in particular; when I die I will be no particular thing, ergo I will be "no thing" or--as I really am now-- everything. This applies to you as well.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

'Believing' and 'knowing' are not the same thing.

You use the word 'believing' to 'hide' in hopes that people will not discover that you are actually unaware of what you're saying.

Aren't you getting a little sick and tired of all this talk about 'meaning'? I know I am. How could there possibly be a 'universal' concept of 'meaning' which holds true for every existing individual? To use the word 'meaning' is not only arbitrary but could only exist through its own presupposition.

You bring what is called 'meaning' into the 'world' for your 'self'. 'Concepts' cannot have 'meaning', only an arbitrary agreeable 'fix'.

Do you ever really read what it is you're typing? Or do you just check the words and see how each one flows with the last one to create some sort of 'storyline'?

By "storyline" do you mean "chicken"?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I've always had the feeling that "everything" and "nothing" are the same.To make it personal, when I die I will become both nothing and everything. While I am alive I am "some thing" in particular; when I die I will be no particular thing, ergo I will be "no thing" or--as I really am now-- everything. This applies to you as well.

You are not wrong, just a bit mystical. Being and nothingness are the same, despite always different. Even whey you die, neither one will overcome the other: they will continue their "dance," as they already do while you (and I) are still alive. We are just a few steps of that dance.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Everything seems ambiguous to me. I don't think it's as easy as merely understanding it (which would be a gargantuan feat initself). If that were truly so, perhaps those who 'understand' it may be closer to the very crux of creation itself (which in probability is highly uncertain). Sure, a child can understand the word 'everything' but could they truly grasp everything in it? Applying Ockham's razor makes sense to simplify this theory, but then again, it is just a 'theory'. It's like taking a book written with a nonsensical alphabet and seeing how many words you can 'decipher' from it. You might interpret some 'words' and unknowingly miscontrue their 'meanings' but the point is you are trying to put it into 'terms' you 'understand'.

1 Reply

absolute truth is not about the mystical of things and about the self experiences
nor is absolute truth about relativity either

absolute truth is about , regardless of whether we are here or not

so where then , does that leave absolute truth ?

absolute truth is based on the things that allow us the platform upon which to exist , devoid of thought

the Earth and the Universe

both are an absolute truth

2 Replies

@north,

Your "platform" is sometimes called "the ground of being."

1 Reply

@guigus,

You are right Guigus: what I said WAS intended to be a mystical-like expression, not a rational one. It was neither right nor wrong. Hopefully it was beyond either--now THAT'S mystical (Gate gate para gate parasamgate)

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Your "platform" is sometimes called "the ground of being."

perhaps

but I know what I'm referring when talk of " platform "

the " the ground of being " until defined , I'm not comfortable with

1 Reply

@north,

The last time I read the phrase, " the ground of [all] being," it was by Aldous Huxley in his Perennial Philosophy.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

The last time I read the phrase, " the ground of [all] being," it was by Aldous Huxley in his Perennial Philosophy.

so " the ground of all being " is defined as " lasting indefinitely " ?

if so what does he refer to , as lasting indefinitely ?

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

No, this is your theory of what a theory of everything might look like. By definition, a theory of everything is a theory that explains everything, period. The day we find it, then we will be able to tell how it looks like, and not a second before.

You keep reminding me just how foolish you truly are... This is not a matter of your failed attempts at being clever... "The theory of everything" is the name of a theory physicists have been chasing for quite some time... Read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

1 Reply

@guigus,

You have a problem that coincides with the majority of the people out there. You think that the way you think is the only way to think, you don't even realize that your 'thoughts' are only for your 'self' and that you really can't change the way others think. All you can do is offer 'suggestions' for others, until you see that all you're doing is 'offering' limitations to your 'self' and others all you will 'hear' is that same argument you keep posting.

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

Everything seems ambiguous to me. I don't think it's as easy as merely understanding it (which would be a gargantuan feat initself). If that were truly so, perhaps those who 'understand' it may be closer to the very crux of creation itself (which in probability is highly uncertain). Sure, a child can understand the word 'everything' but could they truly grasp everything in it? Applying Ockham's razor makes sense to simplify this theory, but then again, it is just a 'theory'. It's like taking a book written with a nonsensical alphabet and seeing how many words you can 'decipher' from it. You might interpret some 'words' and unknowingly miscontrue their 'meanings' but the point is you are trying to put it into 'terms' you 'understand'.

Again, if understanding the set of natural numbers required being familiar with each natural number, then such a set would be an impossible concept. And yet, we learn it early at school without much trouble (at least I did). Likewise, understanding the concept of everything does not require knowing each particular thing.

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

absolute truth is not about the mystical of things and about the self experiences
nor is absolute truth about relativity either

absolute truth is about , regardless of whether we are here or not

so where then , does that leave absolute truth ?

absolute truth is based on the things that allow us the platform upon which to exist , devoid of thought

the Earth and the Universe

both are an absolute truth

The Earth will be gone someday, so it cannot be absolute truth. Or can absolute truth... end?

0 Replies

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know