Absolute truth?

The only 'reality' that exists is 'you'.

I do deny my existence, just not in the way you're thinking.

There is not a 'me' that is aware of my existing 'self'. My 'negation' arises and passes away in a fleeting millisecond, does the wind you feel blowing your hair on a cool winter day exist? Or is it just something you 'feel'?

I am not denying your existence, in fact you are the only one participating in this conversation.

Concepts and negations of concepts also come and go like the wind, just as thoughts and feelings.

When you get pissed off for losing your job, does the actual 'feeling' of anger exist in and of itself? Or is it just something you are temporarily aware of?

PS: You're the one who 'makes use' of whatever you read(concepts/negations) not me.

True, but it comes down to the word "concept". I agree we learn "natural numbers" but there is an infinite number of them. (although I did remember a program about a mathemetician who said infinites do have an ending of sorts) But what is going on when you are reaching for a theory/concept of everything? Is it merely understanding the "gist" of everything? If so, extreme outliers may become unexpected. Also, if a theory/concept of everything didn't require knowing all the particulars can it really be called a theory/concept of everything? (perhaps what may be closer to the "truth" is a "concept of almost everything from the perpective of humans". But that would be a mouthful to say...)

Guigus, I fear that we will have the same problem here as we had in the thread about "nothing".
Until you realize what these concepts really are, until you figure out the role perception and human conditioning play in our understanding of these concepts, this philosophical farce will be the extent of your accomplishments. You have proven deaf to words that aren't your own, so I shall waste no more of them.

Don't waste anymore of your time Cyracuz, only he can get himself down from that 'throne'.

I should have put 'prison' as that would have been more accurate.

Like most people, he is not interested in 'emptying his cup'. He has far too much 'invested' in his theories and ones he assumes to be accurate to allow him 'self' to venture out into uncharted waters.

absolute truth is based on the movement of things , objects and forms of energy , in the micro to the macro

Let me try another approach.

Everything is, for example, everything in this room. Or everything on the planet. Or everything on the table. So, no matter the context, everything is everything in that context. So everything is everything in any context, or in all contexts. However, everything in all contexts is the same as everything with no special context, or simply "everything."

absolute truth is based on the movement of things , objects and forms of energy , in the micro to the macro

An absolute truth that is based on something else is no longer absolute.

north wrote:

absolute truth is based on the movement of things , objects and forms of energy , in the micro to the macro

Quote:

An absolute truth that is based on something else is no longer absolute.

what do you mean ?

guigus wrote:

Let me try another approach.

Everything is, for example, everything in this room. Or everything on the planet. Or everything on the table. So, no matter the context, everything is everything in that context. So everything is everything in any context, or in all contexts. However, everything in all contexts is the same as everything with no special context, or simply "everything."

not deep enough

explained in my last post

guigus wrote:

Let me try another approach.

Everything is, for example, everything in this room. Or everything on the planet. Or everything on the table. So, no matter the context, everything is everything in that context. So everything is everything in any context, or in all contexts. However, everything in all contexts is the same as everything with no special context, or simply "everything."

not deep enough

explained in my last post

Is this supposed to make any sense?