Absolute truth?

If you "know" what this guy is about then you will realize that all linguistic activity is about establishing "consensual domains" NOT about representation of any independent "reality" outside the participatory activities of the members of the consensus. How then does your word "coding" which ultimately implies "representation" fit in with the above?

This is interesting...read it all the way down if you please.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

I just gave you an example on binary code further up in the Thread...

Meaning is build by relating my location in relation with an established pattern in the string and its location...any other observer will have a different description of the pattern...

All possible observers in relation to the pattern define all possible algorithmic conceptions of the pattern...thus the pattern itself is all possible states of information configuration in relation to the entire string perspectives potential upon that segment...

Consensus would be build by close by "gravitational" points of view from several observers in which the pattern would in consequence present a very similar representation...

Nice piece of first order modelling convergence but nothing to do with the second order issue of "the observation of observation". Read Maturna's point about our covert assumption of "a standard observer" in physics. You simply can't make that assumption in the investigation of observation per se. That is what you keep missing. Your "truth" belongs in the "mind" of an idealized "standard observer" external to its "universe of discourse".

No !
Note that I never in any moment establish personnel perspective upon Truth as the entirety of Truth...that is also perspective and meaning of course...I only assert since several Observers that Truth should be the result of the entirety of all possible conceptual states in relation to all agents...

Bottom line we are both debating Infinity versus Finity...

Is there a maximum amount of information by surface or not ?
Is there a maximum degree of entropy ?

Determinism or Indeterminism ?

...or infinitely self circular, thus closed and finite in "quality" (rules of Nature)
...or in turn, Infinitely open thus chaotic to the full, therefore transcendent...

Then we are going round in circles because you won't admit that "all possible states" is an open infinite set, and hence vacuous.

Yes we have crossed in the post ! You want "closure" as I identified several pages ago!

(edited above)
Exactly !
Bottom line a matter of Being against non Being...
...which one do you take ? Are you "real" or what ?
(it does n´t matter how differently you can be described from a huge amount of "agents")
Are "you" "there" ?

Note that either way you HAVE CLOSURE !
Non closure is inconceivable...
What would be infinite "quality" of rules ?
That would allow oddity´s like we both being right simultaneously...

This is not a matter of any "religious" attitude, but simply a matter of not being able to have any other possible comprehension of the world...
There is no otherwise !

I am quite sympathetic with the non-dualistic view that a persistent unified "self " is an illusion. Different "selves" are evoked by different situations. (think about it next time you have an internal conversation). This view is in accordance with "reality as a social construction" but you should note that "reality" is not equivalent to "physicality". As regards "being" and "existence", I take the Wittgensteinian view that these are words used in particular social contexts. Insofar that communicators have common physiologies, needs and common language we can expect a good deal of consensus in everyday usage, as opposed to the contrived world of philosophical speculation.

And of course "non-closure" is conceivable, whether it be "worlds within worlds" or "multiverses". We merely close functionally whenever we delimit the "significant"variables in a situation.

Ah but there you see, you can always be divided into more "objects" (sub-strings) yet is there a limited or unlimited amount on self possible conceptions on you ? ("maximum entropy") Again Infinity or Finity...
Is there a Meta Self as a finite set of possible selves at any given Time/Space ?
So, is there "true value" to each of this conceptions ? If the set is finite there is...and I mean finite in quality...(the same rules of nature) not in quantity which works like a circle...you go around forever but the rules are always the same...

Now, about conception of no closure, you can do it in the abstract sense as an illusionary projection of what there is that you can know or intuit in terms of rules, but not as qualitatively different from what you can know since you cannot actually conceive the difference between this Multiverse and others with different rules of Nature...there are no words, no meaning and no relation to make any valid description without falling into an rearrangement of what you can know which is part of this Multiverse...

So I guess you and others (very respectable people indeed) are speculating on this concern...an old mathematical tendency for infinity´s...(a projection within itself)

Instead of falling for that fallacy try to conceive of different maths...I mean different rules and relations...
...no plus, minus, division, or multiplication...no algorithms, no functions, but something else...
Yeaahhh...nothing !

Exclude nothingness and you have Truth in Being !

Besides, one may well drop the "thinker", although what one may not drop, is the "thinking"...(Code intrinsic relation)

Actually this is the substantial advance one may do from Descartes on, with its "Cogito ergo sum"...

I think we are wasting our time.

I think fil is just another religious cracker who seeks to circumvent theological phrasings in the validation of his beliefs to himself and others.
His "logic" does suggest it, and so does his capitalizing letters as if deifying their concepts, along with his persistence in ignoring my specific questions about his ideas, thereby avoiding a common ground to discuss from, which would be devastating for his "case".

an absolute truth is that which cannot be changed by our existence

Devastating for my case ??? You damn foul...You sir are an idiot !

...your deliberated malevolent persistent attitude on justifying your mediocre incompetence by trying to relate my thinking with any Religious attitude brings you to my ignore list, I am done with you... have a nice day !

It is certainly the case that "truthists" like "religionists" would tend to reject erosion of their belief systems since their concept of "self-integrity" is an aspect of such systems. Those prepared to let "selves" dissipate are more likely to be able to think non-anthropocentrically.

Well, he's ignored me now, like he does everything that doesn't conform to his beliefs.

Yes..."truth" is a buoyancy aid for particular "selves". Earlier on, note Fil's reference to "self" in (proudly) establishing his "position". That "self" is not going to give up!

As the man said fresco, "it's not do you have the courage of your convictions... it's do you have the courage to challenge your convictions?"

You make your statements as if they were absolute truths. Do you think that you've found a place separate from any belief system.. and therefore a place invulnerable to erosion?

Whatever place you've found... one would expect your tone to reflect that.

Point taken, but without being too cryptic, I (one of them!) would say.....

Tones match tones. Selves match selves.
One merely points to a transcendent position with a choice of words.
From the position itself, words are an encumbrance.

Transcendent position.... is so where it's at.

There's nothing like seeing through the eyes of one who's contradicting you...to gain the middle ground. The opposites overlap.