 |
Full Topic |  |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Alright, let's see how good I was with my homework. I ask you to read it fully before commenting.
My personal overarching starting point in building up worldview is this:
"Matter (obviously, observantly) exists".
Now what the heck is matter? Everything that is not space. Including human beings, our thoughts, the way we perceive things, everything.
So for convenience we can draw simple logical yet useful conclusions from said axiom, here's a couple of them:
- Life exists
- Souls exist
- Perception exists
- Matter is not bound by our perception of it
Now some of those might not seems that obvious, but I'll leave it up to you to try and figure out how this thread connects them.
Important part to get here is logic. There is a good example in philosophy about this:
Renee Descartes in his philosophical approach discarded everything and started logical thinking from blank. Axiom he cooked up for himself was as following:
"I think - therefore I exist".
Now, no matter what he did further - it was based on this obvious to him fact.
However, Even being a famed mathematician, he made a blindingly easy mistake, which was fished out quite some time after him by philosopher Martin Heidegger. He turned the notion on its head so it began to look like this:
"I think BECAUSE I exist".
Simple, isn't it? Obvious? Undoubtedly. Yet it took some time to bring this out. No, no matter whether any of these two statement have a degree of truth in them - the example is of logic that connects change between them.
Logic is what allows us to connect things, but yet when we are dealing with cornerstone axioms of our understanding of the world, we are the most vulnerable to fail at logic because those axioms are put being irrefutable.
So, let's go Descartes's way and discard everything. What would be a logical failsafe for us when we approach creation of our starting point? Obviously, as example showed us - we have to be mindful and not confuse cause and effect. Is that all? Hardly. The only way to prevent something from being a false assumption is to never treat anything as truth.
Matter exists.
It's hard to wrap mind around the fact that this might be untrue. But let's try it. If matter doesn't exist, the fact that we perceive this - does it automatically disprove it because perception is a material calculation? No, actually. We know now that there is matter to the universe we can't detect by any of our existing senses nor equipment. But we can predict it because there are inconsistencies in our test data which we have no way of explaining otherwise. However, the important part of this is that we can't assume that there is no matter that we are not predicting, nor sensing in any way. Technically for us in our state of mind it doesn't exist. But does this have anything to do with truth? Hardly.
Same goes for every conclusion i draw before from my axiom. Perception, for one, by the fact we perceive things, doesn't account for anything we can't predict nor sense. It's easy for us to bind our logic to definitive 'exists' or 'doesn't'. But it's illogical to do so. Same goes with dimensions. Mainstream opinion goes that dimension is a value of full numbers, not fractional. Yet it's absolutely illogical to discard fractional value of dimensions. It's hard to imagine, but it doesn't make things impossible.
That is when logic stops being binary. And so is our perception. Yet until we know The truth meaning we know everything there is, we have no logical base for calling anything "Absolute _THE_ Truth".
Now I won't lie, I read the '1984' thread couple of days ago and that's where I got enough data to attack you on your notion. Don't get me wrong - I personally find this notion contents to be right. And I find vast majority of your attitude towards it to be correct. It's perfectly possible that it reflects the truth in the most accurate way, after all - it is but a consequence of my own axiom, which I'm yet to disprove and not for lack of trying. However, to call something, anything - absolute truth - is digging one's own grave, cause when you for any length of time create a god for yourself - you compromise any further development.
For many this nitpicking of mine towards your notion might seem trivial, but I don't think there can be anything trivial when it comes to things of such importance.
Now I hope I've explained how far my hands reach, so to speak. I really tried this to be as comprehensible as possible, despite my GoshDarnCheapSkateAwful English.
Your turn.