But that's just not so. I went to a Harry Manx concert last night. Past truth. — Banno

Yes you know its truth from the present moment. From the reference of now. You remember you went to the concert. The memory you formed is currently stored in your neurons. If that structure wasn't there now you woukdnt be able to recall what you did even if others could remember on your behalf having seen you at the concert. Therefore if say something happened to you and nobody else saw it. The only place any evidence, any truth of that claim would exist - is in the structure of your brains.
To others your truth would be a mere belief to them - something they cannot trust/prove absolutely. While if many people observed it it would be fact.

Remembering the truths you know is a present moment activity.

[...]is in the structure of your brains. — Benj96

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Truly wonderful the mind of a child is. — Master Yoda

@Banno

You're right on the money mon ami! If truth entails knowledge, someone is omniscient. I'm, however, not omniscient. You probably aren't either.

Who is then?

That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

Yes you know its truth from the present moment. — Benj96

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true.

And yes, if I don't remember that it was true, I wouldn't know it was true, but it would nevertheless remain true.

Being true and being known are two different things.

Something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced...

Something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced — Banno

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

If m, n, o, then p. Is that how "it" works?

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true.

And yes, if I don't remember that it was true, I wouldn't know it was true, but it would nevertheless remain true.

Being true and being known are two different things.

Something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced... — Banno

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true. — Banno

Okay let me explain it another way :)
Imagine for a moment that you are god as the entire universe. As a single entity - all of time, all of matter, all energy and all space is within you as a singularity - the ultimate one thing - pure potential to be. The logos. The entirety of information - the entirety of truth of thinks, knowledge, self awareness.

You are not "nothing" before the big bang as people commonly argue, you are "potential" because you haven't created "something" yet and thus you haven't created nothing by proxy. You are the 0 that has potential to be - 1 and +1, you are the neutral that has the potential to be positive or negatively charged, etc.

In this state... Your sentence something can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced is not valid as you argued. For the reasons I outlined above.

Now imagine you are human but with knowledge of your relationship to god. You understand both how you are like him/her/it and how you are not like him/her/it. You are an object. Only one small part of the whole. You cannot be in all places as an object. You cannot observe everything from all places or all points in time. You have a present past and future because you are not travelling at the speed of light.

In this case... As you are now.. Then you're statement "some thing can be true, yet unknown, unbelieved, unevidenced" can be valid. It's a contradiction/paradox created by self reference, by how you choose to limit your self awareness and your knowledge of the whole truth.

We know the full truth exists because its logical and ethical to do so.
The whole Truth is the paradigm between opposites. Its order/ chaos = creation/destruction = rational/ irrational = knowledge/ignorance = self awareness/ lack thereof = power/impotency = love/hate = authority/ subordinance = moral imperative/immorality. That dynamic is an elegant/ beautiful thing. All the same and yet different, contradictions/paradoxs and yet also not. The choice to accept the truth or not is yours as is your free will.

Dear Australian brother, I have a feeling it's about Fitch's paradox of knowability (there was a thread on that about 6 moons ago).

The issue can be exemplified with the statement "aliens exist" (status: unknown)

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true. — Banno

Isn't the now of a few hours ago the same now as the present time? Or do you have the capacity to divide time into a multitude of distinct, particular, and separate nows, such that a past now would be distinct from the present now?

Isn't the now of a few hours ago the same now as the present time? Or do you have the capacity to divide time into a multitude of distinct, particular, and separate nows, such that a past now would be distinct from the present now — Metaphysician Undercover

Both are correct depending on the perspective of one's reasoning. You cannot exist in any time but now that much is clear. "There is no time like the present". Try living 20 years ago right now - you'll find that sadly we cannot time travel backwards. That's why as a conscious object we have the grandfather paradox of time travel.

However we have memories. And when we focus our attention on them we recall and "relive" in our minds eye the events that took place in the past. That's why we can say someone is "living in the past" if they spend too much time fixating on it - usually due to loss, guilt or some sad emotions they're struggling to let go of.
This thus creates the illusion that the past still exists... But it only truly exists in the conscious memory of a sentient being.

Imagine you took away your memory. All of it. If you cannot remember the past you have no reason to believe it ever exists. Nor do you have any anticipation of a future by deduction. And if you have no past and no future the present moment loses all chronological meaning - time effectively vanishes.

Except we cannot remove our memories while we are alive and have a healthy functional brain. Our structure as physical objects allows us the stability to experience change around us. That is what consciousness needs to be aware of itself as an object. As life/ living things do.

People with dementia - losing the integrity of their brains structure... Are confused for time and place and forget and re-remember who they are and who their relatives are for this very reason. Their brain is struggling against the decay that comes with ageing.

Dear Australian brother, I have a feeling it's about Fitch's paradox of knowability (there was a thread on that about 6 moons ago).

The issue can be exemplified with the statement "aliens exist" (status: unknown) — Agent Smith

Interesting. I've never come across fitches paradox. But if by "alien" we mean a conscious being that is "other" - different from us I think you'll see the paradox dissolves as we know that other people (other conscious entities) exist around us. To call them alien however may alienate them - make them feel upset that we don't see them as the same as us.

I sometimes wonder if our ancient early ancestors were around today and encountered us what they might think? They would see some strange less hairy animal, wearing strange materials, much taller than them, communicating in some strange complex sounds they don't understand and having all of this baffling technology. Would they fear us or be curious? Probably both.

Would we on the other hand be benevolent towards them? Or would we discard them as simpletons/inferior and not worthy of our attention and protection. Does this line of thinking sound familiar? This is the paradigm we have towards all other living things - animals, and plants, fungi, bacteria etc. Are they owed reverence for their individual functions/purposes? Or ought we abuse them because we think we are better?

Do you think humanity is ready to meet an alien civilisation on another planet knowing that we struggle to see eye to eye with even our own collective species? Do you think a more advanced and benevolent civilisation would come visit us if they felt we would attack them out of fear and ignorance?

Truly wonderful the mind of a child is. — Master Yoda

Yes indeed. The mind of a child is perhaps one of the purest ones there is. I think children remind us of what we lose along the way - curiosity, innocence, the simple pleasures of wondering the who's, what's, wheres and whys of the world.

We love children for this. For what they teach us, for what they remind us to be in life. Life is meant to be fun and games. We must protect that ideology for as long as we are able while we are parents, while our children grow up and explore their world. Because the future is ultimately theirs. We would not want harm to come to that future if we know how to avoid it.

↪Benj96 You completely missed my point then. A is B is an abstract, the mistake is you assuming this maps one-to-one onto reality when you apply Electricity and Energy … I even gave such an example to show the distinction between objects that exist and abstractions.

Bring me number one and show it to me and you can then convince me there is no difference. Better still paint me a picture of ‘AND,’ ‘OR’ or ‘IF’ that everyone will recognise as such without painting the words. — I like sushi

Ah yes indeed. I see where you are coming from. You're right in that abstraction and objectivity are not exactly the same thing. There is division here. However they are connected to one another, as all things are.

I can draw "one" but only symbolically. If I show many pictures to a child of a singular thing - an apple for example and then I show them pictures of two of the same thing - two apples... By contrast I can demonstrate the meaning of one verses two. In that way I can teach an abstract concept using physically observable objects.

It would not be prudent of me to show a picture of one apple and then show a picture of two bananas and say that is the difference between one and two. The child would be confused because the two fruit are different in more ways than just number. That's why in all the children's counting books we have we use the same iteration in multiples of itself. One apple, two apples, three and so on.

Does that make sense? If not let me know where I've gone wrong.

Furthermore abstraction is analogous to thought, imagination, ideas. And we know that such abstraction can become concrete, can become an object through the actions of the conscious person that holds the thought in their mind. For example an artist can take an idea in their head and demonstrate it on a medium to convey that inner thought to another. An inventor can do the same, and a musician, an author, anyone in any discipline can create from what is not yet real and bring it into reality for others to appreciate and interpret in their own unique way.

Humans are limited by their short existence but not by their ability to apply logic and derive truth pertaining to god. — Benj96

That is the sort of thing I don't know.

In the context of Descartes' use of God in his epistemology, it is a large step back from an assumption that how we understand must be related by nature to what we wish to know. Descartes is content to make baby steps toward knowing what is true by demonstrating to himself that he is not being deceived by God.

That is the sort of thing I don't know. — Paine

Yes I understand, he demonstrates favouring belief in a truth over venturing to explain nature through explaining this truth he believes. In essence he shows commitment to a belief without feeling the need to explain it to others. At most this demonstrates his choice of personality - faith over skepticism, ironically by being so skeptical that he reduces what he could believe to one thing - the only remaining thing that he is prepared to believe faithfully. Many people hold similar views. The spiritual. They accept and settle for a belief despite others asking them to please kindly explain why such a belief is reasonable to accept.

I hope i interpreted what you were examining correctly. If not feel free to elaborate and forgive me if I missed the mark.

And its okay not to know by the way. That gives you good leg room to flex your logic and pursue truth whatever you conclude that it is for you.

Personally a god that actively deceives me is not one I wish to know. I feel a righteous god is one that welcomes me to understand their truth if and when I am prepared to accept it into my life. A just God would reveal themselves to me through the truth they speak, rather than allow me to flounder in nonsense and delusion.

In essence he shows commitment to a belief without feeling the need to explain it to others. — Benj96

Nothing could be further from the truth. While it may have been presumptuous for him to confidently declare how the perfection of God's mind relates to his creatures, he explicitly cautions against thinking our knowledge as being able to approach all that is true:

That in passing from the knowledge of God to the knowledge of the creatures, it is necessary to remember that our understanding is finite, and the power of God infinite.

But as we know that God alone is the true cause of all that is or can be, we will doubtless follow the best way of philosophizing, if, from the knowledge we have of God himself, we pass to the explication of the things he has created, and essay to deduce it from the notions that are naturally in our minds, for we will thus obtain the perfect science, that is the knowledge of effects through their causes. But that we may be able to make this attempt with sufficient security from error, we must use the precaution to bear in mind as much as possible that God, who is the author of things, is infinite, while we are wholly finite. — Discourse on Method, Principles of Philosophy, 24, translated by John Veitch

Descartes' point of bringing up the possibility of being deceived was in order to support his fundamental argument that the method for obtaining authentic knowledge must come through the process of doubt rather than accidentally having the correct opinions.

he explicitly cautions against thinking our knowledge as being able to approach all that is true: — Paine

But if knowledge of god is not approachable by his/her subjects then what ought to be the purpose of a true god? If god is not the ultimate truth then we have no means by which to be ethical (as truth pertains to morality through use of the truth to do right by one another, as opposed to lies and deceit) and also we would have no means to pursue rationality (as the truth pertains to knowability/knowledge and by proxy logic) - that which is consistent and permanent in the world. The laws of existence.

If ethics and reason don't exist and are not approachable then we would be dismally lost. Totally ignorant (lacking all sense of what is ethical and what is reasonable).

But common sense serves to show the contrary. We know somewhat of that which is just and that which is rational.

I don't understand how noting the limitations of our knowledge in the context of all that is true amounts to saying we could not learn anything that is true or what behavior is better from what is worse.

Okay let me explain it another way — Benj96

That's a myth, not an explanation.

If that myth doesn't fit the commonplace of it being true now, and yesterday, that I went to a Harry Manx show the other night, then that's enough to reject the myth.

...Fitch's paradox... — Agent Smith

Yep. But see how Benj entirely misses the point?

Benj's approach is making stuff up instead of working stuff out. There's not much point in further comment.

Truth, schmuth.

Why care about what "truth" is or search for its definition? We're aware through experience and observation that in life the most accurate judgments, conclusions and assertions are those supported by the best available evidence. What constitutes that evidence may vary; new evidence may arise. That's the way of things. Why expect anything more than that, or seek it, let alone try to define it? What else could be "true"--that which everyone would think is the case after everyone knows everything? That's hardly a meaningful or useful thing to spend our time discussing.

Yep. But see how Benj entirely misses the point?

Benj's approach is making stuff up instead of working stuff out. There's not much point in further comment. — Banno

Ok. Truth, what are its implications?

Hats off to you sir/madam as the case may be. There's a god of time (the filicidal Cronus), but I haven't heard of a god of space. Is there one?

Yep. But see how Benj entirely misses the point?

Benj's approach is making stuff up instead of working stuff out. There's not much point in further comment. — Banno

Haha if that's what you want to believe that's fine. No harm no foul. But at the end of the day I think we all observe the reality around us, hypothesise possible explanations (make stuff up/create ideas regarding existence) and then exercise/ apply that understanding (however inaccurate or accurate it may be) by asking others if they have similar views and if not then why?

And in this way we are exposed to new lines of questioning, new arguments that we may have not considered before, and re-evaluate our beliefs either accepting or rejecting one's that sound logical and or ethical.
Thus we create a paradigm for ourselves to navigate reality.

Is that not the process of reason? Be it scientific reason or spiritual intuition.

I think i reached a point where I saw limits with the strictly scientific approach to understanding nature. As I don't believe you can objectify everything and everyone completely. I think one would find it difficult to "prove" the existence of ethics with scientific measurement - despite ethics being incredibly important in preventing science from doing harm. Likewise I find it difficult to see how a tool like scientific method can prove consciousness (the hard problem), as ironically, the method pre-supposes an observer.

How can one turn scientific method on ourselves entirely - by getting inanimate objects to observe and measure conscious entities to prove we exist. Therefore the hard problem is a fundamental limit to science.
It would be analogous to using a knife to dissect an object to see what's inside. And then to turn that knife on yourself to dissect yourself to see what's inside. It's not ethical or sensible.

I think this is exemplified by quantum phenomena - where the observer, by observing, by measuring... Changes the outcome. This would seem to indicate at a fundamental level of reality that when observed quanta are particulate (objectified) but when not observed they are only "potential" to be (a waveform).

Thus I turned to other disciplines of understanding to fill in the gaps that science cannot prove. I turned to philosophy and spirituality. It sounds reasonable that to understand the truth of things in reality we must not only address the existence of scientific facts but also the existence of subjective beliefs.

Science and faith don't have to be at odds with one another, its just that at their extremes, at their greatest level of dogma- they refuse to entertain the others way of understanding things.

but I haven't heard of a god of space. Is there one? — Agent Smith

I believe so. Space exists relative to matter, to objects. If there were no material objects/molecules/atoms, the space within/around them by contrast would lose all sense of reference, would lose its "relativity". Just as darkness by itself with no light isn't really darkness. Its only darkness by contrast. Contrasts are the gradient by which change from A to B occurs and thus information. If there was no gradient between things, nothing to distinguish them, then there would be no information. If there is no information - then there is no existence.

In a singularity where all energy and matter are just "potential". And time is not occuring, has not been set in motion (by objects and energy interacting), then there is no space either. No objects, no time, no space.

So conclusion yes there is a god of space.

What else could be "true"--that which everyone would think is the case after everyone knows everything? That's hardly a meaningful or useful thing to spend our time discussing — Ciceronianus

So you don't believe that everyone could at some point know everything about how reality works - have a unanimous reality together? I understand how it sounds far fetched but consider this:

"If there are infinite ways to be ignorant -(to hold irrational beliefs, delusions etc about reality), then on the contrary pole should there not be only one way to be privy to the truth?"

If this is the case and everyone knew the truth, they wouldn't argue angrily with one another but rather simply discuss its endless implications.

I don't understand how noting the limitations of our knowledge in the context of all that is true amounts to saying we could not learn anything that is true or what behavior is better from what is worse — Paine

I don't believe acknowledging that we don't know everything instantly means that we know nothing, nor does it mean we can't improve our knowledge.

I think we have varying degrees of knowledge of what is true and what is better between all of us. Some people are delusional and others quite wise indeed. And we all judge eachother from these respective reference points based off what we hold to be personally true.

Name (of the space god)?

↪Benj96 Name (of the space god)? — Agent Smith

Haha it seems that from my research online now such as god has been described numerous times and with several variations on interpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_deity#:~:text=Within%20Greek%20mythology%2C%20Uranus%20was,Poseidon%2C%20who%20ruled%20the%20sea.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on "sky deities" for your interest and browsing.
Uranus was one such god of the sky/ air/ether or space based on whatever people at the time understood space to be. Zeus also had similar attributes. Cosmic god.

The persistence of gods in humanities history seems very telling. There is something deep within us that wants to be connected to/part of our universe... To personify it as the universe personified us by creating life through its various physical and chemical phenomena/laws.

The God of geometry/space then?

The persistence of gods even in the age of information (explosion) implies that we've good reasons to continue believing in gods. What are these reasons, pray tell.

The persistence of gods even in the age of information (explosion) implies that we've good reasons to continue believing in gods. What are these reasons, pray tell. — Agent Smith

Well indeed. I think the persistence of gods despite a scientific revolution and information explosion means that perhaps they are more fundamental than we previously believed. As things that are fundamental and constant will not change through time - despite the systems they govern evolving and progressing around their axis.

Another good reason that we may persist in believing gods exist is based on morality. An ethical consideration. If God's or a singular god are the basis for a fundamental logic (or "logos" - see heraclitus) and we know that knowledge or wisdom comes from understanding this logic/this architecture for what is possible and what is not. Then we can make better decisions.

Would you prefer a well informed person or an uneducated one to govern society or make judgements in the interest of society? In this way knowing such a god would place that person in a better position to be ethical.

Its not enough to have what you think are good intentions to be moral. You must also have knowledge. A delusional person going around with what they believe to be good intentions is a very dangerous person indeed. Hitler is likely such a case.

I suspect he didn't think or contemplate very much at all before acting. On the contrary all the wisest rulers and greatest philosophers contemplated almost constantly to ensure they could give sufficiently good guidance as to minimise harm. Think of a Greek statue and what is its pose? A person sitting and staring off into space with their hand rested beneath their chin. An act of contemplation and self reflection.

Allahu Akbar? :snicker:

Jokes aside, I'd say we reexamine the evidence carefully, thoroughly, and then ...