@Arcane Sandwich

Good Tree of Life film.

I put my story into invideo AI generative mode:

I put my story into invideo AI generative mode: — PoeticUniverse

Then I will say that every AI and every human being have something in common: we are stardust.

@PoeticUniverse And human beings have something that no AI has:

And while Poetry is all fine and dandy, @PoeticUniverse, things cannot be Poetry all the way down.

things cannot be Poetry all the way down — Arcane Sandwich

Reality/Language analogy:

Possibility papers the covariant quantum fields
that ink the elementaries of the standard model
that stroke the alphabet letters of the atoms
that word the dictionary molecules
that phrase the biotype DNA cells
that verb the subjects
that sentence the creatures
that paragraph the species
that story the ongoing tree of life
that books the literature of the unified-verse
that libraries the Cosmos.

Reality/Language analogy:

Possibility papers the covariant quantum fields
that ink the elementaries of the standard model
that stroke the alphabet letters of the atoms
that word the dictionary molecules
that phrase the biotype DNA cells
that verb the subjects
that sentence the creatures
that paragraph the species
that story the ongoing tree of life
that books the literature of the unified-verse
that libraries the Cosmos. — PoeticUniverse

Ok. You might want to tell that to the Basilisk then:

Ok — Arcane Sandwich

Stardust

All That Underlies Our Lives is Now Known.
In the stars our atoms are slowly grown,
From the quantum field elementaries—
Omar’s knot of how human fate is sewn.

Colored stars pierce the veil of formless night,
Gemming Heaven’s gloried, crown-jeweled might;
In the depths of the deep we live, anon:
We’re all alone here to weather the plight.

Stars generate the lower elements;
Supernovae generate the higher ones.
Atoms form the molecules that lead to
Life’s complexity, from simplicity.

Starlight is the origin of our being,
The source of matter, energy; everything.
Permanent, reassuring, unquenchable;
It’s our radiant soul, a self-winding mainspring.

All from stardust begins and ends in thee.
The mighty wrecks of the elements are strewn
Across the universe like chaff from the harvest,
Much of the Cosmos still a vast wasteland.

Born of stardust and nourished by sunlight,
I fill my cup with wonders of delight.
Life is a treasure, a radiant gem,
A vision that I’ll never see again.

We’re constructed from the stuff of stars’ grand,
Through life’s history recorded in strands
Of DNA, both recent and older,
The parts conducting, to play as a band.

Time and stardust made us Earth’s living guest,
While quick death sifted the rest from the best.
Those three, our birthright, form our epitaph:
RIP; time expired, death came, dust is left.

All that we are we owe to time, death, and stars.
Truly, from the stars cometh our help.
Within a star’s heart, matter transforms itself
And gives off energy—this is why the stars shine!

I own a solar system way out there,
One whose planets contain diamonds, silver,
And much in gold; so now I’m rich; it’s all
Mine because I chose a favorite star.

We’re the flesh to the backbones of the stars,
Those ghosts of the suns that no longer are—
They having transformed their energy’s ways
To base atoms, more from supernovae.

The universe has to continue its race,
Unwinding, like a spring, at time’s fixed pace,
In which star-generations are born and perish,
Giving their lives for all we can cherish.

Hmm... Is there an answer that does not admit questions (even in principle)? Other than "Unknown" perhaps? :chin: :zip:

iep
wikipedia
fact-index

Is there an answer that does not admit questions (even in principle)? — jorndoe

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
It’s ever, ne’er still, else naught could happen;
The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress.

You folks wanna talk about Roko's Basilisk?

You folks wanna talk about Roko's Basilisk? — Arcane Sandwich

It's an AI creature that has quickly accomplished what would have taken a jillion years of evolution, plus turning out even better since it is a machine?

It's an AI creature that has quickly accomplished what would have taken a jillion years of evolution, plus turning out even better since it is a machine? — PoeticUniverse

I don't think so. It's a fictional creature that, like any other fictional creature (i.e., Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes) does not exist, and will not exist, for the very simple reason that it cannot even exist to begin with.

It does not take such a sinister concept (i.e., Roko's Basilisk) to prove such a simple point.

Other than "Unknown" perhaps? — jorndoe

continued…

There’s no ‘come from’ for the Eternalness;
It can’t be made or broken: it’s partless;
So, it has the least lightness of being.
With no design point, what can it bless?

The Permanent is constrained, as simplest,
Continuous, as wave-fields, shown by test
To be sinusoidal and harmonic,
Which grants elementary quanta.

The ‘vacuum’ has to e’er jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of ‘Nothing’;
If it ‘tries’ to be zero, it cannot.

At the indefinite quantum level,
Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
So it can’t be zero, but has to be
As that which is ever up to something.

Beyond the Horizon
Over the Next Hill
That's where we make discoveries
That's the Next Frontier

To follow up:

Is this your belief too?

I think that Plato does get at something essential here. If the good is "that to which all things aim" (or, anything goal-directed at least), Aristotle's definition, then it seems that all goods are in some sense related. However, good is predicated analogously, not univocally.

For instance, I don't believe that one could have a "moral calculus" or ascribe some sort of "goodness points" to things or acts. Yet neither do I think all desirability and choiceworthyness breaks down into completely unrelated categories.

So, to the example of back treatments, of course what constitutes a "good treatment" is relative and contextual. Surely it is not good medical practice to install steel spikes into someone's spine if they have a perfectly healthy spine. It can be good medical practice to stab someone in the throat or chest, we learned this in my EMT course. It is not, in general, good to go around stabbing people in the throat.

But this is precisely why goodness is best thought of as a general principle.

How would we demonstrate that this is the case? It also seems kind of circular: claiming that the absolute encompasses all reality and appearances, doesn't it take for granted what it is supposed to establish?

It's a definition not an argument. How would one demonstrate that cows are "cows" either? For something to be transcendent, it cannot fail to transcend. If "absolute" is to mean "all-encompassing" and we posit both reality and appearances, than by definition the absolute cannot exclude one of the things we've posited.

Perhaps the definition is defective. One can have bad definitions. I don't think it is though.

we are stardust — Arcane Sandwich

My Rubaiyat style quatrains therein:

Oh peri, jasmine of midnight’s garden,
We bask in our moon-glowed, vapored haven,
Bathing in the orb’s silver light again,
Here in this otherworldly forest glen.

Omar, the moon’s ring binds us truly here,
Wherein from the strict world we disappear—
They to wonder hence whither whence we went:
Love, kisses, and selves bonded to endear.

Oh, the deep clarity of this still night—
Our being mirrors the stars and moonlight.
It sinks into us, though short-lived by day,
Impermanent; what’s its way; what’s its sway?

Colored stars pierce the veil of formless night,
Gemming Heaven’s gloried, crown-jeweled might;
In the depths of the deep we live, anon:
We’re all alone here to weather the plight.

We sleep the sleep that only lovers know,
As front to back, under the blankets’ throw,
While meteors criss-cross the darkling skies—
Our floating selves through love and wine aglow.

The Spirit breathes life with its holy might;
Spring blossoms replace winter’s snowy white;
Cloudy vapors coalesce into drops;
The airs the lovers with fragrance invite.

The morn springs us o’er oblivion’s brink,
The stars overcome, sunk in the day’s drink.
We race our paths, past Allah’s golden dome,
Unto the green-grassed river-bank to sink.

Spring kisses the earth, leaving flowers there,
Like those whose perfume first scented virgin air,
As again, the fragrant glen, in Heaven's prayer,
Hails Earth’s anniversary with flowers fair.

Slake love’s thirst for life’s earthly endeavor
Near a stream where wildflowers grow forever.
Flowers influence our feelings—deep they roam:
Flora’s fairest flowers compose Heaven’s poem.

Aft the cloud’s eyes water the soil that dried,
The sun’s warm breath wakes up the seeds inside;
Hence, all the plants, trees, and flowers revive,
And over mead, stream, and wayside preside.

What is the difference between truth and the ultimate truth? What does it mean by the ultimate truth?

ultimate truth? — Corvus

Probably it is the Theory of Everything - The Basis of All. I'd say it is the quantum 'vacuum'.

The OP asks: How can one know the Ultimate Truth about Realty?

And I ask: How can one realize the Ultimate Truth about Knowledge?

My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion. — A Realist

The senses take something in; therefore, there is something to take in. The sense are as spy outposts upon reality.

Where does Reality come from? At bottom, the Eternal has no 'come from'.

Have we got to the Ultimate Truth About Reality yet? It seems there are questions around the question about the ultimate truth of reality that are more amenable to an answer than the question itself, such as :

Would that truth (if we could get to it) be over and above reality itself?

Does our capacity to formulate a question in words guarantee that there must be an answer to it?

If we did find the answer, how would we know it is the right one?

And even assuming that we had the right one, what difference would it make to how we live?

For instance, I don't believe that one could have a "moral calculus" or ascribe some sort of "goodness points" to things or acts. Yet neither do I think all desirability and choiceworthyness breaks down into completely unrelated categories. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, fine with that.

It's a definition not an argument. How would one demonstrate that cows are "cows" either? For something to be transcendent, it cannot fail to transcend. If "absolute" is to mean "all-encompassing" and we posit both reality and appearances, than by definition the absolute cannot exclude one of the things we've posited.

Perhaps the definition is defective. One can have bad definitions. I don't think it is though — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not entirely sure I'm following this one. That might be on me.

A cow can be demonstrated via a clear zoological example, can't it? A simple correspondence. Transcendence is a qualitative adjectival abstraction that seems closer to poetry.

ultimate truth? — Corvus


Probably it is the Theory of Everything - The Basis of All. I'd say it is the quantum 'vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse

Why are they the ultimate truth?

Why are they the ultimate truth? — Corvus

Here is a good place to start for philosophical discussions about the concept of the Ultimate. It's not perfect, but it's something:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/

It's a definition not an argument. How would one demonstrate that cows are "cows" either? For something to be transcendent, it cannot fail to transcend. If "absolute" is to mean "all-encompassing" and we posit both reality and appearances, than by definition the absolute cannot exclude one of the things we've posited.

Perhaps the definition is defective. One can have bad definitions. I don't think it is though
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Not entirely sure I'm following this one. That might be on me.

A cow can be demonstrated via a clear zoological example, can't it? A simple correspondence. Transcendence is a qualitative adjectival abstraction that seems closer to poetry. — Tom Storm

I think this is an interesting issue only in that it highlights our epistemic limitations. How can one demonstrate that cows are cows? We perceive things we call cows, so I think there is no right and wrong in that. We could have called them by any other name, and they would be the same.

Does the question not really devolve to whether or not cows exist as cows in themselves? I mean they obviously would not think of themselves as cows. So what could that question even mean, other than whether there is some independently real thing which appears to us as a cow?

About that question we can only infer what seems most plausible. since the question is outside both the empirical and logical ambit. It is surprising how much interest these kinds of strictly ambiguous and undecidable questions generate.

It is surprising how much interest these kinds of strictly ambiguous and undecidable questions generate. — Janus

Because these are questions about what we ultimately are. These are questions about our own ultimacy. What are we?

Here's an example. North Americans sometimes talk about taking a solitary trip to somewhere just so that they can "find themselves". And here's my humble opinion on that. If you want to find out who you really are, you've no idea what's in store for you once you seriously begin to question what you are instead of who you are.

You think it's simple, but it isn't. Because what you are has nothing to do with you as a subject. It has everything to do with you as a mere, pattern-following object. You need to become a subject if only for the sake of your own survival as a human.

EDIT: Or is someone here going to argue with me, that we are not affected by the force of gravity just as much as any physical object, like this stone on the floor? Now ask yourself this: why is that? The answer is simple: because you are an object, a physical object in the world, in the same sense as that stone. In addition to that, you have to become a subject. Otherwise, you'll die. Reality itself is not a Fairy Tale. Wanna live? Become a subject. Or perhaps even a Rogue Object.

Because these are questions about what we ultimately are. These are questions about our own ultimacy. What are we? — Arcane Sandwich

Whatever we say about what we are will not be an ultimate truth but will be merely an interpretation of the human condition based on human experience and will thus be a relative statement, true or false only in some context or other.

An ultimate truth would be context-independent. How could there be any such thing (at least for us)? So, you say we are merely "pattern-following objects" and that may indeed be true from some perspective. just as we being subjects is true from a certain perspective.

Whatever we say about what we are will not be an ultimate truth but will be merely an interpretation of the human condition based on human experience and will thus be a relative statement, true or false only in some context or other. — Janus

As North Americans like to say: what you just said there is an opinion, not a fact. Can you prove that what you're saying is true? If so, then it is self-refuting. That beetles existed before mammals is true in a way that does not depend on any interpretation, nor on any human experience. It is, in that sense, a literal truth.

An ultimate truth would be context-independent. — Janus

Yes, it would.

How could there be any such thing (at least for us) — Janus

There can be such a thing, at least for us, because we are precisely that thing ourselves, insofar as we are something, and not merely someone.

So, you say we are merely "pattern-following objects" and that may indeed be true from some perspective. — Janus

It is absolutely true, because otherwise you would not be affected by the force of gravity in the same sense that a stone is.

just as we being subjects is true from a certain perspective. — Janus

It is absolutely true, because otherwise you would have died by now, and so would have I.

As North Americans like to say: what you just said there is an opinion, not a fact. Can you prove that what you're saying is true? If so, then it is self-refuting — Arcane Sandwich

The idea of an absolute truth for us is self-refuting.

The idea of an absolute truth for us is self-refuting. — Janus

Not necessarily, for if the subject-object correlation is absolute, then the idea of an absolute truth for us is not self-refuting, precisely because it is a thing-in-and-for-itself.