That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties. — creativesoul

No, it is just true. You can 'hold' whatever you want, that isn't going to make usefulness and truth denote the same property.

Not all powers of reason lead to that... — creativesoul

Yes, some people can't reason very well. They can reason well enough to locate sandwiches and push them into their face every so often, but not well enough to gain insight into trickier questions, such as "what is truth". There's a technical word for them that rhymes with poo squid.

The language around energy and ‘doing work’ disguises the reality that energy is not exactly caused, but rather manifests from its own potential in relation to the potential of interacting events. — Possibility

I think we have the same idea but are expressing it differently. I claimed that the principle of cause and effect and the principle of energy (vibration) are all-inclusive to all components of reality. That meant that they were fundamental to reality. In short, reality is energy. And, reality is cause and effect.
Energy is cause and effect - That which causes is energy. That which is effected is energy. The only difference is perspective. Fundamentally, all absolutes are identical. Cause and effect is primarily a perspective with regard to activity. Energy is primarily a perspective with regard to force. Both force and activity are integral to reality.


Also, NOTHING IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME. If anything exists then it must have form (a configuration), force (influence) and activity. Where there's form, space is inevitable; where there's activity, time (relativity) is inevitable. And because form and activity are fundamental to reality, space and time are inescapable.

Nothing (implying no thing or lack of anything) is a misnomer with respect to identity (existence). We can't deny the existence of something which we constantly affirm. Words like nothing are mental constructs we use for comparative thinking. They are mental mirror-images of what we reflect upon. Nothing (or no thing) is mental slang for inverted/reversed thing-ness.

A belief that may be false can be known to be false.
— Bartricks

Not all belief can be falsified. So, not all belief that may be false can be known to be. — creativesoul

Bartricks has problems with the English language. I suggest he take up knitting as a hobby.

Clarifying what Buddhists believe, for instance, does not serve to justify those beliefs. — Bartricks

And a clarification [can] serve the same purpose as a justification.
You can clarify what you believe in and what you disbelieve. You can use clarification as a justification for your beliefs.
I have no idea why I am getting a line through my text.

That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties.
— creativesoul — Bartricks

Yes 'usefulness' is a property of truth.If the 'truth' does not contain 'usefulness'(i.e information) it can not be considered 'truth'.
Usefulness is a property of information.

Unless a statement contains information, it is totally meaningless and does not contain truth.
Truth without information has no value and therefor can not be truth.
Truth without information is not truth.

I think we have the same idea but are expressing it differently. I claimed that the principle of cause and effect and the principle of energy (vibration) are all-inclusive to all components of reality. That meant that they were fundamental to reality. In short, reality is energy. And, reality is cause and effect.
Energy is cause and effect - That which causes is energy. That which is effected is energy. The only difference is perspective. Fundamentally, all absolutes are identical. Cause and effect is primarily a perspective with regard to activity. Energy is primarily a perspective with regard to force. Both force and activity are integral to reality. — BrianW

I’m not sure that we do, though. While I agree that energy and cause and effect constitute a four-dimensional aspect of reality, I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe.

Also, NOTHING IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME. If anything exists then it must have form (a configuration), force (influence) and activity. Where there's form, space is inevitable; where there's activity, time (relativity) is inevitable. And because form and activity are fundamental to reality, space and time are inescapable. — BrianW

I would say that if anything exists then it has form, activity and/OR influence. Energy, for instance, has activity without form. Potential energy has influence with neither activity nor form. Likewise, cause and effect have activity without form, but will has influence with neither activity nor form. And both potential energy and will exist and have influence outside time, enabling us to predict, imagine and initiate activity.

Energy, for instance, has activity without form. Potential energy has influence with neither activity nor form. Likewise, cause and effect have activity without form, but will has influence with neither activity nor form. — Possibility

Energy, cause and effect, will, etc are not identities (or existences). Rather, they are aspects (or perspectives) of existences/identities. All forces/influences are contained within (or interact through) forms, just as all forms are configurations/structures of forces, and both forms and forces are in constant expression and interrelation hence perpetual activity.

*will is just the human analogy to cause.

I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe. — Possibility

What more is there? Please share.

And both potential energy and will exist and have influence outside time, enabling us to predict, imagine and initiate activity. — Possibility

What does 'outside time' mean?

I would think that anything within the human realm of perception and participation is within the bounds of time. So, how have you arrived at outside time?

I would argue that there is more to reality than this, and that there is more to these principles than the concepts of ‘energy’ or ‘cause and effect’ describe. — Possibility

That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out.

Energy, cause and effect, will, etc are not identities (or existences). Rather, they are aspects (or perspectives) of existences/identities. All forces/influences are contained within (or interact through) forms, just as all forms are configurations/structures of forces, and both forms and forces are in constant expression and interrelation hence perpetual activity. — BrianW

They’re concepts, and they refer to the different aspects of reality or existence - which are also concepts. The structures of our conceptualisation differ markedly, you and I, but I think we have some areas of agreement here.

I agree that influence interacts with and through ‘forms’ (although they are not contained within these ‘forms’, but rather transcend them). I agree that ‘forms’ (which, for me, refers to three aspects of reality: length, shape and form) and ‘forces’ (which refers to three additional aspects: activity/time, influence/value and expression/meaning) interrelate to constitute all of existence as we are aware of it. But it is how these aspects interrelate - what the structure of reality looks like - where we differ most.

Much of what you describe refers to a Newtonian perspective, which derives from Aristotle. What relativity and quantum mechanics has done recently is force us to reassess how we structure reality in order to avoid the prediction error that comes from trying to integrate all of this information into our conceptualisation of reality.

The biggest problem with the Newtonian perspective is that it removes all reference to the ‘self’ as a position within that reality. The problem this creates is similar to the problem solved by acquiring a heliocentric structure to the solar system: by positioning our perspective at a point within rather than central to the structure, we get a more accurately objective view. That’s all I’m attempting to do, really.

*will is just the human analogy to cause. — BrianW

Everything is a human analogy, really. But I disagree with this. The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions.

What does 'outside time' mean?

I would think that anything within the human realm of perception and participation is within the bounds of time. So, how have you arrived at outside time? — BrianW

By outside, I mean regardless of one’s position within it. This is how we’ve determined our relative position on a spherical Earth, in the Solar System, the galaxy and the spatial structure of the universe. It’s how we’ve determined our relative position in human civilisation, the evolution of life and the unfolding of the temporal structure of the universe. It’s how we determine our position within our social groups and a global humanity, and why we struggle to acquire an accurate view of our position within both the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe.

And a clarification [can] serve the same purpose as a justification.
You can clarify what you believe in and what you disbelieve. You can use clarification as a justification for your beliefs.
I have no idea why I am getting a line through my text. — ovdtogt

I think the line going through your text was the best thing about it.

Clarifying a belief is not the same as justifying it. Deal with it.

Note, I justified my analysis of truth. I didn't start with the analysis and then look for a justification. I started by trying to figure out what truth itself is.

So, what is it for the umpteenth time? Well, if all rational deliberators would agree that theory X - whatever it may be - is the true theory of truth if Reason represents it to be, then on grounds of simplicity it is reasonable to assume that 'that' is what the property of truth consists of. A proposition is true when Reason asserts its contents, and not otherwise.

Your arguments all sound so circular. rational, reasonable, true, simple, theory, proposition. A lot of words just strung together in incoherent ramblings. No real insight, no vision, no clarity. Most of the time I have no idea what you are talking about.

That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out. — ovdtogt

How does that change anything you do, though?

That might be true, but if we are brains in a vat we will never find out.
— ovdtogt

How does that change anything you do, though? — Possibility

In my moments of heightened awareness I believe that everything we experience is a hallucination and that we possess a everlasting soul that is our consciousness. We merely have to deny our body in order to travel down the path to Nirvana. As our temporal body dies, our soul will be released like a butterfly from a cocoon to join the eternal cosmic consciousness that lies at the root of all life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu?fbclid=IwAR3itT5SD3DNlyY8rYX1F-eGNx7DGeRMy1pgOfEB1DJQyKib8wtP1gVXfvw

Sokushinbutsu (即身仏) are a kind of Buddhist mummy. The term refers to the practice of Buddhist monks observing asceticism to the point of death and entering mummification while alive.[1] They are seen in a number of Buddhist countries, but the Japanese term "sokushinbutsu" is generally used.

It is believed that many hundreds of monks tried, but only 24 such mummifications have been discovered to date. There is a common suggestion that Shingon school founder Kukai brought this practice from Tang China as part of secret tantric practices he learned, and that were later lost in China.[2]

Your arguments all sound so circular. rational, reasonable, true, simple, theory, proposition. A lot of words just strung together in incoherent ramblings. No real insight, no vision, no clarity. Most of the time I have no idea what you are talking about. — ovdtogt

Yes, well my cat can't distinguish between a Rembrandt and a child's scrawl and seems to think its own bottom is the most beautiful thing in the world.

So your ultimate aim is to achieve non-existence?

This, I think, is an extremist version of Buddhism - one based on a misunderstanding of Buddha’s teachings and how they relate to practise. The way I see it, Buddha’s own asceticism was simply a demonstration of awareness - not a practical path to be followed for its own sake. It achieves nothing in itself - its purpose is to demonstrate the structure of existence for our benefit, by documenting the journey towards and beyond its limitations.

It’s a bit like ascetic monks in Christianity who practise self-flagellation. Withdrawing from existence is not a life lived with purpose if it doesn’t connect in some way with those of us who continue to exist. Buddha still manages to connect with existence. The rest of those monks are at best a re-confirmation of what Buddha/Jesus has already quite effectively demonstrated. So why go over the same ground? If Buddha burnt his hand on the stove and said to you ‘that’s hot, it burns’, do you need to then do the same thing?

Now, if a belief can be useful yet not true, then we know - or those of us who have powers of reason can know - that truth and usefulness denote different properties
— Bartricks

That's true, if one holds that truth and usefulness count as properties then the terms "truth" and "usefulness" are used as a means to denote different properties.

Not all powers of reason lead to that...

Just saying, it seems you're overstating the case you have. — creativesoul

No, it is just true. You can 'hold' whatever you want, that isn't going to make usefulness and truth denote the same property. — Bartricks

You certainly believe that it's true, Who said anything about making usefulness and truth denote the same property?

Arguing with your own imagination.

Some hold that truth is a property. Others do not. There are other frameworks following Reason that truth is a sort of agreement between thought and belief about what's happened and/or is happening and what's happened and/or is happening.

We find the same agreement between thought and belief about the way things are and the way things are; between thought and belief about the case at hand, and the case at hand; thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves, and the world and/or ourselves, etc.

↪ovdtogt
So your ultimate aim is to achieve non-existence?

From eternity I came into madness and to eternity I shall return.

The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions. — Possibility

This is just what I said. Whatever the process of human causation (initiating of actions), we (humans) reference it as willing.

By outside, I mean regardless of one’s position within it. This is how we’ve determined our relative position on a spherical Earth, in the Solar System, the galaxy and the spatial structure of the universe. It’s how we’ve determined our relative position in human civilisation, the evolution of life and the unfolding of the temporal structure of the universe. It’s how we determine our position within our social groups and a global humanity, and why we struggle to acquire an accurate view of our position within both the ecosystem and the value structure of the universe. — Possibility

How is any of the above without regard for time when time is one of the fundamental references for all those relations you've pointed out?


As to my perspective, it is neither heliocentric nor specific relative to any other reference point. I would describe my perspective as comprehensive or, at least, an attempt at it. To be able to extrapolate anything about reality as a whole, I must attempt to embody everything within me and see everything as parts of me as well as see myself as the unity of everything - in imitation of the reality I wish to understand.

The biggest problem with the Newtonian perspective is that it removes all reference to the ‘self’ as a position within that reality. The problem this creates is similar to the problem solved by acquiring a heliocentric structure to the solar system: by positioning our perspective at a point within rather than central to the structure, we get a more accurately objective view. That’s all I’m attempting to do, really. — Possibility

Whether the perspective is heliocentric or at a point within the structure, it would still be relative (to some other points). The only way to reference the whole of reality is to have a perspective that embodies all perspectives. To that end, our conception and examination of reality as a whole is such an attempt. Within reality, all its components (humans included) are subject to relativity. Time is inescapable for all those components because it is an emergent property of that relativity. The only way to be outside of time is to be beyond relativity (as the absolute whole). Therefore, only reality in its absolute sense is outside of time because there is nothing beyond it or which causes it to be relative. For us (humans), and every other 'thing' within reality, time is inevitable.

The human mind interacts between cause and effect, to predict, imagine, determine and initiate actions. — Possibility

Here we all are 'brains in a vat' devising ever more sophisticated language in a desperate attempt to get grip on reality.

I've taken some time to think. So what I've found, and am here to state with certainty, that existence is therefore only provable insofar as human comprehension can be achieved. This means that existence so far is only provable with the human that can comprehend the universe the most, or the collective reasoning of it.

provable insofar as human comprehension can be achieved — ep3265

We see only as far as we can look. Even now a large part of the universe is too far away to be seen. We can only see 13.8 billion light years into the past. The universe is a lot larger than that.

What evidence do we have to point to that? We must therefore only conclude what is evidentiary, and the way to find that is to comprehend it! It must be the only way.

Simply, it's what is true as opposed to what is false.

What evidence do we have to point to that? — ep3265

Far cleverer people than me have figured that out. The proper distance—the distance as would be measured at a specific time, including the present—between Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years (14 billion parsecs), making the diameter of the observable universe about 93 billion light-years (28 billion parsecs).

This is in fact incorrect. We can only look back 13.8 billion years because that is the age of the universe.

Well, then it must be. And since we can comprehend it, it is possible to exist.

Well, then it must be. And since we can comprehend it, it is possible to exist. — ep3265

'Reality' might be too complex for human comprehension. We might have to be satisfied that we even got this far in our understanding.

Two libraries of things:

Things we comprehend
Possibilities:

• It does exist (evidence supports)
• It doesn't exist (lack of evidence, evidence to the contrary)

Things we cannot comprehend
Possibilities:

• It does exist (evidence must be comprehended to understand)
• It doesn't exist ('')

At this point we have identified reality into two parts, each of which have not split existence at all really, only our reason. Since we can identify it into two groups, those are two ways of viewing it to come to some conclusion. Since incomprehension has no bearing on our reality in any sense, practically the admittance is that we shouldn't be concerned with it. But practicality does not always coincide with reality, so, since we cannot comprehend it, then it must be out of our own existence. The view is then that human comprehension limits our view of the universe, as we have already established. However, in order to define the terms, since rules govern life, we must say that everything that does not exist is everything we have disproved and everything that we cannot comprehend.

Actually, I'd rather say that nonexistence is actually moreso arbitrary nonexistence, not real nonexistence.

Real knowledge starts with knowing what you don't know.

What you don't know or what you can't know? Because that is what I'm arguing, what we cannot know.