PureBasic Forums - English

Rook Zimbabwe wrote:The only universal truth is that there is no real universal truth.

I disagree with this point. I think there is universal truth. I think truth is things as they are, as they were, and as they will be. Our perception of truth is the only thing that changes. Our perception is the only thing that needs improving, not truth.

If there isn't universal truth then there is no basis for anything. If each and every "fact" has to be disputed based on who's fact it is, silly is the only thing that would result. To make an analogy of it, say I had an Uncle Wally. If I said that despite what anybody thought or said to him he firmly believed he was a football. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, a priest, a toddler, a psychiatrist, a king, a parent, or a drug-user, to tell you that something is wrong with Uncle Wally and that more importantly, he's not a football. It really doesn't matter what his personal perceptions are.

There are things that are the subject of personal preference, for instance what you like. There are things that are not the subject of personal preference, for instance what is good. Unlike blueznl, I think there are ways for people to perceive things the same way. If there wasn't a way to do so I think humanity would ultimately be doomed.


@SFSxOI: I thought the stories were funny, even if they were a bit contrived. I think it's the thought that counts.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:I think I get what you're after...
the problem is just... what you claim to be "real" is just your opinion.

Nope!
the problem is just... I just try to take "real" as a concrete meaning; AND you directly take "real" as an abstract meaning.
And i just tried to explain that when we fall into abstract, we fall into subjetive. At least science ways try to get and to go onto the concrete, as much as posible, that is the main point of science.
And by the way, "science" is not a human atribute, but an atribute of the understanding entities, whatever it be.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:even from a quantum physical point of view, there are so many strange things beyond the things.

There is very convenient to replace "strange" by "unknow", that's so simple.
"strange" involves metaphysics itself. "unknown" is by far the humblest word.
Just "unknown" is the word favorite for the reason of being of science, and it is a word which has been separated and hidden by the infinite stupidness, mysticisms, and deep ignorance in general during human being existence everytime, including nowadays.

By the way, Blueznl has noticed nicely what we was talking about above; the old argue about Existentialism and Non-Aristotelism. There is an example that if i remember well it is from Aristoteles, in short it is:
Into the deep forest a tree breaks and fall down, but nobody knew about the birth and existence of that tree, no body saw it how was broken and nobody heared it falling... Did the tree "really" fall down?

What I really dislike about your postings, is, that you call any different point of view "stupid".

I wanted to open your eyes for the fact, that there is really no way to prove anything to be concrete, and that modern quantum physics is also pointing this way.

from a point of view with the "axiom of concreteness", the Aristoteles question sure is nonsense.

I wanted to inspire you to think even fuirther and re-ask Aristoteles:
what makes you think that there is anything like a tree?

btw.. I'm not sure if it was Aristoteles, t also can be a Zen-riddle..
just like "what is the sound of clapping a single hand"


The point that you call any thought outside your "axiom of concreteness" just "stupid mysticism" really offends me!

@Kaeru, i have not the blame you feel offended, but yourself.
You are too much mystic, perhaps there is no way to change that.
Only add this:
concreteness is just the way of the science, it is not a conclusion or analysis destiny.
>modern quantum physics is also pointing this way.
yes, but that not means you have to stop there, you must to continue with the experiments and the theoretical analysis.

The trees exist in the sense that our body brain interact with it. In that sense science must locate why trees exist, why the tree was broken, what and why was the cause, why felt down...
If general mankind fall too much in ideas like:
>what makes you think that there is anything like a tree?
and general mankind disregard the fact that our brain, or other best brains we eventually could design, is the only way we have for the concrete analysis, else there will be stopped in the stupid mysticism. Is is so simple.

Another way to say the same:
Maybe thinks are not like we see it or like we think they are. But we must not mentally autocreate, imagine or invent how the things are and then support everything on it. The only thing we can do is use the reason and the intelligence as much as possible.

Into the deep forest a tree breaks and fall down, but nobody knew about the birth and existence of that tree, no body saw it how was broken and nobody heared it falling... Did the tree "really" fall down?

I'm not sure if this is indeed credited to any famous philosopher specifically, but I think this is more about existentialism than non-aristotolism.

Anyway, regarding absolute truth vs. personal perception, another way to look at (the absolutism in) science is to consider it as the accepted way of approaching generally acceptable averages.