Council Member
Posts: 1,919 
Location: china
Location: china
June 24th, 2008, 06:00 PM
There is a assumption these days that everything is relative, a matter of personal opinion, that there is no such thing as truth or fact independent of personal perception.
Just wonder ; is there such a thing as truth apart from personal belief, apart from personal opinion? Is there such a thing as truth? This question was asked in the ancient days by the Greeks, by the Hindus and by the Buddhists. It is one of the strange facts in the Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged - to doubt, to question - and in religion in the West it is rather put down, it is called heresy. I think that one must find out for oneself, apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute truth, not relative.
How would one find out if there is such a thing as truth which is absolute, which is complete, which is never changing in the climate of personal opinions? How does one's mind, the intellect, thought, find out? One is enquiring into something that demands a great deal of investigation, an action in daily life, a putting aside of that which is false -I believe that is the only way to proceed. If one has an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept, of truth or love, then that is the very barrier that prevents one moving further. Can one honestly investigate what is an illusion? How does illusion come into being? What is the root of it? What it means is playing with something which is not actual , right?
The actual is that which is happening, whether it is what may be called good, bad or indifferent; it is that which is actually taking place. When one is incapable of facing that which is actually taking place in oneself, one creates illusions to escape from it. If one is unwilling or afraid to face what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement, away from that which is. That word `illusion' implies the moving away from that which is. Can one avoid this movement, this escape, from actuality? What is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, including the responses, the ideas, the beliefs and opinions one has. To face them is not to create illusion. Illusions can take place only when there is a movement away from the fact, from that which is happening, that which actually is. In understanding that which is, it is not one's personal opinion that judges but the actual observation. One cannot observe what is actually going on if one's belief or conditioning qualifies the observation; then it is the avoidance of the understanding of that which is.
If one could look at what is actually taking place, then there would be complete avoidance of any form of illusion. Can one do this? Can one actually observe one's dependency; either dependency on a person, on a belief, on an ideal, or on some experience which has given one a great deal of excitement? That dependence inevitably creates illusion. So a mind that is no longer creating illusion, that has no hypotheses, that has no hallucinations, that does not want to grasp an experience of that which is called truth, has now brought order into itself. it has order. There is no confusion brought about by illusions, by delusions, hallucinations; the mind has lost its capacity to create illusions. Then what is truth? The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to investigate the material world around them, they are going beyond physics, beyond, but always moving outward. But if one starts inwards one sees that the `me' is also matter. And thought is matter. If one can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then one begins to discover that which is beyond matter. Then there is such a thing as absolute truth, if one goes through with it .Please investigate it ; in yourself.
There is a assumption these days that everything is relative, a matter of personal opinion, that there is no such thing as truth or fact independent of personal perception.
Just wonder ; is there such a thing as truth apart from personal belief, apart from personal opinion? Is there such a thing as truth? This question was asked in the ancient days by the Greeks, by the Hindus and by the Buddhists. It is one of the strange facts in the Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged - to doubt, to question - and in religion in the West it is rather put down, it is called heresy. I think that one must find out for oneself, apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute truth, not relative.
How would one find out if there is such a thing as truth which is absolute, which is complete, which is never changing in the climate of personal opinions? How does one's mind, the intellect, thought, find out? One is enquiring into something that demands a great deal of investigation, an action in daily life, a putting aside of that which is false -I believe that is the only way to proceed. If one has an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept, of truth or love, then that is the very barrier that prevents one moving further. Can one honestly investigate what is an illusion? How does illusion come into being? What is the root of it? What it means is playing with something which is not actual , right?
The actual is that which is happening, whether it is what may be called good, bad or indifferent; it is that which is actually taking place. When one is incapable of facing that which is actually taking place in oneself, one creates illusions to escape from it. If one is unwilling or afraid to face what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement, away from that which is. That word `illusion' implies the moving away from that which is. Can one avoid this movement, this escape, from actuality? What is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, including the responses, the ideas, the beliefs and opinions one has. To face them is not to create illusion. Illusions can take place only when there is a movement away from the fact, from that which is happening, that which actually is. In understanding that which is, it is not one's personal opinion that judges but the actual observation. One cannot observe what is actually going on if one's belief or conditioning qualifies the observation; then it is the avoidance of the understanding of that which is.
If one could look at what is actually taking place, then there would be complete avoidance of any form of illusion. Can one do this? Can one actually observe one's dependency; either dependency on a person, on a belief, on an ideal, or on some experience which has given one a great deal of excitement? That dependence inevitably creates illusion. So a mind that is no longer creating illusion, that has no hypotheses, that has no hallucinations, that does not want to grasp an experience of that which is called truth, has now brought order into itself. it has order. There is no confusion brought about by illusions, by delusions, hallucinations; the mind has lost its capacity to create illusions. Then what is truth? The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to investigate the material world around them, they are going beyond physics, beyond, but always moving outward. But if one starts inwards one sees that the `me' is also matter. And thought is matter. If one can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then one begins to discover that which is beyond matter. Then there is such a thing as absolute truth, if one goes through with it .Please investigate it ; in yourself.
Council Member
Posts: 1,919
Location: china
Location: china
June 25th, 2008, 08:26 AM
Second ,why would you want to rewrite it ?
Quote:
something that is -what is, independent of personal interpretation.
What does "absolute" mean?
Quote:
First ,how much of quantum physics is your work that makes you worry about rewriting it
Does this mean we have to re-write quantum theory?
Second ,why would you want to rewrite it ?
Council Member
Posts: 1,919
Location: china
Location: china
June 25th, 2008, 08:48 AM
Don't have to or should I say I am very much familiar with the works of David Bohm's exploring the QP and his spiritual travels .
Theory is an interpretation..that of many.Look it up MikeyDB
Don't have to or should I say I am very much familiar with the works of David Bohm's exploring the QP and his spiritual travels .
Quote:
Well ,absolute is what is ,no personal interpretations ..
Quantum theory suggests there is no "absolute". .
Theory is an interpretation..that of many.Look it up MikeyDB
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612 
June 25th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Much of Kant's philosophy can be seen as an attempt to provide satisfactory philosophical grounds for the objective basis of Newton's mechanics against Humean scepticism. Kant showed that classical mechanics is in accordance with the transcendental conditions for objective knowledge. Kant's philosophy undoubtedly influenced Bohr in various ways as many scholars in recent years have noticed (Hooker 1972; Folse 1985; Honnor 1987; Faye 1991; Kaiser 1992; and Chevalley 1994). Bohr was definitely neither a subjectivist nor a positivist philosopher, as Karl Popper (1967) and Mario Bunge (1967) have claimed. He explicitly rejected the idea that the experimental outcome is due to the observer. As he said: “It is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he has arranged” (APHK, p.51). Not unlike Kant, Bohr thought that we could have objective knowledge only in case we can distinguish between the experiential subject and the experienced object. It is a precondition for the knowledge of a phenomenon as being something distinct from the sensorial subject, that we can refer to it as an object without involving the subject's experience of the object. In order to separate the object from the subject itself, the experiential subject must be able to distinguish between the form and the content of his or her experiences. This is possible only if the subject uses causal and spatial-temporal concepts for describing the sensorial content, placing phenomena in causal connection in space and time, since it is the causal space-time description of our perceptions that constitutes the criterion of reality for them. Bohr therefore believed that what gives us the possibility of talking about an object and an objectively existing reality is the application of those necessary concepts, and that the physical equivalents of “space,” “time,” “causation,” and “continuity” were the concepts “position,” “time,” “momentum,” and “energy,” which he referred to as the classical concepts. He also believed that the above basic concepts exist already as preconditions of unambiguous and meaningful communication, built in as rules of our ordinary language. So, in Bohr's opinion the conditions for an objective description of nature given by the concepts of classical physics were merely a refinement of the preconditions of human knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
And your exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings is…?
Of course it’s not a “theory” now is it …Because you affirm the absolute truth of your understanding of everything that was and is and will be…
You’re arrogant enough to be an American!
Much of Kant's philosophy can be seen as an attempt to provide satisfactory philosophical grounds for the objective basis of Newton's mechanics against Humean scepticism. Kant showed that classical mechanics is in accordance with the transcendental conditions for objective knowledge. Kant's philosophy undoubtedly influenced Bohr in various ways as many scholars in recent years have noticed (Hooker 1972; Folse 1985; Honnor 1987; Faye 1991; Kaiser 1992; and Chevalley 1994). Bohr was definitely neither a subjectivist nor a positivist philosopher, as Karl Popper (1967) and Mario Bunge (1967) have claimed. He explicitly rejected the idea that the experimental outcome is due to the observer. As he said: “It is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he has arranged” (APHK, p.51). Not unlike Kant, Bohr thought that we could have objective knowledge only in case we can distinguish between the experiential subject and the experienced object. It is a precondition for the knowledge of a phenomenon as being something distinct from the sensorial subject, that we can refer to it as an object without involving the subject's experience of the object. In order to separate the object from the subject itself, the experiential subject must be able to distinguish between the form and the content of his or her experiences. This is possible only if the subject uses causal and spatial-temporal concepts for describing the sensorial content, placing phenomena in causal connection in space and time, since it is the causal space-time description of our perceptions that constitutes the criterion of reality for them. Bohr therefore believed that what gives us the possibility of talking about an object and an objectively existing reality is the application of those necessary concepts, and that the physical equivalents of “space,” “time,” “causation,” and “continuity” were the concepts “position,” “time,” “momentum,” and “energy,” which he referred to as the classical concepts. He also believed that the above basic concepts exist already as preconditions of unambiguous and meaningful communication, built in as rules of our ordinary language. So, in Bohr's opinion the conditions for an objective description of nature given by the concepts of classical physics were merely a refinement of the preconditions of human knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
And your exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings is…?
Of course it’s not a “theory” now is it …Because you affirm the absolute truth of your understanding of everything that was and is and will be…
You’re arrogant enough to be an American!
Council Member
Posts: 1,919
Location: china
Location: china
June 25th, 2008, 04:22 PM
Quote:
Very impressive MikeyDB .Now try to 'discover and find the answers to your questions in yourself by yourself.As I have stated in the original post ....
And your exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings is…?
Quote:
....and that ain't no "exhaustive litany of double-talk and pointless ramblings" ;it's a hard work though MikeyDB.
If you can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then you will begin to discover that which is beyond matter and see that there is such a thing as an absolute truth .
Genius
Posts: 1,272
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
June 25th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
Quoting Socrates the Greek
I believe you mean 'waste'.
What a waist of time, china I think you must be in the early stage in training your self to become a Lawyer.
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
Council Member
Posts: 1,693
June 25th, 2008, 07:20 PM
Hey China I want to take this opportunity and clarify why I have a slight sarcastic and cold tone on my interaction with you. It started by you in past posts not talking positive about Canada if you recall, and I simply took offence to that, explaining to you that “don’t sit there throwing rocks at the country you lived in for many years, because you would look like a hypocrite if things didn’t work out well in China for you, and you could be coming back and resort to suck-alling”. I regret saying that statement to you but under provoked circumstance I reacted. Now, as to your philosophical line “thinking is not what is therefore not actual” The link below dose an exhalent job in describing the theater of thinking and I am happy to share with you this knowledge.
http://www.anxietybc.com/resources/p...icThinking.pdf
Also should anyone on this forum be interested on the roots of creativity and genius I am happy to share.
http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm
Quoting china
That's the problem old man ,you think to much .I'll throw a line;thinking is not what is therefore not actual .
Hey China I want to take this opportunity and clarify why I have a slight sarcastic and cold tone on my interaction with you. It started by you in past posts not talking positive about Canada if you recall, and I simply took offence to that, explaining to you that “don’t sit there throwing rocks at the country you lived in for many years, because you would look like a hypocrite if things didn’t work out well in China for you, and you could be coming back and resort to suck-alling”. I regret saying that statement to you but under provoked circumstance I reacted. Now, as to your philosophical line “thinking is not what is therefore not actual” The link below dose an exhalent job in describing the theater of thinking and I am happy to share with you this knowledge.
http://www.anxietybc.com/resources/p...icThinking.pdf
Also should anyone on this forum be interested on the roots of creativity and genius I am happy to share.
http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm
Council Member
Posts: 1,693
June 25th, 2008, 07:25 PM
Quoting Risus
Thank you pal
I believe you mean 'waste'.
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
Council Member
Posts: 1,693
June 25th, 2008, 07:47 PM
, the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately
leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out.
Quoting Risus
Ha hahahah over my head?
I believe you mean 'waste'.
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
Maybe the topic is just over your head...
, the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out.
Council Member
Posts: 1,919
Location: china
Location: china
June 26th, 2008, 09:25 AM
Socrates the Greek
Socrates the Greek
Quote:
Oh man , do you ever have allot to learn .I,ll give you a hint StG. An intelligent man asks questions if there is something that he doesn't understand .An ignorant one will try to show how intelligent he is.
Ha hahahah over my head? 
, the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately
leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out
, the contribution on a Thread while intimidating the forum participant is 0. When the writer insinuates that he will argue common knowledge, I find that to be arrogant mentality….. . I don’t have a problem paying attention to new info but to suggest that one will take one or two words and start the analyses which ultimately leads to paralysis, that is A WASTE OF TIME.
We are all intelligent human beings, it all comes down to how much info we can retain and logically manage in our memory. IE good goes in good comes out, garbage goes in and garbage comes out
