Does certainty or absolute truth exist?

According to quantum mechanics, observation affects reality. To my opinion, truth is always partially subjective, and depending on the viewpoint different conclusions may be reached.

Pesando por clássicos da filosofia como Platão, é possível entender que por mais que se consiga tornar algo inteligível, não deixa de ser uma construção relacional.

But the physical world exist independent of the observer. And our sense of reality is how accurately we can perceive that physical world and thus forms the truthfulness of our knowledge. A vivid example of this is: the ever expanding amazing discoveries of outer space, billions of galaxies. These galaxies exist (at least those do exist to this day) whether we discover them or not. So is a tree to a blind person, whether he sees a tree or not, the tree does exist. So the physical reality exist in absolute. Our understanding/knowledge of the physical reality may be accurate or incorrect or absent.

thoughts.

"But the physical world exist independent of the observer." is apparently a contradiction with quantum mechanics theory, i.e. physical world exists dependent on the observer. That doesn't mean that there is no existence of entities outside our perception, but merely means that its truth is not fixed.

If there is a 'reality' independent of an observer, we could never say anything sensible about it. It would be entirely outside of our ken, we are all observers.

GB: But the physical world exist independent of the observer. And our sense of reality is how accurately we can perceive that physical world and thus forms the truthfulness of our knowledge. A vivid example of this is: the ever expanding amazing discoveries of outer space, billions of galaxies. These galaxies exist (at least those do exist to this day) whether we discover them or not. So is a tree to a blind person, whether he sees a tree or not, the tree does exist. So the physical reality exist in absolute. Our understanding/knowledge of the physical reality may be accurate or incorrect or absent.

thoughts.

I absolutely agree with you. And in continuation I would like to add this sentence.

After understanding/knowledge of the physical reality of accuracy and inaccuracy; incorrectness and correctness; absence and presence - our role is to - what is Right felt by us within our surroundings; that surroundings is around me in a room/ partying in a hotel / being in a seminar / being alone / gardening / house keeping. In all in all there is truth. This truth is felt within us. Most of the time what I feel truth is not felt by the people around me because it takes time. That may be agreed or not. What is truth to one and going on proving or observing or sticking on to it is our goal. We cannot change and we cannot have two minds. Changing and having minds hurts the innerself.

The existence of physical world (independent of the observer )does not make it outside of our ken. Our senses meant to perceive that physical world. The independent/objective reality is not unknowable. A person can acquire the accurate knowledge of the reality through senses. A very simple example of perceiving the reality is you exist and I exist. And it's not illusion.

GB: The existence of physical world (independent of the observer )does not make it outside of our ken. Our senses meant to perceive that physical world. The independent/objective reality is not unknowable. A person can acquire the accurate knowledge of the reality through senses. A very simple example of perceiving the reality is you exist and I exist. And it's not illusion

The senses you are mentioning is it ESP?

What can be sensibly said of a thing unobserved?

If there is a physical world that is independent of observation we could never know it. As soon as we gained any evidence pertaining to it, it would become observed. Without any evidence what could we say sensibly of it.

Science has proceeded on this very assumption of an independent reality and has itself had to abandon it after finding that the observer is implied in every observation. This is what Thomas Debray has been referring to.

Any belief we have in a world that exists independent of observation is entirely an act of faith, unsupported by any act of observation, by definition.

I am not saying that reality does not exist independent of reality just that there can be no sensible enquiry into it.

I ask again, what can be sensibly said of a thing unobserved?

It seems that the question you ask seems to assume a separateness of observer and observed. An assumption contra-indicated by scientific thought as I have explained and also contra-indicated in introspective religious revelation, such as that espoused by your namesake, that stress a oneness in reality. The Buddha's theory of dependent origination covers a much broader spectrum of psychological truth than we are concerned with, but this notion of global interdependence extends to subject and object also.

Your question also seems to ask a question about an OBSERVED reality rather than a reality INDEPENDENT of observation. It seems to ask whether our observations of reality have veracity against another reality, independent of observation, essentially unobserved.

The senses I meant the usual five and not the ESP.

The meaning of "independent" in this context is in order:

The observer (the subject, the individual) and the observed(the object, the physical reality) are two distinct, separate entities(independent). The word "independent" is used in the context of acquiring the knowledge of the object by the subject. The original question was within the realm of the observable/observed physical reality. It doesn't pertain to unknowable universe. So the beliefs/convictions/assertions based on acts of faith are completely ruled out.

The meaning of "independent of the observer (NOT observation)": the observed reality exist independent of how accurately it was observed by the observer. So to a blind or a casual observer, an object or part of an object may not even be observed but that does not invalidates its existence.

"The truth is partially subjective and hence different conclusions" (per TD):

The observed reality has one existence and not according to different conclusions, doesn't that imply there must be an objective reality in the realm of observed universe? Hence my original question.

GB: The existence of physical world (independent of the observer )does not make it outside of our ken. Our senses meant to perceive that physical world.

The senses what your saying is the receiving stations of our 5 senses that are in the conscious world to be aware of the on-goings. But somewhere 'hidden' are the 'truths' that are understandable by various levels being in the conscious world; but within the realms of 'subconscious/inner self/soul the perceptions are different. Thus truth is also different rather at different levels as primary, secondary, advanced. The advancement happens at the level of Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) that may be intuition.

When the word intuition comes it can be felt in the following ways depending on our biological age:

A 'smile' of an 'elderly person' may be realized as follows by different age groups:

1. a five year old child assumes that he may get a chocolate

2. a ten year old may assume that the person is preparing for a string of questions all about him.

3. an 18 year old girl may assume that the person is of all admiration of her.

4. a 40year old lady may assume that the person is wanting to tell/preach/teach her something

5. an 80 year lod man is just least bothered of what's happening to the person's smile.

So perception of your 5 senses are of conscious nature and the perceptions of the ESP of what I am saying are at the level of subconscious - that tells the actual truth. Again this 'actual truth' depends on the biological age with its past experiences (at the level of previous births) or being aware of in the present world having various methodologies as experiences.

Thus truth at that age is either younger or older depending on their ESP's. Advancement of ESP is not correlated to advancement of biological age. For ex, a 12 year old girl's ESP may be more advanced than an 80year old man whose ESP may be that of 5year old's ESP.

Thus truth is simply the explanations of the conscious persons only. My mother told me that doing rituals to god/s is the practice to get rid of sins/ to get goodies what ever we pray for / to get peace of mind, when I was 12 years old. I told her those who are scared of god are doing rituals. I am not scared of god he/she is my friend who is always with me. At this age I say my mom is on 'Karma yoga'/Bhakti yoga and I am on 'Jnana yoga'. Both in the end leads to the same path of onenness. But had I followed her without acceptance that was not the 'truth' of my innerself. Similarly my sons may find the truth as mom's or mine and i am least bothered.

Buth the 'truth' and the 'beliefs' are mixed and matched by our various reiligious followers mainly from the angle of political and social perspectives.

I am pleased that the reality you refer to is an observed one and I refer you once again to the logical short-circuit where-in you ask us to judge whether our observations of reality measure up to a reality independent of said observation. What can we say of this unobserved reality? It is unobserved and so anything we say of it is based on pure assumption and would not measure up to your excellently high standards for what can be sensibly said.

This interdependence of subject and object has been verified by quantum mechanics from the sciences (probably the field that has most rigorously utilised the method of observation). Interestingly science has shared your assumption of an independent reality throughout its history, so you are in good company. In fact it is a bit of a mind bender.

BB: I am pleased that the reality you refer to is an observed one and I refer you once again to the logical short-circuit where-in you ask us to judge whether our observations of reality measure up to a reality independent of said observation. What can we say of this unobserved reality? It is unobserved and so anything we say of it is based on pure assumption and would not measure up to your excellently high standards for what can be sensibly said.

I understand from the above explanation that one's observed reality becomes another person's unobserved reality.

I also understand philosophical querries can be subjected to quantum mechanics similar to our biological sciences are subjected to statistical applications.

I also understand that what is the truth to one may not be the truth to the other or rest of us.

I also understand that since ages (perhaps since the human history) we've been under the instinct of truth based on the observers' which is not the actual truth.

No, I make no reference to whose observation is whose.

I make the point that a reality totally independent of observation is not observed, BY DEFINITION.

This unobserved reality, if it exisits, is something that we have no observations of, totally outside of our ken.

Reality (the observed kind that Gautama suggests is the only kind we can say anything sensible about) is thus observed, not independent of observation.

If you ask the different question of whether MY observations are correct or incorrect in correlation with this 'reality' we must remember that the reality we speak of is itself an OBSERVED reality. Thus we have no external, 'correct', independent correlate to refer to, but only the collective observations of others. These may be more repeatable, or more extensive, or may have more authoritative sources but they are all observed and cannot make contact with any reality independent of observation.

I came across this piece, sounds relevant to our discussion:

@GB Thanx for the site. I now felt the beatings of BB and thanx to him also.

Reality is a subject matter of Philosophy. It reminds me one of the stories of PANCHATANTRA - The Mangoose and the Woman. The moral of the story reveals that the Reality is the existing Truth and that the observations of the senses with the interpretations at the level of mind becomes only superficial observations that is proven wrong.

hello people,

FACT = REAL WORLD

TRUTH= A STATE OF MIND

There is a book that explains it in a plain way:

http://samvak.tripod.com/fact.html

I would like to summarize an extract from this book:

we have no way of directly knowing the world (without the intervention of our interpretative mechanisms) we are unable to tell when a certain representation corresponds to an event which is observer-independent and invariant and when it corresponds to nothing of the kind. When we see an image – it could be the result of an interaction with light outside us (objectively "real"), or the result of a dream, a drug induced illusion, fatigue and any other number of brain events not correlated with the real world. These are observer-dependent phenomena and, subject to an agreement between a sufficient number of observers, they are judged to be true or "to have happened" (e.g., religious miracles).

When we say "true" we mean "exists", or "existed", or "most definitely will exist" (the sun will rise tomorrow). But existence can only be ascertained in our minds. Truth, therefore, is nothing but a state of mind. Existence is determined by observing and comparing the two (the outside and the inside, the real and the mental). This yields a picture of the world which may be closely correlated to reality – and, yet again, may not.

Absolute truth exists, but our contingency allows us to know them not in their entireity, at least according to the notion that our being is a contingent being.

Right on William! Uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything) is the Third Assumption of Science. There can be no certainty because the universe is infinite.

Reality of a specific entity as predicated by quantity can be known with certainty for it is impossible that an entity is and not is at the same time in the same sense, predicated by quality however certainty is impossible. Partiality however does not mean uncertainty, it simply means you do not know everything about everything, thus the assumption of science...But for the things we know about some things the quantum of certainty is certain..thus certainty can be achieved but not in all aspect at the same time with respect to a determined entity in question.

hi Jeus,

You talk about the quantum reality. it is well known by physics students that infinite quantum realities may exist , and if I were a sub-particle I would not have any kind of notion in which reality I belong since the mere act of observing (I would have to interact to get information) may change my perception of the reality because the rest of the world would modify their own nature or some aspects of the own nature. Never I would have certainty about the truly truth of the reality.

Even more, I can not be sure if my senses are deceiving me, although everyone of us has same perceptions it may be an illusion or misleading for all us. For example, colors do not exist in the real world, they are not reals.

hello Judit,

Senses cannot be decieved for they just pass on their perceptions, thus is a passive act, epistemologically that is, we err when we form judgement as to what is and what is not, reality do indeed has an ontological dimension and does not depend on our understanding for it to be what it is, uncertainty is more of us than of the things we try to understand. Color as an accident does not exist, but unite it with a subject and it will ( red apple), it is now a determined character of a specific apple cited in the example, and this is certain with or without our consent and judgement.

Absolute truth, as Judit said is a state of mind. It is a realization. For example, let us consider the above example of red apple. Red and apple when united form a perception and our mind or brain recognizes it as an object or reality. But if we ponder much more deeper into this red apple, we will find its atoms that is there again quarks and finally energy. Thus if any one asks which is true energy or apple, both are true, the difference is our level of understanding and perception. Thus the more we understand and realize things, the more we get closer to truth. It does exist.

But if we define it as what we see or perceive then reality is just a simulation in our brain, an electrical signal or what ever we may call it.

Its a state of mind, a realization...

Reality is "a state of mind." Sounds like solipsism to me. What about the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not)?

when a state of mind is the parameter of what reality is, then whose realization will best dictate what is real and what is not, it will be downhill from here-on, nothing therefore is a stable truth and nothing therefore is universal, but we know for sure as a solid stable and universal truth that water is H20, knowledge that is not dependent on our state of mind, it is as is whether we give it our consent or not.

hello,

There is a book titled ' The Universe as a Hologram Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm? by Michael Talbot, if you google it for example:

Here I can read the following:

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

Truth was said as a state of mind and not reality. As the level of perception and understanding increase it also get refined more and more.

The reality of water to be H2O is for a chemist or a we may call it on particular scale of observation. Newtonian laws of physics are true and real in the world observable by us. When we go to a subtle world, laws of quantum mechanics start governing things like Heisenberg's uncertainty, Pauli's exclusion principle etc. Similarly when the scale of observation is further expanded beyond atmosphere to the outer space there also the laws are different.

We can see that in our understanding also. As an example, Rutherford model of atom was replaced by Bohr's model and when the necessity of explaining different phenomena was there, we also put up quantum model.

Thus when we learn we progress from lower level of truth to higher levels. As of now to the best of our knowledge, we have not formulated the so called absolute or the objective. That is the reality. True we are on that road but have not reached yet. We can argue a lot on this, ridiculing the truth but will the reality change if we do so ? How much ever we try to cover our ignorance the reality is always there "whether we give it our consent or not" as Jeus said.

HW, is this according to 'Nyaya' philosophy of India?

Harisharan :"In addition to five senses for observing the gross world, we have four senses to observe the subtle aspect of the universe.All methodologies for perceiving the truth scientifically and philosophically can use 5+4=9 senses.These four senses are mind,intellect,conscience and the observing self itself. Truth is valid in all spaces and all periods of time and can be logically and analytically validated using these nine senses.Nothing is beyond these nine senses".

-----------------------------

The 5 senses are the receivers of the physcial body. The 4 senses you've called mind, intellect, conscience, observing self are nothing but psychae. Psychae is the subtle body. The 4 senses you've mentioned are the bits and pieces of the psychae only.

*Brain is the part of the physical body, where as mind is the psyche of the subtle body

*Brain is the seat of biochemical soup, where as mind is the perception that interprets/translates the biochemical soup or vice versa.

*Hence based on the psychae - the mind, the brain prepares biochemical soup of neurotansmitters. What kind of neurotransmitters to be oozed out directly related to what kind of mind - the psychae I've been nurturing

In my opinion truth is always relative in the context of time . Even the scientific theories are also mere statistical approximation of truth and subject to change over time. so, there is no absolute truth.

An absolute, objective truth does exist but we have to transcend our bodies and minds to discover it

Truth exists. but objective truth does not exist and it's only illusion. Recognition of objectivity itself is distortion to existing Truth.

"All true but not true and the only"

That is a philosophy of mathematics question. Try Frege first.

Truth exists as singularly. Your existance is truth. All your observations are parts and projections of you only. Your observations depends on you, may not be truth. Your physical body, subtle body and rest of universe are transient depending on same eternal truth which is present in you

If one denies its existence one is claiming to have an unwarranted certainty, which is akin to the mistake of affirming a universal negative: e.g. "I am absolutely certain there is no absolute truth." If one affirms its existence then one can only do so by some sort of faith or a claim to perceiving something that is axiomatic. There is no way to prove its existence.

Roy Bhaskar’s version of Critical Realism states that there is a complex and stratified world with multiple perspectives through which it can be seen. There are many lenses through which one may look at the world, and each lens sees something that is undeniably real. These lenses are coherent, but the totality of the real is not fully comprehended by any one of them (Bhaskar, 1986, p. 92). Elsewhere he uses the term “ontological depth” to describe this stratification (Bhaskar, 1998, p. 16). If the world is this complex then it is no surprise that certainty would be elusive even were there good warrant to believe in its existence. To be able to prove absolute truth would require a "God's eye view" of reality that this complex world does not afford us.

I feel that in this question (and the ensuing discussion) there is some confusion between truth and knowledge. This confusion, I believe, pervades philosophy of truth generally. A lot of people equate truth with what can 'sensibly be said' or 'truly be said' of something; arguably they confuse actual truth with what is believed to be true, which are two very different things. I'll try to clarify this below.

Note first that those who deny that there is ‘absolute’ truth, usually do so on the basis of the fallibility of knowledge, i.e. on the basis of the thesis that we can never know for certain whether some proposition or other is true or not (there are those who deny it because they think there is no objective reality, but I will arbitrarily focus the issue by ignoring that possibility here). And by denying ‘absolute’ truth, they rarely want to deny truth. However, whether something is true or not does not obviously depend on us knowing whether it actually is true; at least if we do assume that truth is correspondence of a proposition to fact (where proposition ≈ content of beliefs, and fact ≈ some existent feature of reality). Propositions can correspond to reality whether we know it or not. Correspondence is not an epistemological notion—it does not give us knowledge—it is a relation that holds between belief and fact, and the epistemological problem revolves around the question of how we can know when the relation obtains (if at all). In fact one can argue that the source to the problem of knowledge is the fact that the obtaining of a correspondence relation is more difficult to ascertain than are the states of physical systems, because we can measure the system, but not its relation to a belief.

I would admit that truth comes in degrees, but not in degrees of epistemic certainty. A proposition may correspond more or less to the facts, but this it can do whether or not we know the actual degree of correspondence. Certainty only comes into the picture when we want to judge whether a proposition is true, or, really, when we want to justify the judgement that it is true. It is the principled fallibility of such justification that is supposed to show us that we can never know with absolute certainty whether a proposition P is true or not. But that principled fallibility does not prevent P from actually being perfectly true (or whatever degree of correspondence that it happens to have); it only prevents us from knowing whether P is true.

The matter becomes more complicated when we consider two fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics: the observer effect and the uncertainty principle. The measurement effect refers to the fact that we cannot measure the properties of a certain systems without affecting the systems; hence they outcome of the measurement does not correspond perfectly to the state of the systems as they were before we observed them (or of how they are independently of our measurements). Some argue that this shows that there is no objective reality independently of our observations (or of minds even), or even that we make reality. But this argument is invalid if based only on the measurement effect. It does not show that there is no objective reality independently of observations, or that we somehow ‘make reality’. It just means that our knowledge about these systems is biased by the way we make measurements, because measurements involve influence on the system in question. Sometimes we can correct such bias, but often we cannot, in particular with quantum systems. Again this concern does not address the mind-independence of truth or the world, only the certainty or mind-dependence of knowledge.

The uncertainty principle is another matter, because (on one interpretation anyway) it literally says that the states of physical systems are uncertain up until we make a measurement of them. So, this basically says that the world does not always have a determinate nature. Now, again we should ask, how does this affect truth? Well, if the uncertainty principle is true and quantum mechanics is true (or nearly true) then we can describe the state of a particular system as being in state of uncertainty using Schroedingers equation, and that description will correspond to reality up until we make a measurement, whereby we get a certain value, and that value may be biased in accordance to the measurement effect. However, we cannot with absolute certainty justify our belief in the truth of such claims, but, again, that epistemic uncertainty has nothing to do with whether the claim in actual fact is true or not. If this reasoning is right, then the lack of certainty has nothing whatsoever to do with truth, but only to do with knowledge.

Basically, truth comes in degrees of correspondence, while knowledge comes in degrees of certainty, where absolute certainty is unattainable. However, the principled fallacy of knowledge does not entail anything about the uncertainty of truth.

Whatever that exists and seemingly exists in realm of time and space is RELATIVE. Absolute Truth is philosophy - even Einstein tried to understand that by theory, experiment and philosophy. Gita explains ABSOLUTE TRUTH (Tat Sat) as Om i.e., state of changeless ETERAL BLISS. Einstein too try to study it with reason as reflected from his quotes. Ancient wisdom suggests, that whoever undestands this 'universal knowldge/Brahman-gian' becomes 'Absolute Truth' and has no questions left to know.

In response to Rakesh’s answer, I think it would be useful to distinguish between the thesis that spatiotemporal reality is RELATIONAL and the thesis that everything is RELATIVE. To say that the spatiotemporal world is relational is not to say that everything is relative. Everything can stand in relations to everything else and yet it does not follow that everything is one way from one perspective and another way from another perspective. Imagine everything being ordered in relations of earlier than/later than to each other. That order will not appear one way from one perspective and some other way from other perspectives; if anything in such an order is earlier than something else, it is earlier than that something else from any point of view.

In relativistic spacetime, although everything stands in relations then everything is not relative. Some things are relative, i.e. different in various frames of reference, such as simultaneity, length of temporal intervals and the order of causally unconnected events. Other things are not relative, e.g. the inertial mass of particles and the fact that red blood cells transport oxygen. It simply is not the case that the theory of relativity says that everything is relative. In fact, Einstein preferred his theory to be called the ‘theory of invariance’ because it was based on assumptions about a number of invariant features, such as the fact that the speed of light and the laws of physics are invariant between frames of reference, and so is the ORDER of causally connected events (as opposed to the DURATION of the interval between them).

As for Gita’s views of Absolute Truth, in so far as I have been able to make sense of them, they agree with what I have written in my previous answer. Well, let me be perfectly honest, unambiguous interpretation of Gita’s view is difficult. Instead, let me say that I see a way of making sense of Gita’s views that agrees with what I have said above. I also think that this way of thinking of the issue at hand may be interesting in its own right even if it turns out to be a complete distortion of what Gita actually meant to say.

So, on this interpretation, Absolute Truth is not one extreme of the continuum between uncertainty and certainty, but instead of the continuum between knowing nothing and knowing everything. The state of changeless eternal bliss of which Gita spoke, is the state that the supreme infinite spirit (close to Hegel’s ‘world spirit’) acquires when it reaches a state of total self-awareness. Such an awareness is equivalent to the knowledge of everything, because total self-awareness requires an understanding of the self’s place in the universe and thus an understanding of the universe. The bliss of which Gita spoke is really the satisfaction felt ‘at the end of all inquiry’, i.e. when the spirit knows everything and no longer craves for answers or enlightenment.

There is a twist to the story, however, which better explains why Absolute Truth, in Gita’s sense, is not about certainty, i.e. it is not about the certainty with which the spirit knows that it knows everything (i.e. that it knows that it has true beliefs about itself and the universe). It is not about certainty, because the knowledge of which Gita speaks is self-knowledge and therefore the question of how the spirit knows that it knows everything doesn’t really apply in this scheme of things. We can say that knowledge, on this view, is a kind of knowledge by direct acquaintance as opposed to knowing that one’s own beliefs correspond to a reality distinct from those beliefs. Even the spirit’s knowledge about the universe is self-knowledge, because the spirit realises that it is one with the world; the world and all its various facets are really moments in the spirits own mind. The spirit realises that what it perceived as distinct material things are really its own mental states misperceived as ‘other’. So, in a way, in Gita as well as in more recent European Idealism, Absolute Truth and Absolute Reality coincide and the distance between truth and fact disappears. Basically, truth on this view is not correspondence of belief to fact, but identity of belief and fact, and knowledge is the awareness of that identity brought about by the realisation of how everything fits together in a coherent whole.

It is difficult to know what lessons we can draw from all of this, because it is difficult to accept this ‘ancient wisdom’ about truth without also accepting the thesis that everything is spirit.

Rognvaldur Ingthorsson

"It is difficult to know what lessons we can draw from all of this, because it is difficult to accept this ‘ancient wisdom’ about truth without also accepting the thesis that everything is spirit".

I think you have done well to explain absolute truth as you find in Gita in terms of science...

You may get to know Gita better -at least so far as 'absolute truth' is concerned- if you can read it

1.By discarding commentaries/explanations of Indian/ Foreign authors on Gita.

2.By ignoring all the western/eastern 'ism's

3.By word to word translations(Sanskrit to your mother tongue) only.

4.By examining,questioning and comparing dispassionately your own set of values you invariably adhere to...and goals with what Gita indicates.

with best wishes

No.Nothing is absolute.Truth is, I believe, in one way statistical approximation.I have a similar kind of inquiry,that is,what is the truth of science (see what our scientists have said in RG).We measure everything basically in the context of time and space.I do not know may be I am wrong and ready to accept any views if based on objective analysis.

Very good suggestion.

Ahed Alkhatib

"On the other hand, i would like to go through another direction in discussion, what about the facts produced by science in mathematics, engineering, physics, medicine,...etc. How can we recognize these issues in the context of the present discussion"

The tendency or scientific belief that the generally accepted level of objectivity alone would lead us to higher sciences that may be ideal for research into the realms of higher laws of nature is as much debatable as the popular belief that morality alone could be at the core of religions rather than being one of the indispensable components that collectively provide more meaningful explanation of foundation and goal of religions.

Further,the fact that humans are interdependent theoretically or otherwise implies that any theoretical/practical discoveries or inventions of humans too have to be necessarily relative. Consequently, any attempt to conceptualize absolute truth or absoluteness of truth-whether it exists or not- will remain relative only.

We need a special platform from where we can circumvent the difficulty of relativity

The spark or the first step perhaps lies in our openness in accepting the ground reality that philosophy,mathematics,physics, etc., are various strands of the same material that we love to recognize and realize as truth viewed from different perspectives and, proceeding to find a superior base or methodology that is capable of harmonizing those seemingly conflicting partial or relative truths.

Yes.We are too far away from 'absolute truth'...

Quantum Mechanics is not the correct way to look at the answer to this question. After all QM would have use all not be here but at the same time be here and then be gone. The uncanny stability of our Galaxy and hence our Universe has created the ability for us to exist. In my estimation science this to be much more stable then random chance. From total chaos comes total ordered systems other wise we would not be here.

"But with scientific methodologies, can we claim that perception of objective reality is indeed possible?"

A scientific theory/model when it is empirically tested do not describe reality but describes relations between measurable. It does not describe reality but an aspect of reality as seen from a specific point of view given by these measurables. If you analyse the same reality with other measurables, you will obtain other relations between these and this will constitute another model describing another aspect of that reality.

Is Quantum Mechanics a re-formulation of Berkeley's subjective idealism?

I think observation does not affect reality. It affects our knowledge of reality. 'Blue' is different from 'sensation of blue'. (Gilbert Ryle)

Secondly, truth is objective, mere knowledge of truth is partially subjective.

Louis,

Yes that is not what I am saying. We must perceive. The thing we have to do with our perception is understand that sometimes it is wrong.

Yes theories are described by math yet as Kurt Godel pointed out in the 1930's this is not complete. It is only an approximation of that we think is true. We must constantly be aware that we are not always on the correct path.

George,

Perceptions are appearances and appearances are neither true nor false, there are what they are. The question of truth ariaes with our interpretation of our perceptions. An interpretation posits a model of reality. As I said before, even if this model is validated experimentally with very high accuracy we have to realise the truthness, this experimental validation does not mean that the model is like reality in absolute sense. It just mean that it is like reality as seen from the point of view of the model.

The position of the planets as seen in the night sky is provided within a certain accuracy by the ptolemy's model. That model had been empirically validated with instruments of observation of that accuracy and the relations of the planet positions that are provided by this model are still valid. All our current models of physics that are validated experiementally provide true existing relations between measurables as ptolemy's model provides. They are more general, they subsume Ptolemy's model and embraced a much wider range of phenomena. But they are models and so do not represent reality but aspects of reality from specific point of view.

Science is a language that evolved to send unambigious message about aspects of reality that can be tested among humans. Do you think that one day, science will be so evolve that we will be able to send a message about reality that is like reality?

Louis Brassard

Quite so. True, we cannot deny that the ‘idea’ of absoluteness of truth is a contradiction as any truth can only be relative. However, beyond the troubles of objectivity and subjectivity, we know intuitively (intellectually too it can be argued) that the apparent limitation of understanding is mainly due to objectivation…an apparent limitation or more precisely, perceptual concretization of what we are inherently conscious as existent…

Many in fact understand the normal processes of cognition differently but do not admit it explicitly for obvious reasons. Yes. As someone in the other thread had remarked, we are too entangled and therefore reluctant to accept the fact that we are more involved with ‘how’ than ‘why’. We, the majority of us, have learnt to live comfortably with what we are fed to believe through well established systems of modern teaching. Very few of us get to experience/experiment the theories of modern science or philosophy independently…as a result, we tend to miss the significance of narrow definitions, delicate assumptions and approximations or degree of subjectivity that line the theories, especially the ones that stem from narrow ontological and epistemological perspectives. Majority of us as a consequence, are prepared to wait till science confirms it in its own way…rather than seeking out on our own. We tend to rely heavily on the observations of a select few who had courageously ventured to investigate the mysteries of human existence and consciousness, rather than testing our own limits in search of truth... Of course, in terms of changing practicality and diversity in human nature, there is nothing wrong with the modern ways of research and learning so long as we do not arrogate or degrade ourselves into believing that there can be no other way…

The first step to glimpse beyond the networks of constructs or concepts and beliefs that represent different perspectives is to look for any significant idea or concept regarding ‘absolute truth’ (it does not matter if it cannot be considered as absolute)that emanates as an outcome of EXPERIENCE alone…that is, an idea that can withstand the incisiveness of logic and obtrusiveness of gross subjectivity, an integral idea ,concretized but explainable rationally, a functional idea that can deal effectively with systematically polarized objectivity and subjectivity when put into practice.

(what defines a subjective or objective experience is a case in point…definitely)

The catch (to start with):

How many of the brilliant among us, who vouch for the objectivity of either science or religion and dismiss everything else as subjective, are ready to leave the ‘talking or noise’ and anything they are attached to, and take a ‘scientific plunge’ head long into well established practices just to verify or disprove (once for all for the welfare of seemingly gullible majority of people) the objectivity/subjectivity of the initial inner experience that spontaneously occurs during the practices of meditative processes (ancient) that may lead to what one seeks to realize-the ultimate truth as it is?

Very few indeed.

Louis,

I think that your comments show how careful you are to try and find the truth, "What ever that really is" and I understand your line of thought. The thing to remember is that truth and science do not always come to the same conclusions. The search for reality sometimes overlooks the truth and this is where we loose track of the goals of science.

My best example of this is the Big Bang theory. Where else but science would you have a theory that uses the breakdown of General Relativity to postulate that all things were in one place at one time and that there was a force or entity that made it blow apart. This would have to have been a force larger by a factor of some million billion billion billion to have made this singularity come apart and it was proposed by a PhD in Physics that was also a priest. His motivation was to prove there was a beginning. As soon as Albert Einstein was convinced of the beauty of the theory others jumped on board with both feet and now even with all its problems it is the overwhelmingly excepted theory of the universe.

We still mix science and religion and call it good. The truth has nothing to do with some of our theories. Mostly it has to do with what we learned in school to be true. This is where Philosophy should be jumping up and down and telling us how come we have not gone back and looked at the order of the information that we have regarding this issue. If we would the model would not even be close to what we think today.

All I am saying is there is more to consider that what we think we know. To get back to the original question does certainty and absolute truth exist. Yes but it is not in only believing it is in understanding that we come to the truth.

George,

Bing Bang is not a theory of creation of the Universe. It is a theory of the expansion of the universe from a dense state 13.7 billion years ago. What is there before 13.7 billion years we do not know because all the equations break down at higher density.

I also think that the biggest problems we have to imagine the universe is related to our education which is mostly based on the science of more than 100 years old. Most people thinks that the universe is a big laplacian machine. This conception of physics is obsolete since almost 100 years. Most people thinks that a scientific model is a representation of reality and that science is gradually unveiling all aspects of the big machinery of reality. Most peoples think that they are biological machines and are woundering how free will is possible. Science is not able to represent an electron, nor a living cell, nor any living organisms. This is not a question of advancement of science.

There is no quantum machinery. There is an irreductible creativity in the quantum. The quantum cannot be described objectively. There is no quantum objective world. The quantum world is participatory. Ask a question and you will get an answer but this answer cannot be separated from the question, it did not exist before the question.

Perception is relative to the person. In science there are some universal negations whether they be from Physics, or the foundations of Mathematics.

Perception may be relative to a person,but what constitutes the basic perception of the person is fundamental to any universal negations,be it from physics or philosophy or religion..Science,as a great tool of intelligence(of humans), does a good work of clearing the cob-webs and then stops.It is the little known 'person' within who does and has all the options to see what is ahead and move forward or stop comfortably where he likes to.

Therefore the baby steps of intellectual search for any meaningful concept(if at all possible) regarding one that may not be within the realms of conceptualization truly begins only from within when one searches for it where one ought to.

Louis,

I like the way you think. I think you are correct that there is no good definition for the Quanta. This is in some ways due to how we look at the Quanta.

The reason the theory of Relativity breaks down is that it is not the correct theory. Even Albert Einstein said that rules and laws of Physics are not rules and laws if they only apply sometimes. This does not mean that it is not a good measure of what is going on with Gravity that is real apparent that is is a great approximation to gravity.

The Big Bang theory was proposed as we started to evaluate what the red shift of the light coming to us from other Galaxies was really telling us. This was the opportunity of George Lamaitre to propose the expatiation and the big bang theory as we know it today. This was clearly not science but no one questioned it as it fit Albert Einsteins theory and was excepted by AE himself. It used good math but not good logic.

I idea that the universe looks so stable and that we are even hear lets us know that there is more out there than meets the eye. There is a definite order to the universe that we have not been able to explain with the science that we are using today. This does not mean it is wrong but it means that we must know that it is correct before we move on.

Black holes are one of the keys that I think will be able to lead us to better understanding of the science and the fact that almost every Galaxy that we have seem has one at the center should lead us to different conclusions that what we have to date.

If we were to not know anything say we were from a galaxy that is outside our cosmic horizon and looking at the set up of what we see today from earth and then put all the data on the table, What would we say to the people of earth about how they have interpreted the data that there is? I think this is the question that we should be asking.

Are we looking at all the data or are we piecing it together using old theories that have not been shown to be correct and then fixing the information to match what we would like the answer to be or are we really headed in the correct direction?

All of what I know and understand points to a higher order in the universe.

George,

The fact that above a certain energy density, gravity cannot be negleted compare to the 3 other quantum forces make theorizing impossible since the current theory of gravity (general relativity) is not compatible with quantum theory. This incompatibility does not matter at low energy density. But for understanding early phases of Bing Bang and for understanding black hole it does matter. These theory have limits and are scientific and useful when used within their limits. There are some theoretical physicists which are working on building more advance theories but presently all these constructions are incomplete.

Louis,

I do understand that. I have been working on a model that would change that. There is still lots of work for me and I have been modifying my model as I get better understanding of the overall problems with the old theories. It may be quite some time until I publish my theory. Thanks for the incite.

Over 5000 years ago, Krishna has published a treatise on Absolute Truth/Param Satya, chaging relative creation or universe, action and reaction (duty-karma and self-management) and comparison of methodologies to realize Absolute Truth. A detailed scientific study of this document called Bhagwad Gita has yet to be undertaken. In crux, this thesis advocates that we man has to acquire a specialized vision/power ('divya drishti') beyond relativistic existence (par-Brahm) to understand Absolute Truth.

Ofcourse the absolute reality or truth exists as relativeness will always be in respect of something absolute.

If ‘objective’ or ‘absolute’ truth does exist, a truth that is completely independent of being subjectively produced/perceived, then what would it mean to us? Wouldn’t it lose its character of objectivity the very moment we would perceive it?

@ jonte: wwhen we'll get the absolute truth we will be able to see everything in a real objective way rather than pseudo "objective".

Dear Pritish, how do we "get" absolute truth? Through which senses, intuitions or whatever could we perceive truth without changing it?

Jonte,

Truth can't be realized through seeking because mind deceives us by perpetuating this seeking, But truth can be realized through direct seeing.For an example when we try to attain a permanent happiness, It wouldn't last without unhappiness, Once we directly see this, Truth is realized ,that is, Permanent happiness is not attainable.

RAJ

Yes, Raj, I agree. But in my opinion you are writing about relative truth that merely applies to the human world. It is so to speak intra-contextual truth. Concepts like happiness/unhappiness are 'human-world words'. They represent the strategy of our mind to search for dualities. It does not bring us closer to an 'absolute', inter-contextual truth. One could state that the notion "permanent happiness is not attainable because happiness relies on occasional unhappiness" could be seen as a representation of an absolute truth like "all things are dependent on and presuppose their opposite". However, I think all seeing is subjective and intertwined with interpretation, and still my question is: how can we PERCEIVE a theoretically existing objective truth without destroying it by seeing it?

Maybe we can just BE absolute truth, but not perceive it with our rational consciousness. maybe its our 'ego', our bunch of identities, which make seeing absolute truth impossible. the 'science-minded' state of consciousness splits everything up, creating duality. maybe 'absolute truth' can not be combined with duality. everything that is not the absolute truth is just a modification of the absolute truth. Maybe absolute truth can just be experienced by the subject but not conceptualized by science. because LANGUAGE is a closed space within its own boundaries, closed in its own context, the definition of every single word is just more words. so maybe there's nothing to talk about :)

I think it was Boethius of 1400's that professed that the path taken by criminals affords them less latitude in their choices of life path. As light itself has absolute polarity, it might be inferred that nature itself makes choices towards the greatest open spaces, give the longest lifetime...nature might be defined this way as a "method of operation" ....works in a concert all levels as structure and life is evolved. One cannot see a method of operation and doesnt have to worry about destroying it unless he does what is worst for himself..opposes nature, instead of following the open. It is certainty within the environment that brings happiness ..no environment is absolutely open or closed, can offer more (experienced as unhappiness) or less (as more happiness) resistance towards pursuit of the open, can be very deceptive as facts of history tell us..Neitzsche writes about the reversal of good and evil in behavior over the course of history...absolutes can change ...I think absolutes embodied to explanation surrounding matter and energy are 100% disappointing, verses that surrounding structure or form.... the propagation of form, where accomplishment does not reflect in measurements, comes from the mere existence of matter and energy, a balance that exists in an absolutely different perspective from that of action and reaction, is hardly accounted for or understood in relation to the energy of maintenance of structure that consumes modern thought and society. I think it is within the distinction of these that the (natural) search for absolutes as guides requires further reflection.

I think that the concept of Certainty and Absolute Truth is very interesting.

Scenario 1: Objects in the limits of Newtonian Physics.

If one looks at the Physical world in which one lives, we see that there is a level of certainty on looking at day to day events from a Newtonian viewpoint of physics. Thus things looks very certain. The Apple always falls on one's head..

But this is a simplified form of Theory of Relativity and Quatam Mechanics as it relates to the magnitude of dimension of masses at the level of Earth objects. Thus certainty exists to the physical duplication of physical motion at this level.

Scenario 2: Objects smaller than atomic sizes.

Now the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes into effect at the Quantam Mechanical level of objects especially below the size of atomic particles- eg, in the case of sub atomic particles - the observer starts to become an integral part of the observed and can influence the physical behaviour of the object... The observation of these kind of objects can lead to less certainty compared to the certainty observed in Scenario 1

Scenario 3: Objects larger Normal Sizes : (Heavenly Bodies)

In this we find that the SpaceTime behaviour that is normaly found in Scenario 1 is distorted due to the huge size of the objects and then we find that Time and Space are again distorting in relation to Scenario 1.

Thus we see that Certainty at the Physical Universe can only exist in narrow frame of Scenario 1 (if observed from a region of what we call Normal Awareness) . Needless to say, that when factors in Scenario 2 / Senario 3 influence Scenario 1, then it can influence the behaviour of objects that existed as in Scenario 1 and we can, perhaps, see that the factors that were a certainty in Scenario 1 no longer retain their certainty.

Eg, A nuclear reactor producing electricty (Scenario 2), phenomenons of mind over matter (Scenario 2), Reduction of time relative to observer and observed as in case of jet travel around the earth (Scenario 1) etc.

So the question of Certainty then also influenced from the Vantage point of where one is doing the observation from.

A certainty has to be something that holds its Space-Time co-ordinates to be a constant - a form of static. But truly examining the nature of the physical universe we see that it has dynamism inherent in it and no true static present as an integral part in it. So theoratically speaking, there can be no certainty in the physical universe, except the kinds explained above.

This leads to the fact that the only constant certain entity that exist in this observation is the observer, who is the true static in comparison to all that exist, as it is from the observer's viewpoint that we see the dynamism that exist in the physical universe and observe it.. (By a constant certain entity i mean the conciousness of the observer.)

Thus the Certainty that exist can only be of the "observer's Awareness " - an Absolue Certainty,and the certainties as in the scenarios.

Since, it is now generally realised that "object-subject distinction is a figment of imagination", I am with Louis, ·"But with scientific methodologies, can we claim that perception of objective reality is indeed possible?". I don't know why people can't understand that philosophers and scientists ae both unanimous that mind and science have their limits and can't understand the absolute reality forgone a limited portion of it completely. Of course, absolute truth is there and whatever we understand of it through observations and experimentation is not truth itself but our knowledge through the process of reduction which can generate knowledge (not truth) of objects, but knowledge even of a system It is why, the application of mathematical models often fail to explain human body system. If one find skelton fossil of some person died centuries ago, one can approximately tell when that person was alive, its sex sometimes, but how did his mind worked, what the person liked and disliked, what the person fond of eating as well as what that person feared most, what was its philosophy of life and death etc.. Anthropologically and and archeologically whatever is told is pure speculation based on our conjecture of history, climatic conditions of that time and circumstances in which the skeleton was found.

Thus, whatever we claim to have knowledge of the truth is mere our knowledge, if models based on this knowledge (obtained through reduction and implemented with abstraction) work, we think we know the reality.

I think the work of Ernst von Glasersfeld is very interesting. He imported the concept of 'viability' from biology into epistemology. For example Einstein's theory of gravity is more viable than Newton's theory, since it covers more contexts of reality. However, still Einstein's theory is incapable of describing absolute truth. Von Glasersfeld states that we can only know what reality is NOT, meaning that reality only 'shows up' when it turns out to be contradictory with our prior assumptions.

I believe in certain existence of absolute truth but then I can't surpass facts that elude us to reach it like sense perception and inferential logic.. Owing to our limited senses we are often mislead and liable to make mistakes.. We are all subjected to illusions which make quest for certainty a formidable impasse...

Larry...I agree that reality cannot be captured to a frame in the sense that it will draw a model of what we perceive with the senses. If we do succeed at a stationery frame such as a cryptically hidden form or shape it will be impossible to envision it in motion..it will entail past to present, concurrent relationships of engagements in space, bear history, whose exact details can be said to be unknowable . The modeling you suggest and claim impossible are impossible because they in their seeking suggest predictability of the kind "to capture" ...it is perhaps your wording that is confusing...from Heisenberg to all else uncertainty in this perspective or plane of thought is absolute or there is no nature. What is troubling in modern times is a "boxing of the tree" that confines it, ironically it is not the confining that reeduces chaos, gives certainty, but an unboxing that would broaden views and understanding that are absolutely important in relation to science theory that is for the purpose of manipulation.

Real truth exists in time

It's all possible as much as it is impossible. For a question such as this, the answer is in the question itself. Every answer is correct.

A blanket claim on objective reality as otherwise than objective may be distorted or carry a biased view. Conversely, a claim on a distorted or biased view of reality necessarily exercises or in itself also presumes an objective reality claim.

Absolute reality is unknowable.

“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”

― Werner Heisenberg

Larry, I appreciate your extensive argument and have studied and covered them all before many times over, daily; however, nonetheless I find all simply fail to demonstrate your underlying premise that reality would ever be independent of our senses (where in your 'unknowable' reality would you draw that line?). Our senses along with our reasoning ability that we are demonstrating here to distinguish subjective from objective truth or reality from illusion are not separate from that reality, they are a part of that reality, necessarily subjective while through reason simultaneously necessarily an authority.

Also, in addressing this post's question, even if your stance/your meaning, my stance/my meaning, or any stance or meaning were to be demonstrated as true (or 'known' to be true) or as the reality (or 'known' to be the reality), that then would have to be considered the certain "absolute truth." In other words, it will always be an absolute truth to say, there is no absolute truth, or to say, the reality is there is no reality, or contradiction is the absolute truth. This same line of thought applies to knowledge of or knowing reality as well.

Lastly, with regards to Plato's forms, there's always a subtle equivocation (in this case, tautological fallacy of composition, or whole is sum of the parts) between these Forms (abstract knowledge, abstracted from our senses -- whatever those may be; essentially derived from our reasoning capabilities, or at least Plato's reasoning capabilities) and their indices (concrete, tangible knowledge, our reality-based 'physical' senses) that however fallaciously nonetheless dismisses the existence of Plato's forms, or this reasoning, if not wisdom, altogether.

Each of us only access our personal subjective reality. But we are inculturated and this give us an indirect access to a vast universe. This inculturation had to proceed by the mean of several type of languages which are built on a set of conventions which allows to render some aspects of our subjective experience unambiguous for communation purposes (like learning to count, etc) and thus created an inter-subjective world that we call objective reality. The objective world is conventional communation world which is a subset of our subjective world render possible by our inculturation. It only existed as a phenomena of communication among conscious intelligent agents. Science is a subset of this objective world, the part that is unambiguous and empirically verified. Mathematics is the language invented to avoid ambiguity and so it is closed to reality and is self-contained. As Poincarre was saying along a Kantian and positivist spirit, the scientific construction has a conventional aspect but at the same time it is not an arbitrary construction because of the empirical constraint. The noumenal in itself cannot be known but it does not mean that knowing the phenomenal does not provide us a partial and valuable viewpoint on the noumenal. That scientific knowledge is never a description of reality in itself does not imply that it is not partial description of reality from a specific viewpoint. When I look at the deer, my visual perception of the deer does not include all the physiological knowledge of the deer but it provides an enormous amount of information on the deer. It is not completed and it is partial but it is a true partial information. For the purpose of the hunter, it is more information that is needed. To know everything about the deer would amount to know everything about the universe and even if this was possible , which it is'nt, that would be useless for hunting the deer. The perception of the deer is, although partial, true . The perceptual world never lye, only the inferences in the world of language we sometime make from it can be true or false.

Cj...We then have two dilemmas with subsequent logical implications.

1) Is reality knowable?

2) is there an absolute truth?

If we say reality is unknowable we have to stop there..it implies that knowledge is impossible...we can even say that knowing that reality is unknowable is knowing something, but we have no way to test our knowledge..knowledge must have some empirical foundation...the argument is exactly circular.

If we say there is no absolute truth then there is nothing to know; any truth must have its foundation in other truth..without an ultimate truth from which the rest is founded we have no truth to find. When we look at nature we observe 'contingency' in all corners....it is our best bet for an absolute truth. From contingency we can ask about about the nature of oneness, is oneness with grasp of the senses ...is reality within grasp of the senses...does reality have a possible logical association with oneness?

If reality is thought to be beyond the senses all description of it is reduced to the status of invention...it is best to procede to test the imagination with assumption that reality is knowable.... if "universe", "forest and trees" are the only words the senses have to apply to question, we can answer that the breadth of the mind, universe is captured to the mind, mind to the universe, from within which there is only view of trees, i.e. universe = forest + trees that consumes all of the processes of mind. If oneness = forest (=universe), trees excusively constitute what is knowable to the senses, we can say that "universe" is not knowable to the senses, it is a cognitive/lingual construct and we have to infer that forest + trees constitutes the first perspective of any agent "man,dog, plant, rock, etc..other we again base what is construed to be real upon invention. It is also necessary (and where science method exceeds logic) to infer that "senses" themselves operate by the same principle of "forest and trees".

So have a choice of two paths to pursue...unknowable reality that entails invention by the intellect only, or a knowable reality = knowable trees within a forest of knowable trees, ad infinitum for each tree .....from the assumption of a world composed exclusively of knowable trees we have oneness, other we have invention. ...e.g. the world is contingent either on oneness or invention...some physicists are recently proposing that the universe is a computer simulation..e.g invented...a contrivance of forgers as it is not perceived clearly by them the difference between cause and effect in studies that are the produce of their own impulse that produces interpretation that is also contingent on the same..a wet paper bag that is impervious to escape.

I think the problem in whole is divideable to form ( a little like the greek forms), but form that can assume dimension ...hence witnessibility that is conditional..sometimes unknowable some times not, but yet still a world of 3D surfaces with a principle to their construction that is knowable/understandable to the mind from the senses, without invention....once invention is introduced it consumes..is also the more laborous route if there is an alternative..and I think there is ..but our wet paper bags become simultaneously vulnerabile to group impulse guided by invention.

Marvin, very eloquently expressed. I would have to differ in one area although, that being, my senses observe a self-similar connection or continuum between the 'forest' or universe and its trees, just as a tree itself reflects a self-similar structure (due to what I call the Law of Symmetry, or less directly Noether's Theorem), i.e., a symmetrical (two parabolos), somewhat cylindrical (from which all conic sections may be derived) trunk which splits CONTINUOUSLY into usually if not always two branches (binary), ad infinitum or infinitesimally to the limit of Planck length, and that these self-similar forms apply not just to the proverbial 'trees' but to all entities within the universe, including the eye or our senses and the brain (hopefully), ultimately a self-reflecting hyperbolic or in 3D cone (or egg!) shape. The key presently unknown is to determine at what point or rate do these splits or taperings occur and why at that rate. For the former, I propose at the rate of the golden ratio perhaps, or phi, which I am in the process of researching/proving and for the latter in the process of finalizing publication expected next year.

Apropos seeing the forest for the trees, I wanted also to add this, for me, mindblowing video about how one tree can determine the size of the entire stand: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/hunting-hidden-dimension.html. Also, notice what I notice, the overall hyperbolic or egg shape of the Mandelbrot set?