What I believe.....

[Gordian Knot]

Wil said "Yes everything is both true or false, depending on perspective"

Actually Radar said everything was both true and false. Unless I misunderstood him. Biiiiiiig difference. The first is a traditional binary question. A concept is either 1 or 0. What Radar is saying is more of the quantum physic version where anything can be 1 or 0 or both at the same time (again if I am understanding him).

I find it quite an intriguing idea actually. Lots to think about. Which is like I enjoy it here!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Tea, I think where I run into an issue is your concept that it is all or nothing. You can't be expected to know it all at 30, so you choose no consistent point of view at all on anything. Those are the extremes. There is plenty of room in the middle. (See the last paragraph for more on this).

Secondly I have an issue with this statement "if there isn't a point of view that is in any way superior or more correct then any other then why pick one?" In the real world there are most certainly points of view that are not only inferior, they are bad.

One example. There is a dipsh*t so called reverend who uses Christianity to preach hatred of all things non-christian. He goes so far as to burn piles of the Koran. Which results in rage in the Middle East which results in innocent people being murdered as pay back.

I can perceive of no way this pov can be considered good or even neutral. This pov is bad. It is evil.

Absolutely agree with you that growth is good and to be encouraged. A neutral point of view is not the only path to growth. For me, a flexible point of view works best. I may have a pov on something which I will choose after perceiving as best as I can what the reality is. If someone comes along with a different perspective that causes me to see my opinion in a different light, I am willing to change my pov. Points of view are only bad when they are locked in such a rigid structure so iron clad that no other opinions can even be considered.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Tea, I think where I run into an issue is your concept that it is all or nothing. You can't be expected to know it all at 30, so you choose no consistent point of view at all on anything. Those are the extremes. There is plenty of room in the middle. (See the last paragraph for more on this).

Well that's understandable, but even though my examples might seem extreme I don't know if the path is, it might be. I'm not saying people shouldn't have points of views, I'm saying that I don't have one. I'm not saying that I don't know enough to have a point of view, I don't think I know anything. I isn't so much a choice as it might appears. Going back to when I said I picked my opinions apart, it isn't that I don't want to have an opinion, I'm trying it out and so far they all appear illusionary to me. If find myself with a unquestionable opinion that will anchor my pov to something it will be as dear to me as the fact that I usually pick my opinions apart.

So again, I don't choose not to have a "consistent point of view at all on anything", I simply haven't found one yet.

Secondly I have an issue with this statement "if there isn't a point of view that is in any way superior or more correct then any other then why pick one?" In the real world there are most certainly points of view that are not only inferior, they are bad.

One example. There is a dipsh*t so called reverend who uses Christianity to preach hatred of all things non-christian. He goes so far as to burn piles of the Koran. Which results in rage in the Middle East which results in innocent people being murdered as pay back.

I can perceive of no way this pov can be considered good or even neutral. This pov is bad. It is evil.

Hmm, well, I was mostly referring to the non-evil ones. How to relate to the bad ones are a topic on its own I think. And all the nuances between points of views will drown this topic so lets stick to a simple and concrete example: Is there a dive power. For simplicities sake lets make this a yes or no question, ok? It's impossible for me to answer that question. Can I prove that there is or isn't? no. So I assume nothing.

Absolutely agree with you that growth is good and to be encouraged. A neutral point of view is not the only path to growth. For me, a flexible point of view works best. I may have a pov on something which I will choose after perceiving as best as I can what the reality is. If someone comes along with a different perspective that causes me to see my opinion in a different light, I am willing to change my pov. Points of view are only bad when they are locked in such a rigid structure so iron clad that no other opinions can even be considered.

I don't know how to answer this. I don't think that what I do is very different from what you or anyone else do, I'm just more or less of something. I'm somewhere else on a scale that we are all on.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Also, I don't think that there needs to be a difference between what wil and radar said. X can be true from pov (A) and it could be false from pov (B).

X is true according to A OR false according to B.

X is true according to A AND false according to B.

Simply a language thing. Still, radar OR/AND wil might suggest some other pov as far as I know. I don't know anything you know.

 

[radarmark]

"Yes everything is both true or false, depending on perspective" is true if and only if there is and implied and/or. Why is this a disconcerting pov, GK? I seem to sense a person of reason and science behind your posts. The notion of and/or true/false is pretty basic to both quantum and relativity.

See "uncertainty principle", "wave particle duality" and "quantum entanglement" on wiki for the basics or http://arxiv.org/ for any of the past 30 years, 760 hits just from 2011 to 2013 for "entanglement" or look up the mutually consistent many relativistic theories, many of which like Einstein and Godel or Penrose or Heller, which differ only in the unfalsifiable assumptions.

In other words, you are entitled to your belief that my view either destroys the concepts of true and false or makes everyone's pov equal; I believe neither. More like there are very few demonstrable "truths" and someone who has spent years looking at this, like Bell or Clauser or Wheeler or Stapp, have povs that are worthy of serious, scientific, empirical consideration. Hard to explain it better than that, try asking your question on the thread "Ask a Spiritual Physicist".

 

[wil]

What wiuld it be like to get to your destination and find out your suitcase got swapped with someone elses....don't you think they'd be just as upset having to wear your religion?

 

[radarmark]

Of course... we Friends do not have a dogma (even my claim of group experience is not a dogma). I was pointing out that my experience of g!d is "in line with" the Founders of Friends (Fox and Naylor were really the first generation's exemplars) and the XXth century Friends mystics Jones and Kelly.

The "group consciousness" I experience is not the same as even the Friend sitting next to me. What I experience is the Testimony or Ministry of each Friend who cares to speak is a "centering down" of what has gone before (except for new Friends, who often speak too much, use "I" too much, or [that is an and-or] bring up personal issues or points-of-view too much, JMHO).

It is very parallel to the Greek concepts, or the Jewish ones in the sense that it is a shared mystical experience like on Mt Althos "Άγιον Oρος" or the Ari'zal Kabbalah (g!d bless both the orthodox community and Ari). Is it something we share? Not really, anyone from a Trinitarian to a pagan universalist unitarian can (and do) participate.

Do I really care about the differences? No! It is the aim that matters.

I believe that I gave a pretty good response, and now bow out of this discussion. Anyone caring to comment can send me a Private Message or figure out which of the many threads I have created addressing your issue.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wil said "Yes everything is both true or false, depending on perspective."

Actually Radar said everything was both true and false. Unless I misunderstood him.

Correct by 'advaita' also. Two realities. Macro and micro, absolute and relative, 'paramathika satya' and 'vyavaharika satya'. Both are realities depending on where we are looking from.

Actually, Jainism goes on to postulate seven possibilities (Anekantavada): syād-asti—in some ways, it is; syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not; syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable; syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable; syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable; syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.

 

[radarmark]

If one was to substitute "untestable" or "unfalsifiable" for indescribable, this is very close to quantum.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Does anyone else ever scream in frustration at how limiting language is. It has always been a terrific struggle for me to make statements coherent and simplistic enough that my meaning gets through. I fail spectacularly on a regular basis!

Radar I never suggested your comments were disconcerting. Quite the opposite, I said I found it very intriguing!

I never said your belief destroys the concepts of true and false either. Every thing you took from my post was filtered through you incorrectly. I'm not saying that is your fault. Refer to the first paragraph; I see it as a flaw in me.

I believe this statement by me is what you were referring to "How it is possible to come up with a consistent pov if one believes everything is true/false? (tralse?). The outcome seems to be one's pov is there is no pov."

That wasn't meant as an accusation. It was meant as a question. I.E. if everything is both true and false, how does someone who believes this come to conclusions? I believe your answer to that question was this you wrote:

More like there are very few demonstrable "truths" and someone who has spent years looking at this, like Bell or Clauser or Wheeler or Stapp, have povs that are worthy of serious, scientific, empirical consideration.

The thing that intrigued me about all of this was my interpretation of the situation in the terms of physics. That Relativity is comparable to a true or false statement. Binary. While quantum physics is equivalent to a true and false at the same time statement.

Do you think my interpretation of relativity versus quantum is accurate? Or semi-accurate? Or am I getting it all wrong?????

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I feel for you G-Knot, I want to write one of those messages every other week. I feel it must also be frustrating that everyone here suddenly appears to argue to your opposite, and even more so when everyone changes the discussion, the point of view, oh so slightly. When I have to argue against several people in these general terms and definitions I find it impossible to keep all the concepts straight and make my self clear for everyone else.

Well, I'm probably projecting here, but hey, I needed to get that of my chest.

 

[radarmark]

Sorry GK. Okay, ""How it is possible to come up with a consistent pov if one believes everything is true/false? (tralse?). The outcome seems to be one's pov is there is no pov." I believe I answered this... there is a point-of-view and it is probably unique to every individual.

Now the question is are they true of false or somewhere in between? I do not know (or think) that any single pov is true because a lot of what we believe is not testable or falsifiable (which puts all povs in the third category in my opinion). Many (if not most) povs are clearly false... "g!d created the world in seven days" or "whites are superior to other races" and other such dogma or ideology is both false and dangerous.

Those I referenced in the previous post (Einstein et al's povs) have more of a likelihood of being correct than mine or yours.

As for your second question, no, relativity has it's own true and false theories. Einstein's theories fly in the face of modern measurements, but his math is sublime (even if incorrect, see "Cosmological Constant"). Similarly his view of a "steady-state" universe has (finally) gone the way of the dodo bird. Similarly, the cosmological thesis of the big-bang (in the sense that was it one instance, multiple parallel universes -- a neat way around quantum theory, or a cyclic set of instances, much like Indian philosophies and religions -- and given very strong math by Wheeler, Penrose and Heller) which is one of the basic ideas of post-Einstein relativity can be see as both true and false.

A lot of people think Einstein delivered General Relativity in a fell swoop. They do not realize that Whitehead had a mathematical identical theory that was different. They do not understand that until Wheeler began teaching it and enough physicists finally learned the metrics it (about the 1955 time frame) was left untouched. Nor do they understand that at the deepest levels (like M-theory or cyclic universes or multiple universe -- all part and parcel now days of General Relativity) that it is perfectly consistent to argue for the truth and falsity of these topics. Why? The math yields the same answers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The outcome seems to be one's pov is there is no pov.

There is a pov. Define the observer.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

There is a pov. Define the observer.

yes, very relavent

 

[radarmark]

Do you really believe that "the observer" is relevant? In my opinion the is a big "Yes" . An observer like Stapp, Heller, Feynman, Pagles, Wheeler, Wooters, Zurek, Durr, Goldstn, or Deutsch seems "more reliable" than those of of who are no professional physicists.

 

[Thomas]

... there is a point-of-view and it is probably unique to every individual.

Agreed, but whilst everyone has a unique grasp on reality — their pov is their pov and no other can share that, the pov in question does not come 'out of the blue' and can be reckoned against the criteria set forward for holding that pov.

I do not know (or think) that any single pov is true because a lot of what we believe is not testable or falsifiable (which puts all povs in the third category in my opinion).

OK. But that is a pov that is relative, it's not necessarily the case.

Many (if not most) povs are clearly false...

OK.

"g!d created the world in seven days"

Well that rather depends if you assume 7 x 24 hour periods, which most exegetes do not. What I mean is, the literal pov is false, but the essence of the statement might well be true, from a metaphysical or mythopoeic pov.

All Truth is a Shadow except the last. But every Truth is Substance in its own place, though it be but a Shadow in another place. And the Shadow is a true Shadow, as the Substance is a true Substance. (Isaac Pennington)

 

[Gordian Knot]

There is a pov. Define the observer.

A cogent point. At least at first glance. Complicating this is that in order to define the observer one has to determine the pov of that observer. No? That pov is unique to each person doing the looking. So any definition of the observer is through the eyes of each individual beholder?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Radar thanks for the clarification. It does help explain a lot for me.

 

[radarmark]

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
"g!d created the world in seven days"

Well that rather depends if you assume 7 x 24 hour periods, which most exegetes do not. What I mean is, the literal pov is false, but the essence of the statement might well be true, from a metaphysical or mythopoeic pov.

I believe this also, but I believe GK was discussing “objective, empirical” truth


Quote:

All Truth is a Shadow except the last. But every Truth is Substance in its own place, though it be but a Shadow in another place. And the Shadow is a true Shadow, as the Substance is a true Substance. (Isaac Pennington)


Not bad, Thomas. However, just realize how dated this observation is; he is in contemporary terms discussing the Shadow and Substance of Jung or Joanie Mitchell.

 

[wil]

Does anyone else ever scream in frustration at how limiting language is. It has always been a terrific struggle for me to make statements coherent and simplistic enough that my meaning gets through. I fail spectacularly on a regular basis!

Or am I getting it all wrong?????

lol, of course you are!!

Language? Frustrating?

Imagine how G!d feels when she reads how the prophets interpretted what she conveyed!