Is truth rational? | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Is truth rational?
March 16, 2010
7:37 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This might belong in "questions that make you think," though truth has been talked about a lot here, so I'm posting it here.

The question to me seems to be equivalent to
does any sort of logic have ontological primacy?
That is because truth and reality are related and we're asking if truth is rational. Truth is associated with fact, and facts are associated with reality (eg, what really happened). Truth is rational if and only if there is a logic (a rationality) inherent to reality, a logic with inherent existence applicable to reality.

Logic (aka rationality) is defined by Wikipedia to be:

Logic is used in most intellectual activity, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?" In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3]

Statements such as "I am tall" lead me to believe that if there is a logic inherent to reality, it is not classical logic but, at least, some form of fuzzy logic (aka many-valued logic). Thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat do not lead me to believe that a logic inherent to reality must include the denial of the law of the excluded middle: it isn't precisely correct to say the cat is both dead and not dead; rather, the cat is dead in some parallels and not dead in other parallels (no violation of the excluded middle axiom there).

A complete description of reality is known as a TOE (theory of everything). This description might not be "compressible" to something significantly smaller than reality, of course. I.e., reality might be the smallest description of reality. That is a question having to do with the randomness of reality, which is not within the scope of this post.

What I want to touch upon here is the nature of a complete description of reality. This description is ideally formulated in a language free of baggage, such as the neutral language of mathematics.

An assumption of mine is that if a complete description of reality has an inherent logic/rationality to it, then so does reality and vice versa. A complete description of reality is like a map and reality is the territory; so the question is does a perfect map of reality (aka a complete description of reality) have an inherent rationality/logic to it? Or does reality admit a sort of poetic license in a complete description of it?

I think the subjective, ineffable apprehension of qualia, what it is to experience, provides the answer. A complete description of my experience of smelling a rose is just a small part of a complete description of reality. A complete description of my experience of smelling a rose includes poetic license. Based on this, I conclude that a complete description of reality necessarily includes some poetic license.

Poetic license means to be able to formulate statements (or, more generally 'utterances') that aren't bound by a specific set of grammar or rules of syntax. The words used point to containers of what the words mean. The relation between the words in a description of reality involving poetic license is free of any rules, like a chess board with all the pieces (words) but anything goes (no restrictions). Poetic license is necessary for me to give a complete description of even a small part of reality, smelling a rose.

Therefore, under the assumption in bold above, reality does not have a strictly logical/rational nature. Early on in this post, I pointed to the connection between reality and truth, so, furthermore, truth does not have a strictly logical/rational nature.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

March 16, 2010
8:53 pm
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2494
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The only truth that exists is the one inside your mind.
Which is your interpretation of it.

There is no absolute truth.

Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...

March 16, 2010
9:02 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Dark-Samus" wrote: The only truth that exists is the one inside your mind.
Which is your interpretation of it.

There is no absolute truth.

That's self-contradictory, though I do somewhat favor the first couple of sentences you wrote.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

March 17, 2010
10:08 am
Avatar
sandra
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3858
Member Since:
December 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Therefore, under the assumption in bold above, reality does not have a strictly logical/rational nature. Early on in this post, I pointed to the connection between reality and truth, so, furthermore, truth does not have a strictly logical/rational nature.

First, that was all very well written. I'll add more as soon as I have time.

However, No, truth does not have a strictly logical/rational nature, infact in my mind its ridiculous to think so, if we consider what is logical and rational as more common Knowledge.
What is understood as logical and rational changes, as we continue to think irrationally, intuitively as well. Look at History, and what was logical and rational. How were these things changed? Consciousness is always changing, and it could be our consciousness of the absolute truth. What is rational is changed by people thinking irrational-on the outskirts of the collective consciousness, creating new future 'common sense knowledge'.

I can understand why you would agree with Darks first 2 statements and not the last.
Reminds me of a post of yours.

"at1with0" wrote: [quote="sandra"]Hi, welcome to the board at1with0 :mrgreen:

Very good insight, I like how you put that in terms. The contents change, not the totality. Infact in my mind I can take that alot of different places.

Thanks for the warm welcome sandra.

What I wrote could be construed as a definition of God but, for me, it is the output of the input where the input is my perception of God. The description of God takes into account that perhaps there is nothing in (1) and (3), say, if the only thing that really exists is in category (2).

Any two all-encompassing things must be congruent and the thing I have described is all-encompassing. So if God is all-encompassing, then this is God.

Because it rings true to me.

My mind doesn't even realise what is rational or irrational, I just think as I think.

So with some of those things in mind.
If the collective consciousness is always changing in what is (1) rational and (3) which is irrational, there is no other possibility but for all minds to change in what is rational and irrational, with the possibility to see these contents and their change....micro to macro.

A question, why do we not like to change what we are thinking?
Either way, will it be changed?
By the creative mind of someone else?
With the absolute truth within it all?

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

March 17, 2010
12:29 pm
Avatar
Dark-Samus
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2494
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that's where we differ, I believe there is no absolute truth while you guys do.

But consider this.
What if we both are right?

Like the absolute truth is that there is none Laugh Laugh Laugh 😈 :mrgreen:

Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...

March 17, 2010
6:54 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Absolute truth might be irrelevant to me, whether it exists or not, because I seem to lack the faculty of absolute discernment. Intuition can give me my truth, it gives me a way to see what otherwise wouldn't see. It is a truth that I see what I see through intuition. When you see differently, neither of us are right or wrong.

Absolute discernment might be within the scope of my as-yet-unrealized potential.

I have habitual thought patterns that I might be uncomfortable changing not unlike my habitual act of smoking a cigarette. Every now and then, I don't indulge my tendency for confirmation bias, and I expand in different ways.

Truth doesn't control you, you control it... Reminds me of a quote from the literary version of Revenge of the Sith. "Obi-Wan let the Force control him, Count Dooku controls the Force." Malai was touching upon this in his writing thread where he mentions cultivating a constant immersion within 'the flow' as opposed to having sudden flashes of intuition. It is possible to let the flow influence (or control, to some extent) you, but it is also possible to direct and redirect the flow. His essay on writing is the passport is what kicked off my training, as it were, in this direction. While the scope of my ability to direct and redirect is of a limited nature today, I don't see a limit in my potential to immerse myself within it.

What we are thinking, our habitual thought patterns, are open to and have the freedom to change, if we are so allowing. These days, that doesn't happen to me often, but it can and does happen. The creative mind of someone else is a huge influence, if one allows it to be. I use the word creative literally, in the sense of creating your environment through intent alone. Perhaps even physically.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

March 18, 2010
11:09 pm
Avatar
sandra
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3858
Member Since:
December 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"Dark-Samus" wrote: I think that's where we differ, I believe there is no absolute truth while you guys do.

But consider this.
What if we both are right?

Like the absolute truth is that there is none Laugh Laugh Laugh 😈 :mrgreen:

Now thats where we differ, because if you really want to think about it, if absolute truth is that there is none, none=absolute truth, so that means there is absolute truth, with perceptions always being subject to what equals = none, and to what equals = absolute truth, so there for, you would be wrong- there would still be the perception of absolute truth regardless. Laugh Laugh Laugh

hmmm 😉

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
62 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10310

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24830

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 9091

Posts: 124394

Newest Members:

Jan, Fire Fly, TheDoDahMan, [email protected], CynG, fastmoney, Hung Le, caegwe, momo, Karen

Administrators: John Greenewald: 640, blackvault: 1776