Can God's Existence be Proven Subjectively but not Objectively?

[country boy]

It seems from this thread that subjective and objective truth are achievable. But I'm not so sure about absolute truth. Given a candidate absolute truth, any proposed determination of such would be either subjective or objective.

 

[heusdens]

What I mean is that if you conclude that the universe is infinite, then you are doing so in the basis of what you believe, not on the basis of objective truth. If you didn't believe anything, then you wouldn't make such conclusions, because objectively, the universe could be finite. And so it isn't true that that is not the case, so to rule it out is not being objective (i.e. devoid of belief). Uncertainty is objectively true at this point in human knowledge on the subject, and for one to be certain of one answer shows ignorence of the other possiblility. For one to reach beyond objective truth (uncertainty in this case), and pick an answer means that one has a 'hunch', or a 'gut feeling' or dare I say a belief, which isn't known to be true objectively.

Your position may be correct in the very abstract sense, but possibly not in the more human sense is that one has to - given a certain situation in which objective knowledge is impossible - assume something.

Like the situation I explained: you are born and not yet aware. Then you start exploring things, and learn about the world, and you need to make or learn some basic assumptions about the world. Whatever they are objectively true or not.

You could not claim the rest of your life not to know anything, because everything can be uncertain. It might even not be possible to figure out wether actually the world exists.

Since we come from nature, it can be assumed that we can not exist long in a position in which we can postpone such decissions. If we would not know wether a certain animal or situation was dangerous or not, we would still make assumptions. That is how we and other animals survive. In fact I assume (which maybe is proven by brain research) that our "logic" gates we use in practice are not exactly that what the abstract mathematician or logician would have required.

At least I think that almost all animals have a limited ability to verify for certain about the nature of their world, but do not seem to be bothered by the inability to absolutely or objectively verify it.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I think it is not even a logical possibility for the universe to not exist. However if it would have been the case that there was not a universe (a state of 'nothingness' - no time, space, matter) such a state would be a definitive state (ie there would not be any other state either).

In so far to say that the universe objectively exists is even meaningfull. One could also claim that wether or not the universe objectively exists is not meaningfull and/or can not be verified, given the lack of possibility of an outside observer.

I can say that an apple exist, because I have the apple as object, and I am an object for the apple. Therefore there is an objective relationship between me and the apple, and it's objective status can be verified.

However this is not the case with the universe, since no objects exist apart from the universe (by definition).

(universe is all of reality)

Straw Man fallicy. I said prove to me objectively that the universe has existed forever.

The assumption is that it has no boundary or edge. This is not exactly the same as infinite, since one could think then the universes is the 3 dimensional equivalent of a surface on a sphere (which is then just one of many assumptions, like extra dimensions, etc.).

Since there is no absolute knowledge of the geometry of the universe, it is assumed the geometry with the least assumptions (no boundaries or edges, no extra dimensions or curvature), at least I guess it would take the least amount of belief.

Yes. It doesn't take much belief at all. Neither does the other perspective, but who really cares if it is or it isn't? I understand that this discussion is something we should care about--the "where do we draw the line between facts and belief?" discussion.

It actually fits the data best (almost flat), although we can't exactly verify anything beyond the horizon.

Being flat isn't a property of being infinite, but oh well, you're headlong on this idea, you can think what you want.

If one would need to make a guess about the size of the universe, not knowing anything about actual data and special geometry or so, I think anybodys guess would be that it would be endless, because anything else assumes other circumstances (having a boundary or curvature).

Nope.

But acc. to current models, the universe can be spatial infinite in different ways. It could mean a finite size expanding space with such a rate of expansion that one could never catch up (even when traveling the speed of light) with the farthest parts of the universe.
It could mean an infinite and expanding space.
Or it could mean a multiverse universe in infinite background spacetime.
Or it could be the model of M theory brane cosmology.

Yup. There is no known objective answer.

What would be different? In both cases you need a brain. You perhaps don't know that the thinking process originates in the brain but in any case there would not be much thinking without a functioning brain.
Besides the knowledge about the brain makes this a very likely conclusion.
Just a receiver would in any case not be sufficient, the brain would then also have to be a sender. We have input and output to the brain.
What is the possibility of that any way? We can have that level of certainty that such a weird possibility is not the case, we would be all robots.
Where would the receiving/transmitting station be?

I put it leymanns terms for you. I originally typed "tranceiver" but I'm not sure you know what that means, or would bother to look it up. Whats the difference if our minds are in our brains or on 5th and hennipen? We are aware of the physical senses of the human bodies we're trapped in, does that make us robots?

I hope you don't think it a wild guess that I do not consider that a likely case..

not at all. But I do consider it a belief, since you can't objectively prove it.

And I don't understand exactly why you would even need to consider this, because it seems to me pretty obvious that such a case would entail far more unfounded belief then not assuming that. If one takes all such cases into consideration, one may pretty well say that anything you state about anything is a belief. But then nothing is a belief. A belief is just making a not well founded assumption about something. So to assume that one's brain is a transmitter of radiosignals seems to me entailing belief, not the other way around.

Thats called a subjective perception. I didn't say it is, I said it could be "like" that, but of course it's not exactly that.

Also for the size of the universe. If not known (and assuming euclidean space), would a guess of a finite size not entail far more belief then assuming that it didn't and was infinite? The reason for that being that when assuming it would be finite, one assumes it ends somewhere, there is a boundary. But that is pretty much a belief assuming that there is then not.
Also for the geometry, when not known, assuming that is non-euclidean is less founded then assuming it is euclidean.
Any other choice is a belief, and if all possible choices would be a belief then none would be a belief.

If you wanted to talk about these things, start a new thread please. You've pretty much ruined this one. Now it's all about your philosophy. Next time I invite people over, I should invite you too, so that you can come over and eat all my food!

As stated before, any other choice of something that is not known, would also be a belief.



As argued, and given the fact that no objective knowledge was available, any other possibility would require more and less well founded belief.





More like an excercise in deducting from a position in which you have little or no knowledge about things some knowledge.



Where did I say that minds don't depend on the world? Quite the contrary, the mind is dependent on the brain, etc. and not vice versa.
Without a physical working brain, there is no mind, and without a world you were born in, you would not exist in a mindfull state neither.



It seem to me the only logical and consistent conclusion, requiring the least unfounded assumptions. Maybe not impossible to draw other conclusions, but far less likely.

nevertheless, I'm trying to show you that you require a belief to conclude that, even if it is a reasonable conclusion.

Ok. But that is more things like arithmetics and so.
I was referring to knowledge about the fundamental nature of the world.




It appears to me that at least the flatness of the universe is more or less an objective fact.
The "size" of the universe is measured as the horizon size, but some well founded arguments exist is that the universe is at least several magnitudes larger as that.
And also in some well founded models, the universe would be conjectured to be infinitely large.
About the infinity in time, I think the position held that the singularity was a point in which the universe started is nowadays not considered a valid model.
The best guess science gives I think is that inflation is possible past time eternal.

There is no objective way of ever knowing that the universe is infinite in space or time, I guess (how at all could that be really known?). Although the past and future infinity in time of the universe I think is almost impossible not to assume, since how could it begin or end?
A start from a singularity - although it's theoretical existence can be well founded in GR - is at the same time something not to expect physically because the physics laws are known to break down there, and can therefore not be assumed to be a real physical state the universe was in. Infinity of energy density, etc. as required, are not considered a possble physical state. There is however nothing in physics that dispermits infinity in time, and looks to me almost impossible not to be the case. Arguments as that an infinite amount of ellapsed time are impossible (as argued by a kalam cosmological argument) can be shown to be incorrect, since any measure of time on an infinite time line is still a finite value, no matter where you place the points, and since you can always place them further apart, in effect time is infinite.

You've passed the test! congratulations. Good work, you've proven it.

Yes, but I would think that is not in every situation a requirement.
Best guess and well reasoned using the least necessary amount of speculation sufices sometimes.

Nevertheless, it is a belief since it is a claim of something not objectively certain, a very pragmatic one too I might add.

An eternal infinite world already contains everything, I suppose.

What else did you have in mind that could be that is not already contained in everything?

Um, did I? You're totally right. Everything is contained within everything. I don't know what I was thinking.

But when I follow your reasoning, everyone is a believer. Because whatever choice ones makes on that issues, it always ends up being a belief.

No and yes. No in the sense that when you're working with objective truth--things experimentally verifiable and/or logically provable to anybody--no belief is required for those provable things to be true objectively. You're speaking of things unprovable, so that's why I say you're speaking of your beliefs.

Yes is the sense that I believe subjective truth comes first to anyone person before anythng else. 1+1=2 means something to me only if I agree with the definitions, then in the use of math implies I believe it's methods will serve my interests. As long as I accept the definitions and rules, then if I adhere to them, my conclusions hold the same merit as I hold those definitions. Even if I didn't believe that 1+1=2, it still stands by itself on top of its own definitions, and is objectively true in its own right. Science works the same way, it has some rules and definitions that it rests upon, and it stands by itself, and I have the choice to believe it or not. If I lack a belief in the Scientific method, it doesn't imply that science isn't objectively true in its own right, based on it's own structure. So if I accept the scientific method, I believe all of its conclusions, regardless of the fact that they would still be objectively true if I didn't believe them.

But maybe it is an essential feature of how our brains are wired and because we are natural beings. Even animals have beliefs then, because they base their actions on insufficient knowledge.

who knows... do they?

Wasn't this confirmed sometime in brain studies that our "logic gates" also try to fill gaps or make certain assumptions when insufficient knowledge is available?

Everything that a person perceives is filtered by a part of the brain that perturbs things in such a way that we partly see what we expect to see. At least, I heard that somewhere, I haven't read the study or anything.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

It seems from this thread that subjective and objective truth are achievable. But I'm not so sure about absolute truth. Given a candidate absolute truth, any proposed determination of such would be either subjective or objective.

Yeah I don't know. I'm having trouble with it. I'm having trouble with the whole thing right now. Heusdens keeps littering his posts with chaff that I have to weed through.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I apologize for being a jerk tonight, I had a bad day and I'm projecting my frusteration in the form of being boorish.

 

[mosassam]

Hi Jonny, about my post earlier, I read your response and realized I'd not read your comment properly. On the subject of whether the world will always exist, I would agree that to make a conclusion about it requires belief (I've heard form some the sun will one day expand and destroy the world! I've heard from others that the world is an illusion!) Belief exists where clarity fails. I did have one insight from that your reply - Uncertainty appears to be an objective, as well as a subjective, truth. However, this does not qualify it as an absolute truth (to be honest, I don't think an absolute truth can be communicated with words, maths or any other symbols)

 

[mosassam]

Any absolute truth cannot be relative. Even if we all agreed on something, some truth, it would still be relative to our own planet (as compared to someone/thing elses). Mind you - does gravity qualify as an absolute truth?

 

[heusdens]

Hi Jonny, about my post earlier, I read your response and realized I'd not read your comment properly. On the subject of whether the world will always exist, I would agree that to make a conclusion about it requires belief (I've heard form some the sun will one day expand and destroy the world! I've heard from others that the world is an illusion!)

Hold on.

The idea that the world is eternal has a scientific basis, since we have theories that declare there to be conserved quantities like mass + energy.
We have the position that this law holds, until proven otherwise.

(the destruction of the sun or whatever has nothing to do with it)

Besides, also science is not without beliefs, but those most be grounded.
For instance science has the belief that the law of gravity and other physical laws are universal, it adheres to the cosmological principle (homogeneous and isotropic).
Science makes those assumptions explicit.

 

[mosassam]

The idea that the world is eternal has a scientific basis

I can only assume that when you say 'world' you refer to the (observable) universe and not, as I and many others may interpret this word, planet Earth and everything on it.

Hold on.

Science has posited a Big Crunch or Gnab Gib (ie: the end of the universe). How 'eternal' can that be?
And doesn't science reject the notion of Time as an objective 'entity', it being a wholly abstract notion? Where does that leave eternity? In the mind of the beholder?

 

[mosassam]

Besides, also science is not without beliefs, but those most be grounded.
For instance science has the belief that the law of gravity and other physical laws are universal, it adheres to the cosmological principle (homogeneous and isotropic).

And hold on again!

In my post I stated that to conclude that the world will always be eternal requires belief. You seemed to protest this notion but then went on to say that "science is not without beliefs", including the belief that the law of gravity is universal. (and calling a belief an 'assumption' can be seen as part of the smoke and mirrors science uses to appear factual).
(I detect a Ubangi in the fuel supply - W. C. Fields)

 

[Rade]

...In my post I stated that to conclude that the world will always be eternal requires belief...

I agree. This conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with "scientific thinking"--it is derived from pure belief. Science NEVER can make such a claim of an absolute nature (that world will always [eg., 100% of time] be eternal). By definition SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X], and never makes any claim that ends with a conclusion that any given [X] "will always be".

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I agree. This conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with "scientific thinking"--it is derived from pure belief. Science NEVER can make such a claim of an absolute nature (that world will always [eg., 100% of time] be eternal). By definition SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X], and never makes any claim that ends with a conclusion that any given [X] "will always be".

yes. Why is this so hard for Heusdens to accept? *prod at Heusdens*... *poke*... *poke*

 

[mosassam]

So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual. When a group of people agree on something we can say that this constitutes an 'objective truth', BUT ONLY FOR THAT GROUP. Other groups may have other objective truths. The group called Scientists may say that their objective truth has been experimentally proven but quantum theory seems to be indicating that the experiments scientists choose to perform reflect "who they are" (ie: subjective truth). Also, Rade's quote above ( SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X]) also reflects the shaky nature of scientific objective "truth". Science, like religion (and most adults for that matter) has a hard time saying "I don't know". Fully realising and accepting that "I don't know" (rather than groping desperately around in the dark for some kind of certainty, be it religious or scientific) may be the ultimate objective truth.
As for "absolute truth", if it exists I have a feeling it may well be something we cannot communicate, not even to ourselves.
(or not )

 

[Rade]

...So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual...

You got it--but I would not say "has no validity"--but "uncertain validity".
There are only two ways to "know" any"thing" (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside the thing. If you seek to "know" any"thing" from outside as an observer, the knowledge you gain is "Uncertain Knowledge", which is the way of Science. If you want to find "Certain Knowledge" look inside yourself, ask yourself if you exist (not if you are the ONLY thing that exists, just DO I EXIST). Let me know what you find.

 

[heusdens]

I can only assume that when you say 'world' you refer to the (observable) universe and not, as I and many others may interpret this word, planet Earth and everything on it.

Universe in the broadest sense.

Hold on.

Science has posited a Big Crunch or Gnab Gib (ie: the end of the universe). How 'eternal' can that be?
And doesn't science reject the notion of Time as an objective 'entity', it being a wholly abstract notion? Where does that leave eternity? In the mind of the beholder?

Science also posited the idea of chaotic eternal inflation, requiring no begin to the universe.

The notion of the world (universe) being eternal should mean: there wasn't a time in which there was no world (universe). It is concluded from the fact that matter itself (although it can be transformed from one thing into another thing) itself is uncreatable and indestructable.

 

[heusdens]

yes. Why is this so hard for Heusdens to accept? *prod at Heusdens*... *poke*... *poke*

Accept what?

My statement reflect a philosophical notion, which happens not to be in conflict with science, that the world itself is eternal (because matter is).

It is not a belief, but a conclusion based on true premises.

 

[heusdens]

And hold on again!

In my post I stated that to conclude that the world will always be eternal requires belief. You seemed to protest this notion but then went on to say that "science is not without beliefs", including the belief that the law of gravity is universal. (and calling a belief an 'assumption' can be seen as part of the smoke and mirrors science uses to appear factual).
(I detect a Ubangi in the fuel supply - W. C. Fields)

The notion that the world (universe) itself is eternal is the only absolute.
All other notions are relative.

The way we derive at the conclusion that the world itself is eternal is because the 'alternative' (the world appearing from nothing or from a cause 'outside' the world) is just a logical absuridity.

It doesn't require a belief to state that.

If the world (the universe, all that is) is said to exist, there can not be (logically) a ground or cause outside the existing world for it's existence.

So that is why this only absolute is a safe statement to make, requiring no belief, because there is no way this can be otherwise.

(the only 'logical' possibility would be to state the possibility of a non-existing world, but that is rejected by definition - there could be no way to make such a statement, if the statement were true!)

 

[mosassam]

The notion that the world (universe) itself is eternal is the only absolute.
All other notions are relative.

The way we derive at the conclusion that the world itself is eternal is because the 'alternative' (the world appearing from nothing) is just a logical absuridity.

Firstly, to use the word "world" when referring to the universe seems wrong, in a big way (to me at least).
Secondly, do you disagree with the Big Bang model of the universe?
Thirdly, you avoided that science itself views Time as nothing more than an abstract concept (Eternity??)
Fourthly, to say that the only 'alternative' to the eternal world (universe (?)) "is" that it 'appeared from nothing' can be viewed as logical absurdity. I would venture that because you can think of no other alternatives may not be the fault of Logic.
I do not want to use the word 'Fifthly' because it seems weird (to me at least - maybe to much like Filthy) but I will say that Materialism views the interactions/relationships between matter as a product of matter. Quantum theory demonstrates that this may not be the case.

 

[heusdens]

Firstly, to use the word "world" when referring to the universe seems wrong, in a big way (to me at least).
Secondly, you adroitly avoided the scientific model of the universe that posits a Big Bang/Big Crunch (hardly eternal).
Thirdly, you avoided that science itself views Time as nothing more than an abstract concept (Eternity??)
Fourthly, to say that the only 'alternative' to the eternal world (universe (?)) "is" that it 'appeared from nothing' can be viewed as logical absurdity. I would venture that because you can think of no other alternatives may not be the fault of Logic.
I do not want to use the word 'Fifthly' because it seems weird (to me at least - maybe to much like Filthy) but I will say that Materialism views the interactions/relationships between matter as a product of matter. Quantum theory demonstrates that this may not be the case.

The term 'world' is a most common philosophical notion, which means the world in it's entirity, not just the planet earth.

We are in fact having here a statement of knowledge. All practical knowledge we have about the world is relative. Yet, it is my claim that we do have some absolute knowledge about the world, and that is that the world exists.
It is true by definition, and it does not take faith to claim it.

From that it is inferred that the world is also eternal. This is by the way not a statement about time itself, but acknowledges the fact that there is no possible way for the world not to exist.
What we consider to be a notion of time has no bearing on this logical conclusion whatsoever.

This fact about the world is a true fact and the only absolute fact.

 

[mosassam]

The term 'world' is a most common philosophical notion, which means the world in it's entirity, not just the planet earth.

Since when and by whom? The 'world' means the 'universe'?

We are in fact having here a statement of knowledge. All practical knowledge we have about the world is relative. Yet, it is my claim that we do have some absolute knowledge about the world, and that is that the world exists.

Who said the point was whether the world (universe) existed or not?

It is true by definition,

So the definition makes it true?

it does not take faith to claim it.

maybe it only takes Logic, BUT...

From that it is inferred that the world is also eternal. This is by the way not a statement about time itself,

...you say that the word "eternal" (meaning - for all Time) "is by the way not a statement about time itself". What were we saying about Logic?

This fact about the world is a true fact and the only absolute fact.

Ever heard of the word Dogma?
PS: Maybe Materialism "is" a dead end!

 

[mosassam]

You got it--but I would not say "has no validity"--but "uncertain validity".

Thanks for the post Rade, but I've got to do some nitpicking (with a view to clarity and not one-upmanship (re: Heusdens))
For me 'validity' is either ON or OFF and never "Uncertain". A 'subjective truth' has NO validity because to communicate an experience cannot be the same as having the experience (you will never precisely experience the same thing as me because you're not me, but we may agree on some experiences - an 'objective truth')

There are only two ways to "know" any"thing" (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside the thing.

I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

If you seek to "know" any"thing" from outside as an observer, the knowledge you gain is "Uncertain Knowledge", which is the way of Science.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If you want to find "Certain Knowledge" look inside yourself,

Certain Knowledge = Subjective Truth

ask yourself if you exist (not if you are the ONLY thing that exists, just DO I EXIST). Let me know what you find.

When I'm with my lover I KNOW we both exist, when I'm jamming with other musicians I KNOW we all exist, when I'm having a great lesson with my students I KNOW we all exist. The only time uncertainty exists is when I use my Rational Mind to determine the limits of my existence. It seems obvious (to me at least) that most of the posts and threads on this forum are made by those who define Humanity through the Rational Mind (how else can you "define"?). To imagine I am all that exists seems, to me, a sickness beyond words, but to explain this position (explain = Rational Mind) means I have to become that which sees no other than itself (the Rational Mind).
I think, therefore I exist.
I feel, therefore I am.

 

[heusdens]

Since when and by whom? The 'world' means the 'universe'?

It has been used by many philosophers.

Who said the point was whether the world (universe) existed or not?

The point was wether there were absolutes.

So the definition makes it true?

maybe it only takes Logic, BUT...

...you say that the word "eternal" (meaning - for all Time) "is by the way not a statement about time itself". What were we saying about Logic?

It is meant to say that it is independent of how we perceive or measure time.

Ever heard of the word Dogma?
PS: Maybe Materialism "is" a dead end!

What is "dead" about materialism?

It's the only working philosophical basis for material sciences.

And the physical sciences don't declare materialism wrong, but they only show that materialism is right.

For instance GR has lead to the vision that spacetime and matter are not separate from each other but intimately linked to each other.
Materialism already acknowledged this fact before einstein developed general relativity.

 

[heusdens]

I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

The universe.

 

[Rade]

Originally Posted by mosassam:
I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

The universe.

Yes. It would appear true that the human mind can "know" two categories of the concept "inside": (1) being inside self, and (2) inside universe--the mind can grasp that it is inside both at the same point in time, a type of superposition of being. And such an understanding must then be "certain knowledge" (eg, to hold as Descarte, the argument of the Cognito ergo sum--extended to "and because I am, I am within some"thing" = universe) and outside the methods of Science, for Science allows only "uncertain knowledge" of existence. Now it then seems that if we form the dialectic to hold that mind can grasp that the superposition set of becoming {inside self + inside universe} = certain knowledge of what exists, then solipsism is falsified, for the solipsist finds that nothing exists or is real but self (that is, the solipsist finds the universe within self not as a superposition of self and universe becoming). But perhaps I error in my thinking.

 

[mosassam]

The universe.

Don't you mean the 'world'?

 

[mosassam]

It has been used by many philosophers.

Who? and when did they use it?

The point was wether there were absolutes.

Not at all. The point was whether saying the "world(?!?) is eternal" was a fact or utter gibberish.

It is meant to say that it is independent of how we perceive or measure time.

Eternity is independent of how we perceive or measure time?

 

[mosassam]

Originally Posted by mosassam:
I would be interested to hear about something you can know from the 'inside' other than YOURSELF.

It would appear true that the human mind can "know" two categories of the concept "inside": (1) being inside self, and (2) inside universe--the mind can grasp that it is inside both at the same point in time, a type of superposition of being.

I'm struggling here. When you say "inside the universe", do you mean it in the same way as being "inside" a house? Or do you mean "from within the being of the universe"?

And such an understanding must then be "certain knowledge" (eg, to hold as Descarte, the argument of the Cognito ergo sum--extended to "and because I am, I am within some"thing" = universe) and outside the methods of Science, for Science allows only "uncertain knowledge" of existence.

You really do seem to be referring to 'inside' as meaning "inside the bathroom" and not 'from within the being of". I don't mean to be harsh but the argument above seems so full of holes that I'm hoping you're having a joke that I don't quite get. To refer to it as "certain knowledge" does actually make me chuckle ("and because I am, I am within some"thing" and because that "thing" 'is', it is within some"thingelse" and because that "thingelse" is...infinite regress I believe!, something to be avoided at all times (or so I'm told)

Now it then seems that if we form the dialectic to hold that mind can grasp that the superposition set of becoming {inside self + inside universe} = certain knowledge of what exists,

Errm?

then solipsism is falsified, for the solipsist finds that nothing exists or is real but self (that is, the solipsist finds the universe within self not as a superposition of self and universe becoming).

If Solipsists are serious about Solipsism how was it ever communicated in the first place. The fact that Solipsism exists falsifies it! (no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it...)

But perhaps I error in my thinking.

I know the feeling.
(Seriously though, please review post #91 and give me your thoughts)

 

[heusdens]

Eternity is independent of how we perceive or measure time?

The world is said to be eternal in the sense that matter is not createable or destructable. Space and time do not exist separate from matter.

 

[mosassam]

The world is said to be eternal in the sense that matter is not createable or destructable. Space and time do not exist separate from matter

.

So, you believe that the universe has always existed. If "matter is not creatable", it has not been derived from anything else. If we assume matter exists we must assume that it has always existed and that it is not a derivative of "something" else. No Big Bang, no beginning to the universe, yet in one of your posts you state your belief that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. You present it as an indisputable scientific fact and defend it quite vigourously. So, which is it? Eternity or 13.7 billion years old? Matter that was not created or matter derived from a previously existing state?
Please answer both these questions in full, I've noticed you have a habit of answering only that which suits you.

 

[heusdens]

So, you believe that the universe has always existed. If "matter is not creatable", it has not been derived from anything else. If we assume matter exists we must assume that it has always existed and that it is not a derivative of "something" else. No Big Bang, no beginning to the universe, yet in one of your posts you state your belief that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. You present it as an indisputable scientific fact and defend it quite vigourously. So, which is it? Eternity or 13.7 billion years old? Matter that was not created or matter derived from a previously existing state?
Please answer both these questions in full, I've noticed you have a habit of answering only that which suits you.

The relative age of the our local part of the universe (which we observe and which theoretically is much much larger) is 13.7 billion years, that is since the end of inflation.

Matter transforms indefinately, so to say that there was a previous material state does not contradict the fact that matter is uncreatable and indestructable.

And another thing -- the universe at large does not exist.

The reasoning for that is that you can not define objective relations for the universe at large, since there is nothing that is really apart and outside of it.

An apple exist to me, because the apple has a separate reality from me, and I am a separate reality from the apple. The apple and me are objectively related.

Same for all other things we know of.

The universe however is not objectively related since by definition there is no outside and separate thing from the universe, and the universe is not a separate and outside reality to any other thing.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

So, any sensation, thought, feeling, experienced by an individual can be considered a 'subjective truth'. Something that cannot be refuted by anyone but which has no validity outside the individual. When a group of people agree on something we can say that this constitutes an 'objective truth', BUT ONLY FOR THAT GROUP. Other groups may have other objective truths. The group called Scientists may say that their objective truth has been experimentally proven but quantum theory seems to be indicating that the experiments scientists choose to perform reflect "who they are" (ie: subjective truth). Also, Rade's quote above ( SCIENCE = UNCERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of [X]) also reflects the shaky nature of scientific objective "truth". Science, like religion (and most adults for that matter) has a hard time saying "I don't know". Fully realising and accepting that "I don't know" (rather than groping desperately around in the dark for some kind of certainty, be it religious or scientific) may be the ultimate objective truth.
As for "absolute truth", if it exists I have a feeling it may well be something we cannot communicate, not even to ourselves.
(or not )

I like this. It's honest. It is okay to admit that we don't know as much as we might have thought before.

 

[mosassam]

The relative age of the our local part of the universe (which we observe and which theoretically is much much larger) is 13.7 billion years, that is since the end of inflation.

And as Job pointed out - the universe was created this morning when he got up. Both of these "ASSERTIONS" can be viewed as valid. You seem absolutely convinced that your "ASSERTION" 'is' true and you seem to present it as a fact when it is patently nothing of the sort. I do wish you could see this.

Matter transforms indefinately, so to say that there was a previous material state does not contradict the fact that matter is uncreatable and indestructable.

As usual, you don't answer the questions asked of you, you read the information to suit yourself and then answer accordingly. Nowhere and at no time did I mention a "previous material state", this construct belongs to you, you have foisted it on me then used it to answer a point I wasn't making.

An apple exist to me, because the apple has a separate reality from me, and I am a separate reality from the apple. The apple and me are objectively related.

Same for all other things we know of.

The universe however is not objectively related since by definition there is no outside and separate thing from the universe, and the universe is not a separate and outside reality to any other thing

If the apple isn't separate from the universe, and I'm not separate from the universe, HOW AM I SEPARATE FROM THE APPLE?. Please give this question some genuine consideration rather than blithely spew out the dogma of Materialism

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Accept what?

My statement reflect a philosophical notion, which happens not to be in conflict with science, that the world itself is eternal (because matter is).

It is not a belief, but a conclusion based on true premises.

I don't believe you. I won't until you can prove it to me rather than try to convince me, but I don't discredit the possibility. I agree partly with you in that it is possible that the universe has always existed, however I don't conclude that it has as you conclude. Personally, I really don't care about that subject enough to believe one way or another. The reason why I don't care is because concluding either way doesn't change the way I feel from day to day. I'm sorry if I've given you a hard time, and I'm sure it is subjectively true to you that the universe has existed and will exist forever. It is okay to believe things, it's not like I think less of you, I'm just trying to show you that it is a belief. If you believe that I'm wrong, then it is okay, because it is true to you, and if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

 

[mosassam]

I like this. It's honest. It is okay to admit that we don't know as much as we might have thought before

It being "okay to admit" wasn't really my point. Science and religion don't realize their own ignorance and neither of them realize that the days of Aristotle's either/or, true/false perception of reality may be coming to an end. Uncertainty may be soon accepted as a far 'deeper' reality than the answers science and religion have given us so far. Science and religion seem to be manifestations of our desparate need to avoid fear of the unknown. Maybe, once we accept the true nature of our uncertain existence, we will evolve beyond the pettiness of different "beliefs", be they scientific or religious.
Maybe not

 

[heusdens]

I don't believe you. I won't until you can prove it to me rather than try to convince me, but I don't discredit the possibility. I agree partly with you in that it is possible that the universe has always existed, however I don't conclude that it has as you conclude. Personally, I really don't care about that subject enough to believe one way or another. The reason why I don't care is because concluding either way doesn't change the way I feel from day to day. I'm sorry if I've given you a hard time, and I'm sure it is subjectively true to you that the universe has existed and will exist forever. It is okay to believe things, it's not like I think less of you, I'm just trying to show you that it is a belief. If you believe that I'm wrong, then it is okay, because it is true to you, and if I were you, I'd feel the same way.

Well in some way it is a belief, because the fact is we would not measure an eternal time interval anyway. The infinity/eternity of the world can only be inferred from a metaphysical thought. At least it can be argued that the world/universe does not have a boundary.

One other things worth mentioning and which would render the whole question meaningless is that one can argue that the world (universe, all there is) does not exist in the objective way, since there are no objective relations for the world in total. That conclusion can be drawn from the fact that there are no objects outside, apart and independent of the world. In that way, no objective relations can exist between the world (universe) itself and something strictly outside, independent and apart from it.

I agree with you that thinking either way (finitiy/infinity of the world) is something that can not be scientifically tested.
And for all that it is worth, it does not matter for our position here and now.