Perspectology

reply to post by primalfractal


Reality is an illusion you chose to believe. ADD (+)
Illusions are realities you chose to reject. SUB (-)

These interrelated interchangeable INTERPRETATIONS and DECISIONS are individual based...with overlapping similarities that bring about co-creative interpretive experiences. Kind of like a ven diagram...the more overlapping judgments/decisions between people the more concrete/solid the "reality". Its being accepted and applied by more people each one of them validating the choice to one another...

socially I believe this is why we have the "class" system that we have (low-mid-upper)...it is self organized naturally according to how each individual is interpreting and judging their reality to work. Similar judgments/decisions/beliefs gathering together to create their own co-creative reality experience.

Really gives a deeper insight to:
“You must be the change you want to see in the world.”

It SEEMS as though there is an outside orientation that is the correct orientation to something...we call this the "TRUTH"...I'm not sold on this idea quite yet as there is this huge variable called "interpretation".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you think of all the variables involved perspective wise..it makes less sense to try and find a universal truth...as the perspective can flip/flop between qualities...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One of the big challenges of realizing all positions have validity is that it's very easy to start to think, "What's the point?" Nothing is real. So who cares about "truth" if everything is equally valid? I think the resolution to this is that there is objective truth within a specific domain or set of constraints.

For instance, your computer works day in and day out because the MOV, ADD, SUB operations on the processor behave exactly the same way, every time. The only time this isn't true is when the processor starts to fail due to age, heat, or other external stimuli like an electrical surge. Thus this caveat represents the constraint.

Likewise in math we can build on past knowledge using corollaries because abstract proofs have been demonstrated to continue to hold in a particular domain (human knowledge). Despite being built on core axioms that have no proof and are simply self-evident. No one contests the identity axiom B = B.

Likewise the explicit constraint that makes a coin flip represent 50/50 odds is based on the notion that it only has two faces to land on irregardless of other information known about the system. As humans become more advanced we solve more of these systems (i.e. checkers is a solvable game).

This implicitly changes the odds because we shift the constraints (thoughts on how this ties into probability).

That is what we're really seeing in these diagrams and what's going on when we accept contradictions as true. Some underlying constraint is changing.



So, for example, in the diagram above we accept the "upper perspective" red square is front facing because the red lines cover the black lines that makes up the back face. The reverse is true for the "lower perpsective."

The constraint of human perception determines what is in the front and how/when it flips.

In some ways this is like how water changes from a solid, to a liquid, to a gas, or to a plasma. The amount of heat applied changes the constraint of the state of the matter.

It's only when we establish reasonable constraints for a problem that we can create realistic models.

This is how we can say some contradictions are false (because the constraint didn't really change), but some contradictions can be true (because the constraint of whether "I love the Yankees" did change).

To wrap it all because this is getting long. Basically I think there are five major types of reality and in each reality the one thing that is missing is the constraint that makes the rest of that existence solid.

I suspect dark energy is literally the "contradiction" or "null" or "false" component of our universe.

Basically it's the white space that allows us to distinguish foreground from background.

Mads1987

I am actually tempted to say that nothing is spinning. Some objects might be moving, but it's doesn't require a spinning motion to create this effect. Just a few frames moving back and forth would suffice.

Thats a different perspective

reply to post by Sly1one


It's very hard to appreciate the reality presented here Sly. It's so new and profound, yet more ancient than we can probably express, it really forces us to ask questions. Questions we only have answers to in the future.

I wonder, then, if, theoretically, time-travel is possible via hologram

Hiya OP,

Wondering if you've looked up constructivist epistemology and relativism to speed your soul searching some? If not, it seems to parallel to what you're investigating and there are a lot of incredibly painful books to read on the subject haha. I get the impression you've looked at the topics at least a little!

The issue with the claim that there is no neutral truth is that there are ontological deductions that are likely fact. The fact that we know that illusions are illusions is quite telling of this.

I think you sum it up a little when you say this:

Sly1one
So while there SEEMS to be a truth outside of us it also seems like a dynamic "truth" that keeps changing...but really IT doesn't change...WE DO...our perspectives change based on how we orient ourselves to things...

There are some brain storming comments in the thread that imply that things are more malleable than they likely are though:

Sly1one
It SEEMS as though there is an outside orientation that is the correct orientation to something...we call this the "TRUTH"...I'm not sold on this idea quite yet as there is this huge variable called "interpretation".

Using as an example:

arrows going up or down?

The question itself may be misleading? The fact either answer can be mutually true doesn't actually create a contradiction otherwise I could say that the picture is a massive dinosaur fighting ninjas whilst juggling cookies.

Even if we zoomed in using an electron microscope and Barney the Cookieasaur, it wouldn't necessarily negate the arrows truth.

If we come from the perspective that all views are relativist and possibly valid truths then we would have to say that the perspective that all views are relativist and therefore negate our own view as a possibility and then my brain falls out haha

I think the fact that we can be 100% wrong and often are tells us that there is a description independent reality somewhere.

More complex example:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83c7e24ac921.jpg[/atsimg]
The squares labelled A and B are both RGB 120 120 120. Yet, our eyes assume that one is white. Some Brazilian tribes also struggle to differentiate between blue and green whilst others can perceive shades others can't. Humans can also look at an image with a blue or pink hue and 'discern' other colors (color constancy) even if mathematically the entire image is pink.

Whilst these things might be difficult to unintuitive, and they do demonstrate the existence of perspective, they still don't introduce real contradictions to reality. Is just a massive reminder that we are imperfect.

reply to post by Sly1one


THANK YOU! I've wanted to write a thread about this exact subject for weeks, but I haven't had the energy or the inspiration. The fact that you wrote all of this is exhilarating for me, because you've validated everything I've been thinking. You've restored my faith in ATS. I only hope that more people read this. Because ATS is in desperate need of some peace of mind. 99% of the conflict on this site is a result of conflicting egos - NOT conflicting ideas! Put your egos aside and voice your opinion confidently without defending it.

THAT is how you make a difference. Not by beating the world into submission. Not by forcing your perspective on others. Not by beating your fellow brother & sister down in the name of "denying ignorance". It is the HEIGHT of ignorance to turn on your brother in order to prove a meaningless point! And if you do that, then you're no better than the Hitlers and George Bush's of the world. And that's sad, because the ATS community has so much underlying love to give. But we're too busy trying to win the argument so we can feel good about ourselves for a few minutes.

F#ck that! Put your pride aside and speak your truth. That's how you make a difference. Not by yelling the loudest with the biggest stick you can find. We've tried that for centuries, and it hasn't worked. Give it a rest humanity. Let's put our petty differences aside and unite under the common cause of the noble pursuit of freedom, liberty, peace & happiness!


Take it easy guys/OP. God bless you all for seeing the light. It is existential wisdom like this which is going to save us from ourselves - not petty childish squabbles. He who can speak his truth without hurting anyone in order to do so is the real Master of argument.



PS. The realization that "Truth" is actually subjective, that Truth is fluid and adaptable and not some universal constant handed down by "god" (or whatever you believe created our beautiful cosmos), is the first major revelation that will open the door for humanity to move towards a golden age of peace & prosperity.

Wisdom is the way forward. Not knowledge. Knowledge alone is just dangerous. Wisdom, however, is healing. And wisdom coupled with knowledge is power. Remember: the only thing that is true, is whatever you hold to be true. And that applies to everyone! So be mindful of your truths - and be respectful of others' truths. That is how we will attain world Peace! Now get out there and speak your truth with love, and hear others' truths with respect.

Namaste.

reply to post by Sly1one



So perspective is not reality. Reality is reality.

A static perspective induces the illusion we call a reality...a dynamic perspective makes the traditional concept of "Reality" turn into a dynamic reality that is more like an illusion based off of how we determine reality through science.

Mathematics is a system for relating the static perspective to dynamic perspectives. The static perspective being more general (usually) such as the earthly perspective (time, mass, size equations). The dynamic perspective being more specific such as individual perspective.

The static perspective usually being the axis and the dynamic perspective usually being of rotation. These can flip flop based on the reference type I discussed in my post.

Imagine yourself inside a huge hollow sphere. Now imagine this sphere spinning....now question WHAT is objectively moving...you or the sphere? depending on your reference perspective the answer to that question changes...and consequently so does the reality you believe yourself to be in. The typical answer wants to be TOR (this or that) instead of TAT (this and that) but it can be answered either way...one implying limitation(TOT) the other implying limitlessness(TAT)

TOT rejects and accepts half the potential. TAT considers all potential.
On a teeter-totter

This simplified version will help illustrate some more the 3 types of orientation or reference perspectives of interpretation.

The little girl on the left will be perspective (A) and the little girl on the right will be perspective (B)(B) the pivot point or the triangle will be (C)
A and B are interchangeable...their designation can flip flop so long as there is a 180 degrees of contrast.
C is the axis of A:B. The reality being experience by (A) implies a self-reference perspective of "below"...the reality being experienced by (B) implies a self-reference perspective of "above"...all made possible by (C) which implies axis reference perspective.

I would also like to add that if you removed the background references from the two kids on the totter...they would interpret themselves as being below or above...interpretative it wouldn't matter how they saw themselves in relation to the other. Suddenly you add the background reference perspective (horizon) and their interpretations snap back into place...one will view themselves above the other and one below the other. Above and below being these interpretive judgements made through an induced orientation.

Imagine yourself moving through a wormhole. As you do so question whether the wormhole is moving around you...or if you are moving through it...or both? The interpretation of this simple reality could go 1/3 ways...all of which are valid.

reply to post by Logarock


So what is reality???

How you answer that question will be your perspective interpretation of "reality".

reply to post by TheAnarchist


I'm glad that I could validate your perspectives in some way

Sly1one
reply to post by Logarock

 

So what is reality???

How you answer that question will be your perspective interpretation of "reality".

In the case of the wheel, whatever the perspective or position as demonstrated, the wheel is always moving toward you and away from you at the same time.

Depending on where you stand the wheel is coming at you from the north or south and moving away in the opposite direction relative to that.

In the mask demonstration, whatever the perspective, all viewers are afforded that point where they can see clearly the illusion at some point in the 360. So all the rounded perspective gives you is the reality, the true nature of what you are looking at.

This is why I am not sure that any of us can perceive objective reality - if there is one.

I also consider the idea that if two or more people can have same or similar perceptions, then they have a gameboard for interaction and relation.... which would explain our natural drive to want to convince others our perception is "true" - so that they can agree to see it also.

Having a wildly different view from everyone else around you can make you feel very lonely eventually.
(being a foriegner is like that)

Considering that we cannot be sure there is an objective reality,
Or if there is one, it doesn't always matter (what we know of the placebo effect, the power of the mind, makes it clear now that belief is a key),
Then I consider that choosing a perspective, or changing one, should be done more according to what kinds of effects it creates . What kind of experiences does it set up for the perceiver? What kind of personality or behaviors does it give rise to?

-THESE are why I retain an interest in exchange with others, expressing to each other our different perspectives... even if I have given up on a search for "truth".
We can constantly be showing each other different potential perspectives, describe what kinds of experiences we have, and show (through our behavior) what kind of personality they give rise to.

It's fun to "window shop" this way- to know, "there is this one way of looking at things- I don't see them that way, because it gives one the type of experiences and personality I don't choose at this time, but some people find it very desireable." or
"I love the types of experiences and personality that person has! I'd like to experience the same- I am going to listen to their perspectives and adopt them myself!"

I feel like Mrs. Potatohead, and can change my features this way, getting inspired by others.

So those who try to force their perspectives on me with proclamations of it being THE TRUTH, or any sort of behavior I find disrespectful of others, really turn me off and convince me to stay away from their particular perspective, no matter what it is!

There needs to be an objective reality, we are all made of it, there are no things that exist without objectively existing in someway. The existence of ideas are objective in that they are energetic reactions in the complex system of human mind which exist in reality and are caused to manifest, but the informational meaning and content of those ideas can literally be infinite amount of things coherence and nonsense included. It is possible an idea can grasp and mirror an aspect of reality, for example the idea that an equilateral triangle has 3 equal sides or the idea that when I release a ball from my hand it will fall to the ground,this is ideas grasping truth and understanding and comprehending aspects of reality. On the other hand, I can have the idea that when I let go of a ball it will turn into cotton candy flavored crab juice and fly to the nearest galaxy, and we can experiment with my idea, and I can (for the time being) be proven wrong, incorrect, false, not true. The act of having ideas is objective, the experience of grappling with reality and ideas is subjective, grappling with ideas can to varying degrees yield insight and understanding into aspects of the objective, and there is also potential for them to not.

I have nothing sure to say when it comes to perspectives on things like morals and ethics and whether or not there is absolute and objective truths and right ways for things to be and people to act and behave. But I do think the concept of God, is positing the highest absolute perfection and good, and attempting to abide by that and follow that code. Like if goodness has no absolute meaning or value, there is no need or reason for it to exist, but over time and human interaction, it was seen that goodness is...good, and that we can choose to be good, to manifest this ethereal decision and operation, behavior, which has no absolute nature or need to exist, but we have the power to cause it to exist, and when we do, then in a way it does objectively and absolutely exist.

Bluesma


So those who try to force their perspectives on me with proclamations of it being THE TRUTH, or any sort of behavior I find disrespectful of others, really turn me off and convince me to stay away from their particular perspective, no matter what it is!

I hear what you are saying and generally agree.

I break it down into several categories that revolve around two main points. When I am being disrespected or forced or thereby forced by disrespect I break it down like this. 1. The person is demonstrating disrespect out of their own defensive narcissism, contempt, efforts to control ect ect or 2. Or they feel like they are talking to a hard headed ape so toss out disrespect of several sorts in an attempt to break through the hard head. Sadly sometimes disrespect is a valid communicative tool if other factors are present.

ImaFungi
There needs to be an objective reality, we are all made of it, there are no things that exist without objectively existing in someway.

There is an objective reality...but that objective reality keeps changing according to perspective. There SEEMS to be an objective reality here on earth but we know better than that because science has shown us many outside of earth perspectives that CHANGE what the objective truth is...

The objective truth is very real and tangible...but only from within that limited context or perspective. When you shift your perspective that objective truth shifts with it to a degree...just like time dilation.

The act of having ideas is objective, the experience of grappling with reality and ideas is subjective, grappling with ideas can to varying degrees yield insight and understanding into aspects of the objective, and there is also potential for them to not.

I agree with this on several levels one of them being that the objective context induces a sense of understanding the entirety. The only thing is that the "entirety" keeps getting larger and larger...we understand the Earth from the moon, we move past that and past that then we conceptualize the understanding of the solar system from outside of itself...then we try to conceptualize and understand the galaxy from outside itself...and we are doing this with TOOL that remove the limitation on our earthly and human perspectives....hubble, IR, UV, Thermal etc etc...these "visual" perspectives that we can't innately see. This is all within the physical context of the physical world as an objective part of our interpretive experience this has a foundation already with GR and SR...

However I'm really more curious as to the context of psychology a form of psychological relativity. The importance being that our lives as we interpret them are experienced through perception/mental filters. depending on these filters we can change HOW were interpreting our EXPERIENTIAL reality to be.

I'm not trying to bend or warp the laws of the objective physical world even though relativity applies to them as well...but more so trying to warp and manipulate the interpretive experiential world by using perspective as a guidance system. Intentionally using filters or removing filters consciously instead of subconsciously...actively instead of re-actively...

I have nothing sure to say when it comes to perspectives on things like morals and ethics and whether or not there is absolute and objective truths and right ways for things to be and people to act and behave. But I do think the concept of God, is positing the highest absolute perfection and good, and attempting to abide by that and follow that code. Like if goodness has no absolute meaning or value, there is no need or reason for it to exist, but over time and human interaction, it was seen that goodness is...good, and that we can choose to be good, to manifest this ethereal decision and operation, behavior, which has no absolute nature or need to exist, but we have the power to cause it to exist, and when we do, then in a way it does objectively and absolutely exist.

edit on 5-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I'm not into the bible but I do find it interesting that the "fall of man" started with the apple of knowledge...and the knowledge that we learned was of polarity...we learned of "good" and "evil". These two concepts that are interpreted individually kicked off the polarity based world we perceive ourselves to exist in. We have been judging and condemning ourselves ever since...launching and defending crusades over which direction the tire is spinning.

Having said this I have tried for quite some time to get a coherent interpretation of what "good" is and really none exists they are always off to a degree and explains a lot of the in-fighting between religious denominations...where generally they share and agree and have a coherent interpretation...but specifically they do not...and once again the foundation of an argument is created.

I will not argue that the 3D physical world we are playing in as a context has certain laws to it...(at least from all the perspectives we have explored it from THUS FAR) however...the INTERPRETATION of that #d physical world is up for discussion...and the correct interpretation seems to be like a mirage in the desert...for every step you take...that oasis too, takes a step.

Thank you for your participation fungi...seriously these discussions help me understand this stuff on a deeper level.

Bluesma
This is why I am not sure that any of us can perceive objective reality - if there is one.

I also consider the idea that if two or more people can have same or similar perceptions, then they have a gameboard for interaction and relation.... which would explain our natural drive to want to convince others our perception is "true" - so that they can agree to see it also.

This is the case for manipulative people...which manipulation isn't universally a (-) concept...we can define it and judge it to be one...but by itself its (n) neutral like everything else we create...anyone with a child (specifically a 2 year old) knows how (+) manipulation can be at times...and it benefits both parties involved.

Propaganda wouldn't be so heavily used if coaxing people into your perspective didn't have some co-creative power...creating the reality through actualization. The Shepard so to speak...

Considering that we cannot be sure there is an objective reality,
Or if there is one, it doesn't always matter (what we know of the placebo effect, the power of the mind, makes it clear now that belief is a key),
Then I consider that choosing a perspective, or changing one, should be done more according to what kinds of effects it creates . What kind of experiences does it set up for the perceiver? What kind of personality or behaviors does it give rise to?

Again this is pretty accurate of the implications of perspectology...the idea being that the thoughts and judgement aren't necessarily good or bad in and of themselves...its the direction you consequently chose to go in relation to those ideas. This is why I try to tell people to find perspectives on things that work FOR THEM instead of against them...the perspectives they chose don't necessarily have to be inline with the collective.

-THESE are why I retain an interest in exchange with others, expressing to each other our different perspectives... even if I have given up on a search for "truth".

This is why diversity exists....try imagining a sphere if you were limited to only one perspective of it.

We can constantly be showing each other different potential perspectives, describe what kinds of experiences we have, and show (through our behavior) what kind of personality they give rise to.

It's fun to "window shop" this way- to know, "there is this one way of looking at things- I don't see them that way, because it gives one the type of experiences and personality I don't choose at this time, but some people find it very desireable." or
"I love the types of experiences and personality that person has! I'd like to experience the same- I am going to listen to their perspectives and adopt them myself!"

I love this and I call it being a belief thief. Once I got out of the polarized state of consciousness that I had I started adopting ideas I usually would have rejected. Interestingly enough I know personally many people who are taking on perspectives that aren't really working for them...

They are stealing beliefs from CNN telling them terrorism is around every corner...
They are stealing beliefs from alternative news telling them there is a conspiracy so perverse its impossible to fully comprehend and that its so ingenious stopping it is nearly impossible.
They are stealing beliefs from doomsday articles telling them the end is neigh...

ALL OF THIS...in-spite of their direct in the moment in front of their face reality...all of these beliefs as projected assumptions which act like goggles for their interpretation of the world and the reality they are in. Sandy Hook for example...horrible event...that SEEMED to effect millions upon millions...even though the in the moment reality for those millions was NOT what was being presented...if they were to shut off that projector, walk outside, I'm betting their immediate in the moment reality was no where near what was being presented to them on the TV. Being aware is fine but not to the point you completely ignore your immediate environment and surroundings/reality in place of another one that is much more isolated.

The three states of perspective are to be used as tools...they are to be used and navigated intentionally to guide your experience. Sometimes a self-reference perspective is the one that is going to work for you and others...sometimes you need to have the outside-reference perspective...and other times the axis-reference perspective works best for you. We are all already navigating and using these perspectives...were just not all aware that we are...and for many they are subconsciously using programmed perspectives.

So those who try to force their perspectives on me with proclamations of it being THE TRUTH, or any sort of behavior I find disrespectful of others, really turn me off and convince me to stay away from their particular perspective, no matter what it is!

No one can force their perspective on you once your consciously choosing your own. They can merely show you different perspectives that may or may not work for you. Its still up to you to chose and adopt those perspectives into your experiential interpretation.

The above picture is another example of the 3 degrees(types) of interpretation.

(A) is your right eye's interpretation of the visual input which is limited
(B) is your left eye's interpretation of the visual input which is limited

I think we all have experience what its like to limit your perspective visual to reduce the input for induced perspectives that are useful in certain situations. Such as closing either eye to aim down a scope or line something up.

(C) is the combined input creating a combined interpretation of the visual input which is less limited. This is your every day vision that you use to navigate the world...its the simultaneous combination of two perspectives interpreted as its own perspective. Blurry vision or double vision is when (A) and (B) are both interpreted separately instead of simultaneously.

The anatomical, visual, experiential example above is merely a different version of this overall concept.

one could use many different analogies such as(P)roton, (E)lectron, (N)eutron...(+), (-), (n) etc...

Sly1one


There is an objective reality...but that objective reality keeps changing according to perspective. There SEEMS to be an objective reality here on earth but we know better than that because science has shown us many outside of earth perspectives that CHANGE what the objective truth is...

The objective truth is very real and tangible...but only from within that limited context or perspective. When you shift your perspective that objective truth shifts with it to a degree...just like time dilation.

This is what you dont seem to be comprehending. Objective reality has nothing to do with humans minds or knowing or perspective. Objective reality is tautological. It equals itself. It is truth. Yes it changes as in the sun is not composed of the same atoms it was 404040 years ago, but every micropico second of time in that span, objective reality has been occurring, the sun has been doing exactly what it has been doing, and all other quanta of matter and energy has been doing exactly what it has been doing exactly where it has been doing it, exactly when it has been doing it, exactly why it has been doing it.

I'm not trying to bend or warp the laws of the objective physical world even though relativity applies to them as well...but more so trying to warp and manipulate the interpretive experiential world by using perspective as a guidance system. Intentionally using filters or removing filters consciously instead of subconsciously...actively instead of re-actively...

Ok I see, well from a human point of view if there is no absolute correct interpretation of reality, in the way of how a human should behave, and view themself (in a kind of existential absurdism way) then is it a kind of anything goes and nothing matters, no right or wrong, just what occurs?

The thing is even with that, judgement exists, comparison, and for better of for worse, yes anything may go and be possible, but most people would rather live in civilization and behave according to the status quo, then if it was a free for all and everyone lived like savage homeless people. So its like humans have the freedom to establish their existence, culture and community however they want, however they are to accept themselves and their neighbors...and we see this throughout history and nations, the variety of styles of culture and city and village and human connection. Look at how animals live, they dont seem to have a need to behold absolute truths, or seem nervous on whether or not they are perceiving their place in the infinitude of existence correctly. So maybe there it doesnt matter what a human thinks, because there is no repercussion for them being right or wrong (i.e. religious thought). And equally, maybe it doesnt matter whether or not a person goes their whole life and thinks nothing of these things.

I'm not into the bible but I do find it interesting that the "fall of man" started with the apple of knowledge...and the knowledge that we learned was of polarity...we learned of "good" and "evil". These two concepts that are interpreted individually kicked off the polarity based world we perceive ourselves to exist in. We have been judging and condemning ourselves ever since...launching and defending crusades over which direction the tire is spinning.

Having said this I have tried for quite some time to get a coherent interpretation of what "good" is and really none exists they are always off to a degree and explains a lot of the in-fighting between religious denominations...where generally they share and agree and have a coherent interpretation...but specifically they do not...and once again the foundation of an argument is created.

I will not argue that the 3D physical world we are playing in as a context has certain laws to it...(at least from all the perspectives we have explored it from THUS FAR) however...the INTERPRETATION of that #d physical world is up for discussion...and the correct interpretation seems to be like a mirage in the desert...for every step you take...that oasis too, takes a step.

Thank you for your participation fungi...seriously these discussions help me understand this stuff on a deeper level.

im not into the bible either but garden of eden does have some cool symbolism. As far as my opinion goes, I think that is an interpretation of mans downfall over complicating life, and striving for more, which from the ancients perspective maybe was a bummer (because they dont have all the fruits of mans knowledge and labor like we now have) but they were probably looking at cows and birds and thinking, mehhh, I wish i was an animal and didnt have to worry about all this human stuff, they have it so easy and simple, I wish I wasnt so burdened by my thoughts.

ImaFungi

Sly1one


There is an objective reality...but that objective reality keeps changing according to perspective. There SEEMS to be an objective reality here on earth but we know better than that because science has shown us many outside of earth perspectives that CHANGE what the objective truth is...

The objective truth is very real and tangible...but only from within that limited context or perspective. When you shift your perspective that objective truth shifts with it to a degree...just like time dilation.

Objective reality is tautological. It equals itself. It is truth. Yes it changes as in the sun is not composed of the same atoms it was 404040 years ago, but every micropico second of time in that span, objective reality has been occurring, the sun has been doing exactly what it has been doing, and all other quanta of matter and energy has been doing exactly what it has been doing exactly where it has been doing it, exactly when it has been doing it, exactly why it has been doing it.

Reminds me of Heraclitus and Parmenides...Heraclitus having a chaotic flux interpretation of the universe...and Parmenides having an almost static circular orderly interpretation of the universe. They 180 degrees as most contrasting perspectives are...they had a TOT mind-frame and because they were on opposing sides of the sphere they went at each-other like church and science or any other 180 degree duality that exists within this experiential context.

Parmenides was the anti-Heraclitus...he wrote in direct response to Heraclitus that he believed that there is no flux and that, in fact, everything is stagnant. It was his credo, being is immutable and constant, and change is an illusion.

He wrote an epic poem called "Truth" in which he basically states you can look at the world in two ways: You ask yourself whether "it is" or "it is not." If it "is not" you cannot be thinking about it, because you can only think about something that exists. He also believed that all this coming and going and blossoming and fading away that you see in your daily life is an illusion of the senses. The more things change, the more they really remain the same.
"The Essentials of Philosophy: The basic concepts of the worlds greatest thinkers" P4-5

Hes basically stating that change = illusion. That the movement we all experience on differing levels/dimensions is a trick of the senses...

Which is a true interpretation...zeno's paradoxes stem from this interpretation that movement is an illusion, and if movement is an illusion then time is an illusion...and if time is an illusion...well pretty much everything is.

But simultaneously our experiences here on earth contradict this notion as we are capable of doing magnificent things that apparently don't really exist?

Now Heraclitus interpretation of the world/universe isn't wrong either because the flux of things is how science measures things...if it was all stagnant and static there would be no need to readjust our GPS satellites...no need to repaint airline tarmacs...the magnetic fields fluctuations would be predictable and circular...etc...

Pi is a great example of a paradox as its consistently inconsistent...the number always remains the same...but the number itself has no determinable pattern of repetition...ie: inconsistent.

The above interpretations of how things work are half of the picture. I'm suggesting its more of a TAT (this and that) type of system...where arguing over whether or not the universe is infinite or finite is as silly as arguing over which way the bicycle tire is spinning.

As far as truly objective truth goes...is there a version of that, that exists...that matters outside of interpretation? If a signal is sent...and there is no one there to receive it...does it make sense to send it?

The 3D physical nature of this experience seems true enough...only through subjective eyes though. Even the seeming objective experiments we conduct have a subjective humanly interpretations of results at the end. The data we receive from experiments by themselves does nothing...it sits there as numbers on a screen or scribbles in a book...until the subjective interpretation of that data INVENTS or engineers that data into...a gps satellite or an i-phone.

reply to post by Sly1one


Only a creator can know what is true about a thing. It is the creator who produces concepts - all others just interpret in order to know whether or not they should reproduce the concept.

When you become aware of a thing you (re)produce a concept for it. If the concept you reproduced is good, you will try to reproduce said concept in life.

all is [good] concept (re)production.

The reason for this is the trinity, and the answer is faith.