Is there a common set of universal truths?

I have been spending much time thinking bout my time here and how the people perceive me. I am thinking i am presenting things wrong maybe?

I present a system of knowledge that many seem to disagree with on some level. I think this mite be because everyone has their own system of knowledge and they dont meet up right with others like mine.

But there must be something underlying the universe that give these ideas an important place in our minds. So I wanted to try and break everything down into like a set of all encompassing truths that all Individual truth comes from.

So I abandon my system and instead present what I think everyone might agree with.

The truths:
1. The material world is not the entirety of reality. It is a projection of a higher reality that is not casually perceived by the senses.

2. Our material bodies are subject to physical laws and death etc but our non material bodies (spirit) are not. It is like a divine form of energy.

3. All humans have the ability to perceive these other levels of reality both inside us and out but we get taught to ignore it. But instead of this we should have the goal to apply these truths to our lives in practical ways as this is our true purpose.



What do you think of these basic, what I call truths of reality?

Just be prepared to see that some who will respond to this topic may not agree to some if not most of these things, and also that you may be asked to clarify and elaborate for the purposes of logical questioning and testing.

If this is what ends up happening, It may mean that your basic truths are not basic enough.

Fyxe wrote: ... there must be something underlying the universe that give these ideas an important place in our minds.

Maybe there is, maybe there is not (not to be confused with possibly). What makes you suspect that there must be?

1. The material world is not the entirety of reality. It is a projection of a higher reality that is not casually perceived by the senses.

Again, maybe. It's not a matter of proving it one way or the other, but I think we would be better off believing things on reasonable grounds. So what reason is there, in your opinion, to think this, or agree with it, as the case may be. Maybe some will on intuition, maybe others will not, but outside of it "just feeling right/wrong", what else is there to actually help form a rational opinion on this question?

2. Our material bodies are subject to physical laws and death etc but our non material bodies (spirit) are not. It is like a divine form of energy.

Same as above. What reason, outside of appeals to intuition, emotion, or tradition, is there to suppose that anything like a non-material body is something that exists in some meaningful sense?

3. All humans have the ability to perceive these other levels of reality both inside us and out...

Same as the two above. What reason, outside of appeals to intuition, emotion, or anecdotes, is there to suppose that anything like a power to perceive "these (unspecified) other levels of reality" is something any human, let alone all of us, actually possess? This is even assuming that the things to be perceived exist in the first place, which is itself far, far from established.

... but we get taught to ignore it.

This truth I actually openly disagree with. Religious guides and gurus world wide and throughout history try - and often succeed - to convince people that there are worlds beside the one they see, and that there are means to connect with some or all of them. I'm also not aware of one person who is "teaching" to ignore these things, mostly because the things in question have yet to manifest in some way that is detectable enough to even be ignored in the first place. There is no such thing as an anti Sunday school, after all, but Sunday schools are abundant.
One does not get followers and devotees by teaching them that they should not follow or to devote themselves to some belief or cause. Hence, nobody is teaching non-spiritualism, because there is nothing there to be taught. It is a doctrine much in the same way in which "off" is a TV channel.

But instead of this we should have the goal to apply these truths to our lives in practical ways as this is our true purpose.

Another difficult one. I don't know that "our true purpose" is something that makes a lot of sense on such a grand scale, much less that we are fit to discern it with such ease. It's also far from clear whether or not statements about how things should be (or how we should think or behave, as it were) can be truths at all to begin with.
So even assuming all other truths until this point, it's still at best a very intuition-based leap to say that well, since they are truths, we ought therefore be applying them in some practical ways. Following an "ought" from an "is" like that is difficult to justify, even if the "is" parts were all granted for the sake of argument.

Fyxe wrote: I present a system of knowledge

I disagree that you are presenting a system of knowledge. What i see you presenting is a set of beliefs which you have taken on faith. Im not saying that your beliefs are incorrect, i am saying they are un-provable and cannot be accepted with the same confidence as something like the theory of evolution or the laws of thermodynamics.... ideas which are the results of and hugely important contributors to an actual system of knowledge; scientific discovery.

I think this mite be because everyone has their own system of knowledge and they dont meet up right with others like mine.

If youre going to consider something to be a system of knowledge then you have to know who built the system, and how. A system of knowledge is not something an individual can just invent from their imagination. Nor is it something one can piece-meal by searching out every new age claim of wizardry and inter-dimensional travel made by people who just so happen to be making a lot of money selling books and doing seminars on such claims.

But there must be something underlying the universe

MAY, there MAY be something underlying the universe

that give these ideas an important place in our minds.

Culture. Human culture and the evolution of religious ideas over time. The reality of our impermanence.

So I abandon my system and instead present what I think everyone might agree with.

Respectfully, theres no way we can all agree to these things.

The truths:
1. The material world is not the entirety of reality. It is a projection of a higher reality that is not casually perceived by the senses.

Evidence?

2. Our material bodies are subject to physical laws and death etc but our non material bodies (spirit) are not. It is like a divine form of energy.

What i can say in reply is that, having learned the basics of biology and evolution at the 01 college level, our “being” is most likely a product of our bodies. Consciousness doesnt “go into” a body, any more than light “goes into” a light bulb: consciousness is produced by the organic processes of the body. Light doesnt “ascend” or “move on” when the filament burns out, it simply vanishes because the bulb is no longer able to produce it. Death is very likely this way, as well. Is it pissible that there is more to the story? Sure. But until we experience death for ourselves, all our opinions kn what happens are guesses.

3. All humans have the ability to perceive these other levels of reality both inside us and out but we get taught to ignore it. But instead of this we should have the goal to apply these truths to our lives in practical ways as this is our true purpose.

If you have these abilities then you should be able to make verifiable predictions and assertions about real aspects of real life. For instance, can you use your abilities to tell me what bookstore i am in or what brand of bottled water i am drinking?

Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John; can you talk to me about why you suspect this? Are there some IP or other technical reasons? Kyrin is hyper rational and while some of her “dirty” tactics were similar to Fyxe’s, such as misrepresenting what other people say, s/he never supported any kind of “woo” or any magical powers sort of thing, ever. Also, s/he never really offered any kind of olive branch, that i could tell. Kyrin is/was like a berserker or a crusader, determined to crush any and all foes of reason and rationality.

My impression of this thread is that Fyxe wanted to open a dialogue, not a battle. Kyrin kind of really likes to fight and s/he would post with the underlying drive to be involved in a fight. My impression of Fyxe is that he fights when he feels challenged. In his mind he’s not fighting, he’s fighting back. If id associate Fyxe with anyone, it would be Yabuturtle. I dont think thats whats happening but its a more likely comparison, imo.

PM

So, this is a straight-up ontological (metaphysical) discussion.
These "truths" Fyxe is proposing are essentially what is known as Platonic dualism.

1. Plato believed that the material world was a projection of a higher reality, that the objects we see all have an underlying perfect form/essence.

Seeing as all we really know about the material world consists of our perceptions of it, this is difficult to argue in support of.
However, one could make an argument that our capacity for a priori judgements, specifically of the synthetic variety, is demonstrative of some truth to this proposition.

Wittgenstein's Beetle in a Box thought experiment is useful for not only demonstrating the unreliable and culturally-relative nature of language, but it's reverse also shows us that behind any word in any language is the semantic of it, the underlying idea/meaning of the thing.
A word is only a symbolic label for an idea, the only reason translation between languages is possible is because all humans share the same ideas concerning reality. We all share a similar conceptual framework, so even with different labels for the same idea, we can still communicate because we share that idea.

Example:
tree
drzewo
crann
copac
itace
ต้นไม้
樹
木
Despite the variations in syntax, these words are all simply symbols/labels for the same underlying idea.

So the fact that humans share this conceptual framework across various cultures and languages show us a few things.

1. We share an underlying conceptual framework.

1.1 Proof of this can be found via the phenomena of translation.

1.12 Translation would not be possible without this conceptual framework.

1.2 This framework is representative of something greater than us. Some biological characteristic, some freak adaptation we share as a species, some genetic code that blesses us with this shared gift?

1.21 OR is it something greater than us, some principle of the Universe that allows for this? You see the same phenomena play out in Mathematics, and Mathematics can be used to not only accurately represent the material/physical world, but it can also be used to predict and map out the structures that make up the physical world. Maybe language comes from the same thing. (Noam Chomsky found that all languages share a similar syntax, maybe this stems from a mathematical truth. I have heard somewhere that even language has an underlying mathematical basis.)

1.212 If this is a Universal phenomenon, like mathematics, then the only way to prove it would be to discover and interact with another intelligent species. If another intelligent species shares not only a similar mathematical system but a similar syntactical and semantical system of language, this would be a start towards objective evidence for this proposition.

1.2121 In other words, if this is true of language as it is of math, then there must be some unperceived phenomena in the structure of the Universe that allows for such a thing to exist, meaning that there is a higher reality not perceived by the senses, and somewhat proving Plato's concept of Forms.

1.3 Mathematics alone would be proof of this unperceived higher reality. Mathematics is a purely a priori practice, born out of pure reason. We know through modern scientific knowledge that mathematical laws, principles, equations, what-have-you can not only be applied to the physical world but can be accurate predictors/representations of physical phenomena.

1.31 Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a beautiful example of this. Dreamed up in a patent clerks office in Switzerland, this concept, this idea has been proven true time and time again in the physical world, despite being literally born out of a priori reasoning. Since this is true, there must be some higher reality or principle of the Universe that allows for simple ideas to translate to the physical realm.


2. The second proposition is representative of basic substance dualism, the non-physical mind (soul) and physical matter are two separate materials.

However, substance dualism runs into a major issue, which is if the mind/soul is non-physical, then does it/can it influence the body or vice versa, and if so, how the hell does a non-physical substance have an effect on the physical world?

This also violates the causal closure of the physical and the law of conservation of mass-energy.

So in simpler terms, you can believe this if you want, but good luck proving it.

Not that I am outright dismissing dualism, there are some interesting implications of reality if it was true, but the traditional arguments in favor of dualism fall apart against modern scientific knowledge.

3. This third position isn't really an argument or even an actual proposition so much as it is a statement of your opinion.

However, taking Plato's Allegory of the Cave into consideration (and Kant's Noumenal reality), you probably aren't wrong, but you aren't exactly right either.
Yes, there are underlying unperceived/ignored elements to reality, but what they are, and their implications are vastly complex, abstract, and nuanced.

You might benefit from finding a referential, something to reference all other things to. People use culture most commonly, but inner monologues, certain feelings, social networks, chemical balances, etc and for me I think it's all of these by focusing on conceptual models that relate to them. For Jediism it's the Force I guess... and so defining what that means probably is better as a result of transformative effort rather then just another cultural model... imo.

Fyxe wrote: 1. The material world is not the entirety of reality. It is a projection of a higher reality that is not casually perceived by the senses.

Seems true in regards to subjective reality, as there was some science around saying what we end up perceiving is filtered and modified by our subconscious bits before we are able to digest it. But sciencetific method tries to minimize and explore this to look deeper then otherwise possible... so the contention of it to objective reality must be beyond science and the benefits of it, which tends to place whatever is left as an art at best IMO... where truth exists wholly on the basis of relativity to one's reference model/space.

Fyxe wrote: 2. Our material bodies are subject to physical laws and death etc but our non material bodies (spirit) are not. It is like a divine form of energy.

How'd this body be defined ie what laws does it obey, and why? Perhaps this is part of your reference model!

Fyxe wrote: 3. All humans have the ability to perceive these other levels of reality both inside us and out but we get taught to ignore it. But instead of this we should have the goal to apply these truths to our lives in practical ways as this is our true purpose.

This might be more a claim of result from using your reference model and posit of it as inherent yet asleep until awoken?

Fyxe wrote: What do you think of these basic, what I call truths of reality?

Maybe an approach to a subjective reality, where they serve as truths...

Br. John wrote: Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John wrote: PM

If you are already happy to plant a seed of thread derailment anyway, why not present your case in public? You made the (possibly) accusation in public, too, so what's the issue?

Gisteron wrote:

Br. John wrote: Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John wrote: PM

If you are already happy to plant a seed of thread derailment anyway, why not present your case in public? You made the (possibly) accusation in public, too, so what's the issue?

PM

Br. John wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Br. John wrote: Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John wrote: PM

If you are already happy to plant a seed of thread derailment anyway, why not present your case in public? You made the (possibly) accusation in public, too, so what's the issue?

PM

As you can see from the post you quoted, I did not ask for (a private revelation of) evidence. I asked why you wouldn't present your case in public, if you are already willing to make the accusation in public.

Ima try and answer all questions. I don't know what the middle part means though? so Ill ignore it.


Gisteron, should I change my statement from there must be to there might be? I but must because as Jedi don't we all believe in the force? no matter what the individual belief comes to become there is this idea that we all believe in just "The Force". Just the name used for this underlying thing or idea? the other points after all are based on that same agreement - that the force (whatever that is) exists.

As for getting taught not to believe in in, well I can see your point, I think its actually both. some teach to believe and some teach to disbelieve.




Ob1shinobi, I guess I should say MY system of knowledge. and not A system but a system seems the same to me as my system. I don't think its based on faith but belief. I have seen evidence of it, but that is allreally beside the point. I was the one who build the system I presented and the how was by experience and interaction I feel was real. But I didn't do this thread to argue for my belief. I wanted to go underneath that and see if Im wrong.

I think there may not be the physical evidence but spiritual evidence and that evidence is that we all believe something exists beyond what we see because of some reason that is subjective. if a bunch of subjective ideas are the same is there some underlying cause for this? There MAY BE, would you say?

I don't want to get into the whole whats on your desk stuff because that's a claim of ability that you already reject. I was just asking if you believe in some form of something like the force? it doesn't matter what it actually is I just wonder if you think it exists at all or does not exist.




Caesar, I was trying to stay away from any system including platos. I am just wondering about whats underneath that, anything at all? if so why do you think so?


Adder, what im tying to find is the reference, the anchor or underlying principle that can be agreed to. do you think, is there something rather than nothing and if something I don't want to know what you think it isthough because that's a system/.

Fyxe wrote:
Caesar, I was trying to stay away from any system including platos. I am just wondering about whats underneath that, anything at all? if so why do you think so?

I wrote exactly what I thought. Read it again.

And it's kinda hard to stay away from a system when the "truths" you are proposing have already been an established ontological system for over 2000 years.

Well I'm not looking for truths so much as principles or essences. Do you believe there is such a thing and if so what would you say it is?

A well-defined purpose is key to making a convincing argument on any subject.
In philosophy, we are taught to eschew the superfluous, to abandon the mendacity of the unnecessary, so that an argument is clear, concise, and stands alone in its dispassionate intellectual fervor towards logically valid persuasion.
In other words, a sound argument is free of embellishment, of the inconclusive niceties that appeal to vapid emotionalism.
A sound argument stands on its own feet, it is independent in its solidity, and is supported by its inherent strength alone.
One must keep this in mind and hold true to these principles in order to preserve one's intellectual integrity.
Unless one is a politician of course. 

But yes, there certainly is an undefinable essence to reality, some mysterious incorporeal substrate that binds mind and body to reality.
What it is, I cannot say. As I have previously stated, this is vast, complex, and abstract, something that is difficult to put into words, let alone effectively communicate with others.
One must either base their beliefs in this matter on pre-existing ideas or come up with their own perspective.
However, this is difficult to do, as most possible perspectives on the ontological have already been expressed, in a more concise and eloquent manner than I could ever hope for.
So I shall simply settle for a synthesis.

CaesarEJW wrote: A well-defined purpose is key to making a convincing argument on any subject.
In philosophy, we are taught to eschew the superfluous, to abandon the mendacity of the unnecessary, so that an argument is clear, concise, and stands alone in its dispassionate intellectual fervor towards logically valid persuasion.
In other words, a sound argument is free of embellishment, of the inconclusive niceties that appeal to vapid emotionalism.

Wait, what's the deal with ontology, then? :silly:

On a more serious note, though, how does

But yes, there certainly is an undefinable essence to reality, some mysterious incorporeal substrate that binds mind and body to reality. What it is, I cannot say. As I have previously stated, this is vast, complex, and abstract, something that is difficult to put into words, let alone effectively communicate with others. (emphasis added)

make any sense? What is this sort of 'certainty' you speak of that can persist on things that are, as you put it, 'undefinable'? And what about it is not superfluous, or clear, or concise, or maintained for a belief without emotional appeal?

One must either base their beliefs in this matter on pre-existing ideas or come up with their own perspective.

Must one, though? Can one not withhold belief until something, anything remotely compelling is presented?

Serious question
- the symbol g. The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s.
Universal truths ? Like this or

Natural truth by natural law

4 seasons emotions change with changing of seasons?

Math
Comprehensive ideas
Science
Things like that ? I do want to understand

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s. (emphasis added)

After literally some 10s or so of typing it into google and clicking the first result:

Wikipedia wrote: At different points on Earth surface, the gravitational speed gain ranges from 9.764 m/s² to 9.834 m/s² depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s² (approximately 32.17405 ft/s²). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag.

So no. Not "most accurately known". It's not even really a constant at all. At most there is a convention, an agreement to use one exact value as a unit where applicable.

Gisteron wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s. (emphasis added)

After literally some 10s or so of typing it into google and clicking the first result:

Wikipedia wrote: At different points on Earth surface, the gravitational speed gain ranges from 9.764 m/s² to 9.834 m/s² depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s² (approximately 32.17405 ft/s²). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag.

So no. Not "most accurately known". It's not even really a constant at all. At most there is a convention, an agreement to use one exact value as a unit where applicable.

Yes that - is that what ya mean? That type of universal truth that can be tested and perfected as we grow and learned and used... does that count as universal truth here ?