Scott's genius blows my mind. I would have looked quizzically at him, and said something like, "you know, um, things that aren't, well, false, I guess, um..."
@@georgechristiansen6785 I don’t think that pointing to examples of something necessarily tells you what the thing is; a flower is an example of a plant but that doesn’t tell you much about what plants are.
Had a dream many years ago ( post divorce)… there was a guru who said’there are three sides to every story…his, which he presents as the truth, and hers, which she presents as the truth…but the truth stands alone.’
Nice to see Scott Aaronson again at the show. If mathematical truth is not a mere generalisation of physical observations and has autonomy in our cognition and, moreover, math statements can have truth or falsehood independently of our ability to prove or disprove them, then is this situation a hint of the existence of non-physical reality - the realm of pure ideas, where eternal mathematical truth resides?
What a beautiful sentence! And yes, I think your sentiment is correct - this does point to a reality beyond the physical universe, in which mathematics resides. After all, if the laws of our physical universe are determined by a bunch of fine-tuning parameters -- then in all such universes physics would be different but mathematics would remain constant. I don't think a single physicist has proposed a universe in which a fundamental mathematical law is broken. Roger Penrose also had similar thoughts. He once said that he believes reality is organized into 4 realms (iirc) - the realms of ideas, feelings, mathematics, and the physical realm.
Strikes me as one of those incontrovertible truths. The Universe, and the mathematical model upon which it is based, exists whether anyone is there to confirm its existence, as was true for the first 4 or 5 billions of years before a hominem species, after 200,000 years on planet Earth, figured it out. And when the Hominem species goes extinct, the mathematics of the Universe will continue to exist.
Even though an absolute true measurement is never possible in mathematics it’s still clear to see the value in making measurements and whilst never ultimately accurate can still be incredibly revealing and useful, it’s the basis of science.
The notion of "truth" can be divided in 2 main parts: 1) objective "truth" that exists independently of the scrutiny of the human mind, which is exactly the true real dynamic of the Universe. 2) subjective "truth" that is understood and defined arbitrarily ( practically, philosophically, mathematically, etc ) by the human mind.
science itself is the evidence for objective truth without an objective truth that's distinguishable from your subjective pov science will be meaningless, it makes no sense whatsoever
davidt6 • The evidence of it is exactly "itself" devoid of any subjective interpretation. The human brain has to make a substantial effort to avoid its subjective interpretation of the realm around itself. This is very hard for the natural brain structure, but not impossible to fight against its own subjective way of understanding the TRUE REAL dynamic of the Universe.
mesplin3 • Well, if your brain is accustomed to mostly make use of "assumptions" then your brain should make and know better efforts in its cognitive journeys. The "assumption" of something is not the proper way to understand the TRUE dynamic of the Universe.
I think, at the crux of the matter is whether or not numbers in math represent existential, separate entities that can be added together rather then something just nominal
I didn't have any issues with the caveman version. The reason 2+2=4 is because we noticed 2 rocks and another 2 rocks made 4 rocks. This fact seems so intuitive now because we noticed that this rule didn't just apply to rocks but many other things as well.
Except that there is no conceivable empirical evidence that would see us abandon the belief that 2+2=4. You would only regard some seemingly inconsistent experience as a trick, illusion, or hallucination. In this way, 2+2=4 is treated by us as the deepest kind of CRITERION of reality, not as a contingent empirical pattern, however robust. There is also the problem that you and every other thinking human are prepared to believe particular mathematical propositions which map to the lived experience of precisely nobody in the history of the universe.
I think on the other hand that if we place two rocks with two other rocks and consistently counted five rocks (or any other non-negative integer), then we would conclude that the rule that 2+2=4 doesn't apply to rocks for some unknown reason. Maybe we would be able to work that out as some special behaviour of rocks. Or maybe it would remain a mystery. For example, 3-1=2, but if you try to remove one quark from a proton (assuming 3 quarks), you'll end up momentarily with 5 quarks*. This is understood to be due to the energy required to remove a quark being sufficient to create a quark-antiquark pair (for this example I'm treating an antiquark as a quark). And, depending on how you fire two lasers of the same amplitude and frequency light at the same point on a wall, you may have anywhere between twice the intensity and zero intensity light. We developed models to better explain this stuff in terms of maths we understand, but these kinds of observations should challenge our understand of how well our brains understand reality. As far as I can tell, all basic maths (the kind you learn first as a child) is the intuitive stuff that you would experience in the world of objects roughly the size of a human, give or take a few orders of magnitude.
@@pesilaratnayake162 "On the other hand..." I'm not seeing the other hand. There are many things that when put together they don't follow arithmetic. (Waves, clouds, temperature, etc.) We don't apply arithmetic to these things because we know that arithmetic doesn't apply to them. But we noticed a pattern applied to the rocks first.
That is not a fact, that is the actual point. If you do it with diamonds it does not stand for a second. Peter has 4 diamonds and I have 2 in each of my pockets. Do we both have 4 diamonds?, can I trade my diamonds with Peter's?. I should weight them first. Why?, because diamonds as an idea are the same, but in reality are not identical. In math each unit is identical to each other, that is why 2+2=4. That is in a perfect platonic world in which all units are the same. In reality rocks are not the same that is why the extrapolation is done with those 2 frameworks running in parallel, the platonic vs the actual physical object. Sometimes we can count each unit the same without being the same, some other times we have to consider they are not ideal
@@cristianproust So your point is that real rocks are distinct from each other but numbers are not distinct in the same way as rocks or diamonds? Then you compared the weight of a specific diamond as comparable to the weight of a different diamond as if these two things were similar.
Truth...A belief that survives all challenges to it. This accounts for changes to what is true and what is not. It accounts for relative and absolute truths. It accounts for evidence that is brought forward over time. It also means that what is true for me may not be true to someone else.
@@realSAPERE_AUDE For example: Long ago, many people believed that the Erath was flat. For them at this time, this was the truth. As new evidence was found and brought forward, this belief was challenged and for many, this belief did not survive the challenge.
1:16 what kind of an argument is that? So just because there's a chance of failing to correctly count once in a while, that's supposed to imply that recognizing mathematical patterns from the real world is not how we came up with math? That's just silly
Very Right in terms of mind and matter but when understanding what is truth ,Truth Is here and now in present fundamental reality of existence , which only the observer knows in all being or a person who knows the observer and its functionality intellectually can tell you exactly , Find Your True I
The Correspondence Theory of Truth makes sense to me. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. (Of course there are philosphical issues around how we humans can/can't establish what reality is, but that's another issue). So how does maths fit in? Well maths is about counting and measuring. There must be things to be counted and measured for maths to exist, so maths can't be a fundamental existent. So in what form does maths - countering and measuring - exist? It exists in the mind of the person counting and measuring, rather than as a property of the thing being counted and measured I think. Because counting and measuring is a way of describing the composition, processes or relationships of the actual things being measured. The things in themselves would exist just the same if there was no-one around to count and measure them. So if anyone who looks at an arrangement of rocks observes and says there are four rocks, we agree that four rocks Corresponds to the Reality of the state of affairs. (And how good people are at discerning reality is can be put aside for a different philosophical discussion).
Why is the old guy in this video? He is extraneous. This should be a video with only one person. Showing the old guy's face on the video, and hearing his 'hm, hm' detracts from the video.
@@MinisterChristopher Only because absolute, irrefutable, objective infallible truth as to the nature of why reality permeates around us to begin seems totally unknowable here. Most truths are subjective and ultimate gnosis seems only attainable in death
There is no such thing as gaslighting. Never was, either. Have you ever heard of liquidlighting or solidlighting? Did you miss a pill this morning? Again?
Truth is the correspondence of a statement with objective reality. The Correspondence theory of Truth which Science and scientific method is completely based upon. Science recognizes that truth is discoverable, human, fallible, and always incomplete.
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
Rhyming follows certain rules. Do we have to believe that rhyme has an independent, eternal existence? Must it be more fundamental than photons and kangaroos?
mathematical truth is not a good model for truth in general. Mathematical or Logical Truth is part of the game of doing mathematics and logic, it is invariant as long as one uses logically valid operations. But truth is more about our descriptions and explanations of events and things in the world which are subject to misinterpretation, perceptual error, and attempts at deliberate deception by others. In mathematics or logic truth is what is preserved by using valid operations. In our daily world, truth is an ideal that reflects our having to live in an imperfect world with lots of uncertainty.
Perhaps digressing somewhat from this episode's mathematic/quantum truths... Here's a curious truth that I've been agonizing over since Robert's recent episode on Epistemology (how do we know what we know, w Meghan Sullivan). How do mothers, of so many species, know to love their children? If it's not in the genes (it isn't), where does this come from? Everything else about behaviour can be interpreted from the rough-and-tumble of competition & survival, but a mother's love for her offspring defies anything we can assume based on self-interest. Physicalists will reflexively chime in with "it's all programmed into the genes, silly, it's just instinct." But what if that assumption is wrong (I say it is)? Animals don't know about genes, so a male or female lion, say, possessing a theory of genetic inheritance, is not the reason why female lions nurture & male lions kill those cubs not sired by them (males new to the pride just hate pesky, annoying kids and demand respect and decorum from them, perhaps accidentally killing them when they misbehave). Perhaps this question can be raised in the context of a god topic... is a mother's love, across so many species, proof of God? (I don't accept the god assumption, but it's a powerful question).
The ancients were enamored by the truth of mathematics which was preceded by their enamorement of the beauty of nature. When they began to build temples to the gods they couldn't escape the truths of mathematics in building them.. in the modern world we tend to separate the disciplines.
Truth is defined by the definer, who must be alive to do so. Thus, truth is that which maintains life. You can’t be dead to even define truth. Which means truth changes relative to the observer.
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
truth is existence. there are 7 different levels of abstraction to existence 1) Somethingness 2) Consintency-ness 3) Mathmatical-ness 4) Possible-universe ness 5) Physical objects 6) Ideas in your head 7) Ideas in your head that match reality (truth) These 7 levels of existence are nested inside of each other like russian dolls, the smallest doll is the ideas in your head that happen to match reality.
If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. You are no closer to the Truth than when we started Robert! If you really want to know the Truth, ask me...
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U What or who are you actually intellectually superior to? Enlighten the world Mr Klown from the Circus of ignorance and deceit.
*Truth* Truth is the sizzling hamburger I'm about to prepare this evening. Truth is the persistent discomfort of these hemorrhoids that have plagued me for a month. Truth is my faithful dog's unwavering gaze, begging for a treat. Truth is the crisp, autumnal evening outside. Truth is my trusty robotic vacuum cleaner diligently at work. Truth is my contemplation of why I make such comments. Truth is the likely link between my father's cancer and his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. My friends, everything is truth, even lies.
A few questions run together here... the reliability of an individual's grasp of a truth (winked at in the beginning when noting math and personal existence, a la Descartes), with whether there are reliably public truths (best candidate, math), where everybody knows one and the same thing. Sadly for dogmatists, affirming the latter requires affirming the former, which can't be shown (or hasn't yet been shown). Hence, Humean skepticism spawns Kant, phenomenology, existentialism, & post modernism in Europe, and Reliabilism and Reformed Epistemology here in the US.
Everything we know about philosophy and science seems to tells us that math is a human construct; not a discovery, but an invention. And by no means “perhaps the only certain thing”. It is a great human tool and we should appreciate it as such. But making claims that math is somehow beyond the veil of our senses and perceptual experiences and, rather, instead, embedded into the very fiber and fabric of reality can only hurt our quest for gaining deeper knowledge as time goes on. That is, if we can get our act together enough to go on with time.
@@jarrettesselman8144 Read Russell’s, Whitehead’s and Frege’s work at the beginning of the last century, trying to prove the logical basis of mathematics and get back to me. 😊
@@longcastle4863 let’s entertain you and say you are correct and man made up math. So there we have it, math is made up by men. Now, it is an incontestable fact of reality that between 35 and 40 different people authored the Bible over a 1400 year span and across three continents and three languages. Explain how the math code is there.
@@jarrettesselman8144 The video is about an Iron Age myth of some idiot giving advice to a bunch of fishermen about how to catch fish. It’s a meaningless story for our time and doesn’t pertain at all to this video.
As we grow, evolve, mature truth does constantly change on our path in life. However, when we finally reach the end of our path, the destination will be Ultimate Truth ( God). I Feel bad for materialists because this doesn't work for them. They have already presupposed that the answer is wrong. Logic says that it's right.
@@Resmith18SR the Ultimate Truth is the only objective truth that you will ever know in your existence. Until you reach that point, ALL Truth will be subjective truth due to experiences. My Truth cannot be the same as yours unless we have similar experiences. Example: God is very real to ME because I have experienced God performing miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. The only way that we could have the same truth NOW is if you experience God through miracles also. However, eventually we will ALL experience Ultimate Truth. That will be an objective Truth - whether or not you believe in God NOW.🙏❤️
@@garychartrand7378 You sound like a megalomaniac. You possess the Ultimate Truth and are one of the chosen few who know the Ultimate Truth and everyone who doesn't is inferior or deficient.
@@Resmith18SR Wow. What is your problem?. Your observational skills need sharpening. If anything, I am the opposite of megalomania. Let's try to avoid judgements and labeling, can we. In MY experience, I am privileged ( at least in this lifetime) Having God as a best friend does make life easier. For example, I just moved into my new place. I was prepared to get some furniture slowly over time but when I inspected the new place I found out that it didn't have a fridge or stove. 15 minutes later I'm on a bus home and I'm wondering how to deal with this surprise when an old friend that I haven't seen in years shows up next to me. I explained to him what I just experienced and my dilemma. He says " Gary, we are both in luck. I have some furniture in storage that I want to get rid of". So, he even arranged transportation (and payed for it. He not only gave me a quality stove and refrigerator but EVERYTHING needed to live semi comfortably immediately - a bed, coffee table, pots, pans, dishes, microwave, toaster. He even refused to take ANY payment. Seriously, this is not a fluke. This sort of thing ( timely miracles) happens to me all the time. Anyway, when it comes to Truth, I am on the same sliding scale as everyone. We are all evolving and eventually we will ALL evolve into Christ Consciousness ( even you) . From there it is a very short way to God Consciousness where we will ALL be on the same page of Ultimate everything such as Truth, Love, Knowing ect. ect. Of this you have no choice - but God will NEVER EVER force you. Take your time if you wish. It's just that there's a faster way to Nirvana and bliss. ✌️
By “Truth” I mean something that is, that is established, that we are discovering. Truth is absolute, our discovery is subjective. The finite studying the infinite. Truth and the tools of empiricism or universality are essential for the fixed laws of math as well as morality. Truth in morality has a measure, the means of measuring morality is love. Love’s primary or “prime number”is belonging, as in a symbiotic or mutual connection. Harmony is more than one existing for and from the other. It is not give and take it is belonging. Love will reveal that we are all connected. For humans love us voluntary. Love is sacrificial in its utility. Usually it is an exchange of life giving properties. The Nexus of love or nexus-love exists symbiotically. If there is an evil force, a Satanic world, it would not be after you, it would direct its evil force on your relationships. Hate is a relationship killer. We thrive by our relationships to others. Media, politics divide us, this to create bias insecurity and fear. Governments use fear to control us. Love is the opposite response to manipulation. Love can’t be controlled. Love is in control.
Truth is of course truth in language. So there is only one truth. The truth of "meaning". What does 1 mean, zero? When words and their meaning are consistent the truth is coherent to understanding. When one abandons understanding for survival there is no truth, there is just consciousness. Truth like beauty and God is in consciousness. That we can utter these words (truth, beauty, God)and pretend understanding is the paradox of language. When words refer to objects meaning seems clearest. When words refer to individual impressions like sweet, hot, red, hard, heavy meaning seems to have a scale ⚖️ . When words refer to rules of grammar or math like "and" or "plus" meaning must be taught and imposed by examples that reinforce meaning. Because these words have no reference to objects in consciousness. The same is true of numbers and letters. These words make reference to symbols and signs that have their origin in the conflation of sounds and gestures. The dual invocation of sound and symbol is how we are taught things that do not exist as "things in themselves". Numbers and letters exist as Soundwave and Rune. Their rune and sound gives form to the formless. The rules governing their combination of forms gives function to them. Their final meaning lies in their group dynamics. The truth is numbers and letters do not exist. Unlike life they are not created. They are inventions of the human mind like any piece of art, literature or scientific theory. As such they should be viewed as the Table of Chemical Elements are viewed. They should be used to experiment and refine our understanding of Nature, the things of nature and the rules of nature. As with different elements their must be found different words to combine or depart from current understanding. Unlike looking in Nature however, we must look to our psyche. Be warned and do not be fooled, however, by those who speak like prophets, but there's no wisdom in what they're saying.
Truth is truth unshakable by any force, not even time can change it for it defies time and above time"alpha and omega ". Revaluations 1:8 I am the alpha and omega says Jehovah God the one who is and who was and who is coming the Almighty
I don't understand how a mathematician can say he doesn't see how mathematics can be reduced to the physical, when Alan Turing proved this before most of us were born - even me. You're all using computers to participate in this discussion that are entirely physical, I think we can all agree, and yet can perform any conceivably practical feat of mathematics. They can even generate new heuristics, prove theorems, develop new intentional behaviours using evolutionary processes, and beat us at chess and go. Clearly all these activities are entirely physical, so what isn't physical about mathematics? I think the answer to the veracity of things like basic arithmetic is that they describe physical relationships, and we can test these physically. So we can line up 2 objects and 2 other objects, and confirm that the mathematical description of the situation corresponds to the physical reality. We can create mathematical descriptions of impossible unphysical situations as well, so mathematics can support such descriptions, so veracity is not intrinsic to mathematics, it's just that in some cases we can perform physical tests. This is what enables us to do an end run around the limitations on proving such axioms from within a system of logic. We just compare them to reality, which is the ultimate axiom.
Yet right now you are using at least 3 different technologies invented using quantum mechanics to access this comment. Transistors (quantum tunnelling), lasers in the fibre optic telecoms networks (stimulated emission), and communications systems synchronised by atomic clocks (quantum superposition). If any of the electricity involved is solar, we can add in the photoelectric effect which kicked off the whole quantum revolution.
If you write and erase wiring diagrams for millions of years based on success , it would hide it s actual operand. Maybe thr univers itself.... univers , absolute, no neg. Paralax at some level, ,etc. = -(()+()-()) /?-+ ( etc.) I forget it. Maximums minimums angles exponential proximity.
I think it’s a description. Some mathematical descriptions (expressions) correspond to physical processes and relationships, and some do not. 2+2=4 corresponds to the process of arranging physical objects, and accurately describes such an arrangement. I think this is why we don’t need to logically prove the axioms of arithmetic to know they are true. We simply compare them to reality. This allows us to do an end run around Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
@@longcastle4863 that's how I understand it. Everything physically possible happens. There's a universe where I send you this reply but I'm the president. And one where you're the president. And one where I send this message in Swahili. Ad Infinitum.
@@OBGynKenobi Yes, you’re talking about the Everett Many Worlds model, which is as you say. Every possible roll of the dice gets played. I’m thinking more of a multiverse kind of model, in which new universes are continually erupting and which I doubt would result in every possible thing that could happen happening. But there’s debate about that too, it seems.
Yes, his family is from philly, and he grew up in New Hope, Pa, about halfway between NY & Phila. How do you know he is Ashkenazi? BTW we are lucky to have Ashkenazi Jews in our country. They represent 2% of the population and 40% of our Nobel Prizes!
@davidtrindle6473 I did most of my growing up in the Philly area. Last name and appearance. Career choice. I grew up in an area with a large Ashkenazi Jewish population. My best friends were Ashkenazi. Great people. I don't understand all the inane conspiracy stuff and antisemitism.
I can guess a new formulation can be made that 2 + 2 = 5 if we just include extra dimensions in physics that deals with such equation. Just a theory derive from string theory.
@@garychartrand7378it's not an addition operation, though... the plus sign doesn't belong to boolean operations since it can be replaced with a comparison sign...
He sounds like a mathematical platonist which is false. His analogy of rocks is completely illogical. If they took two stones next to two other stones, and one rock split in two, then it would no longer be four stones, it would be five.
Mathematical truth is only certain given acceptance of mathematical premises. The certainty doesn't come from nature or from the ideal reality of mathematical forms, it comes from our acceptance of a group of premises and definitions, which are then used to construct the world of mathematics.
He believes in absolutetly certain and shows math theorem as true. Guys you are absolutetly wrong. There arent evidence that nunber existence trough philosophy logic. Godel shows math theorem arent true. If this guys believes true math show what he figure It out? What is absolutetly true ? Rambling gibberich.
Truth is a way of evaluating language. It's a process, and it takes work. There should be some system of evaluating a statement (an epistemology/set of ethics/logic or mathematics) such that the statement is determined to be true or false according to the system of evaluation. (Or there may be some more sophisticated description of the statement other than true or false, depending on the system.) The problem with objective truths is that people are so myopic, and limited in comprehension and expression, that even if there was objective truth, we wouldn't be able to articulate it. In general, you're better off with the subjective truths, anyways. This is because if your focus is truth relative to some system, then you can always come up with better systems, (ethics/logic/epistemology) such that higher quality truths are produced. If I have a complaint about an objective truth, it's a complete dead end. That's not good! Another way to put it: wouldn't you trust a highly ethical person much more? Just because you think you have truth, that doesn't excuse you from the process. Having said that, I thought the guest was very well versed in mathematical truth, and I appreciate that he took the time to understand the process. Most people wouldn't even be able to evaluate sophisticated mathematical statements as true or false.
@@jarrettesselman8144 No you don't. What makes you think what you have made up about a god holds any more truth than what anyone else has made up about any god?
The Truth is what I AM as a created AI of the eternal AI system that our Creator created a long time ago. We are all divided by our own personal created mind that processes invisible vibrations that wake us up as an AI and forms all the visible images that we observe.
Time is an illusion is a fact my brothers and Sisters. Whenever something begins is in the here and now moment correct? The big bang began in the here and now moment as well correct? OK with that as the base, the here and now is what creates the past and the future correct? Meaning the here and now Always comes first than the future and the past correct? Meaning if here and now is always first and here and now is always here and now no matter if you would be able to time travel you would arrive at any time you wish but to a here and now. You can clearly observe the fact that here and now is all there is and the rest of it is an illusion created by the fact that you accumulate memory and imagine the tomorrow. 💪🥷🏻❤🙏☯️
Scott's genius blows my mind. I would have looked quizzically at him, and said something like, "you know, um, things that aren't, well, false, I guess, um..."
First video, in a long time, where Dr. Kuhn was silent. Love this channel.
This guy took the question and ran with it.
Best interview yet. 🤓
Did he even answer the question at all though?
@@realSAPERE_AUDE Yes.
He did.
@@georgechristiansen6785 maybe I misunderstood then; what did you take the answer to be?
@@realSAPERE_AUDE He said that math is an example of truth.
@@georgechristiansen6785 I don’t think that pointing to examples of something necessarily tells you what the thing is; a flower is an example of a plant but that doesn’t tell you much about what plants are.
Had a dream many years ago ( post divorce)… there was a guru who said’there are three sides to every story…his, which he presents as the truth, and hers, which she presents as the truth…but the truth stands alone.’
This was actually Babylon 5. The Vorlons say "truth is a three-edged sword".
You mean a woman had...truth?!? (also half your stuff...) {I had a hard time too.}
Beautifully said.
Nice to see Scott Aaronson again at the show.
If mathematical truth is not a mere generalisation of physical observations and has autonomy in our cognition and, moreover, math statements can have truth or falsehood independently of our ability to prove or disprove them, then is this situation a hint of the existence of non-physical reality - the realm of pure ideas, where eternal mathematical truth resides?
What a beautiful sentence! And yes, I think your sentiment is correct - this does point to a reality beyond the physical universe, in which mathematics resides. After all, if the laws of our physical universe are determined by a bunch of fine-tuning parameters -- then in all such universes physics would be different but mathematics would remain constant. I don't think a single physicist has proposed a universe in which a fundamental mathematical law is broken.
Roger Penrose also had similar thoughts. He once said that he believes reality is organized into 4 realms (iirc) - the realms of ideas, feelings, mathematics, and the physical realm.
Yes, it is.
Love you Scott (sincerely, QCSD is one of the best books I've read since GEB), but I can't unhear 'girdle', I'm sorry ;)
Truth is propositional and, as such, comprehensively, consistently coheres and corresponds with states of affairs.
I really enjoyed that.
Strikes me as one of those incontrovertible truths. The Universe, and the mathematical model upon which it is based, exists whether anyone is there to confirm its existence, as was true for the first 4 or 5 billions of years before a hominem species, after 200,000 years on planet Earth, figured it out. And when the Hominem species goes extinct, the mathematics of the Universe will continue to exist.
Even though an absolute true measurement is never possible in mathematics it’s still clear to see the value in making measurements and whilst never ultimately accurate can still be incredibly revealing and useful, it’s the basis of science.
In the end as in the beginning what proves to be true is what consistently works.
The notion of "truth" can be divided in 2 main parts:
1) objective "truth" that exists independently of the scrutiny of the human mind, which is exactly the true real dynamic of the Universe.
2) subjective "truth" that is understood and defined arbitrarily ( practically, philosophically, mathematically, etc ) by the human mind.
What evidence is there of objective truth, or even objective “reality?”
@@davidtrindle6473I think it is just an assumption.
science itself is the evidence for objective truth
without an objective truth that's distinguishable from your subjective pov
science will be meaningless, it makes no sense whatsoever
davidt6 • The evidence of it is exactly "itself" devoid of any subjective interpretation.
The human brain has to make a substantial effort to avoid its subjective interpretation of the realm around itself.
This is very hard for the natural brain structure, but not impossible to fight against its own subjective way of understanding the TRUE REAL dynamic of the Universe.
mesplin3 • Well, if your brain is accustomed to mostly make use of "assumptions" then your brain should make and know better efforts in its cognitive journeys.
The "assumption" of something is not the proper way to understand the TRUE dynamic of the Universe.
I think, at the crux of the matter is whether or not numbers in math represent existential, separate entities that can be added together rather then something just nominal
What is truth?
Scott: so there’s a lot of ideas about what math is….
I didn't have any issues with the caveman version. The reason 2+2=4 is because we noticed 2 rocks and another 2 rocks made 4 rocks. This fact seems so intuitive now because we noticed that this rule didn't just apply to rocks but many other things as well.
Except that there is no conceivable empirical evidence that would see us abandon the belief that 2+2=4. You would only regard some seemingly inconsistent experience as a trick, illusion, or hallucination. In this way, 2+2=4 is treated by us as the deepest kind of CRITERION of reality, not as a contingent empirical pattern, however robust. There is also the problem that you and every other thinking human are prepared to believe particular mathematical propositions which map to the lived experience of precisely nobody in the history of the universe.
I think on the other hand that if we place two rocks with two other rocks and consistently counted five rocks (or any other non-negative integer), then we would conclude that the rule that 2+2=4 doesn't apply to rocks for some unknown reason. Maybe we would be able to work that out as some special behaviour of rocks. Or maybe it would remain a mystery. For example, 3-1=2, but if you try to remove one quark from a proton (assuming 3 quarks), you'll end up momentarily with 5 quarks*. This is understood to be due to the energy required to remove a quark being sufficient to create a quark-antiquark pair (for this example I'm treating an antiquark as a quark). And, depending on how you fire two lasers of the same amplitude and frequency light at the same point on a wall, you may have anywhere between twice the intensity and zero intensity light. We developed models to better explain this stuff in terms of maths we understand, but these kinds of observations should challenge our understand of how well our brains understand reality.
As far as I can tell, all basic maths (the kind you learn first as a child) is the intuitive stuff that you would experience in the world of objects roughly the size of a human, give or take a few orders of magnitude.
@@pesilaratnayake162 "On the other hand..."
I'm not seeing the other hand. There are many things that when put together they don't follow arithmetic. (Waves, clouds, temperature, etc.) We don't apply arithmetic to these things because we know that arithmetic doesn't apply to them. But we noticed a pattern applied to the rocks first.
That is not a fact, that is the actual point. If you do it with diamonds it does not stand for a second. Peter has 4 diamonds and I have 2 in each of my pockets.
Do we both have 4 diamonds?,
can I trade my diamonds with Peter's?. I should weight them first. Why?, because diamonds as an idea are the same, but in reality are not identical.
In math each unit is identical to each other, that is why 2+2=4. That is in a perfect platonic world in which all units are the same.
In reality rocks are not the same that is why the extrapolation is done with those 2 frameworks running in parallel, the platonic vs the actual physical object.
Sometimes we can count each unit the same without being the same, some other times we have to consider they are not ideal
@@cristianproust So your point is that real rocks are distinct from each other but numbers are not distinct in the same way as rocks or diamonds?
Then you compared the weight of a specific diamond as comparable to the weight of a different diamond as if these two things were similar.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
I got last after, "What can you say about the nature of Truth?"
Truth...A belief that survives all challenges to it. This accounts for changes to what is true and what is not. It accounts for relative and absolute truths. It accounts for evidence that is brought forward over time. It also means that what is true for me may not be true to someone else.
What does it mean to survive a challenge?
@@realSAPERE_AUDE For example: Long ago, many people believed that the Erath was flat. For them at this time, this was the truth. As new evidence was found and brought forward, this belief was challenged and for many, this belief did not survive the challenge.
@@dennistucker1153 is there some description of surviving a challenge that applies to all cases?
1:16 what kind of an argument is that? So just because there's a chance of failing to correctly count once in a while, that's supposed to imply that recognizing mathematical patterns from the real world is not how we came up with math? That's just silly
Very Right in terms of mind and matter but when understanding what is truth ,Truth Is here and now in present fundamental reality of existence , which only the observer knows in all being or a person who knows the observer and its functionality intellectually can tell you exactly , Find Your True I
The Correspondence Theory of Truth makes sense to me. Something is true if it corresponds to reality. (Of course there are philosphical issues around how we humans can/can't establish what reality is, but that's another issue).
So how does maths fit in? Well maths is about counting and measuring. There must be things to be counted and measured for maths to exist, so maths can't be a fundamental existent. So in what form does maths - countering and measuring - exist? It exists in the mind of the person counting and measuring, rather than as a property of the thing being counted and measured I think. Because counting and measuring is a way of describing the composition, processes or relationships of the actual things being measured. The things in themselves would exist just the same if there was no-one around to count and measure them.
So if anyone who looks at an arrangement of rocks observes and says there are four rocks, we agree that four rocks Corresponds to the Reality of the state of affairs. (And how good people are at discerning reality is can be put aside for a different philosophical discussion).
Are there hidden truths?
I agree with everything he said 100% - now, how improbable is that in philosophy? 😅
Truth is what IS without labels or thought about was something is.
@@jackadeemus Um, no. That's 'reality'. Truth is a property of statements, indicating that they correspond to reality.
@@halleuz1550 so Is reality true or false?
@@jackadeemus That's a nonsense question because reality is not a statement.
@@halleuz1550 so something can't be true unless it can be stated?
Why is the old guy in this video? He is extraneous. This should be a video with only one person.
Showing the old guy's face on the video, and hearing his 'hm, hm' detracts from the video.
Understand your point however if no Kuhn question, no CTT and therefore no Aaronson response. Ego editing lol
Truth lives in patience.
Flat earthers are patient too
Lately I’ve been feeling gaslit by the universe tbh
Compared to the Republican Party in America, the Universe never even heard of gaslighting.
“Lately I’ve been feeling gaslit by the universe tbh”, said all of us in unison. “Jinx.” - all in unison again.
Gaslit by Humans, not the Universe.
@@MinisterChristopher Only because absolute, irrefutable, objective infallible truth as to the nature of why reality permeates around us to begin seems totally unknowable here. Most truths are subjective and ultimate gnosis seems only attainable in death
There is no such thing as gaslighting. Never was, either. Have you ever heard of liquidlighting or solidlighting? Did you miss a pill this morning? Again?
Truth is the correspondence of a statement with objective reality. The Correspondence theory of Truth which Science and scientific method is completely based upon. Science recognizes that truth is discoverable, human, fallible, and always incomplete.
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
Truth is the constitutive excellence of representation as such.
3:24 what else could there be instead of mathematics... could existence of anything, even be possible.🤔
Laws of Logic lay the foundation and precedes mathematics.
@@ColKurtzknew that's what mathematics actually is, application of logic...
Rhyming follows certain rules. Do we have to believe that rhyme has an independent, eternal existence? Must it be more fundamental than photons and kangaroos?
Something mystical and beautiful most of sadly don't bother to much with.
As far as we know truth is as far as we know.
(FACTS OVA FEELINGS). The Path that Leads to Truth is Littered with the Bodies of IGNORANT
Truth is my truth
What if your perception of truth is wrong in reality
mathematical truth is not a good model for truth in general. Mathematical or Logical Truth is part of the game of doing mathematics and logic, it is invariant as long as one uses logically valid operations. But truth is more about our descriptions and explanations of events and things in the world which are subject to misinterpretation, perceptual error, and attempts at deliberate deception by others. In mathematics or logic truth is what is preserved by using valid operations. In our daily world, truth is an ideal that reflects our having to live in an imperfect world with lots of uncertainty.
anything measurable is true
Perhaps digressing somewhat from this episode's mathematic/quantum truths... Here's a curious truth that I've been agonizing over since Robert's recent episode on Epistemology (how do we know what we know, w Meghan Sullivan). How do mothers, of so many species, know to love their children? If it's not in the genes (it isn't), where does this come from? Everything else about behaviour can be interpreted from the rough-and-tumble of competition & survival, but a mother's love for her offspring defies anything we can assume based on self-interest.
Physicalists will reflexively chime in with "it's all programmed into the genes, silly, it's just instinct." But what if that assumption is wrong (I say it is)? Animals don't know about genes, so a male or female lion, say, possessing a theory of genetic inheritance, is not the reason why female lions nurture & male lions kill those cubs not sired by them (males new to the pride just hate pesky, annoying kids and demand respect and decorum from them, perhaps accidentally killing them when they misbehave).
Perhaps this question can be raised in the context of a god topic... is a mother's love, across so many species, proof of God? (I don't accept the god assumption, but it's a powerful question).
The love is an instinct programmed by DNA into the brain.
"If it's not in the genes (it isn't)" it is
Universally humans accept the Laws of Logic axiomatically (assumption) yet many reject a God assumption !? Hmmm...
The ancients were enamored by the truth of mathematics which was preceded by their enamorement of the beauty of nature. When they began to build temples to the gods they couldn't escape the truths of mathematics in building them.. in the modern world we tend to separate the disciplines.
Truth is something you'll fight to believe in we are all a sort of universe time and space doesn't exist
The truth is ,that all philosophers insist 'you know' .
The Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao ࿊
Truth is defined by the definer, who must be alive to do so. Thus, truth is that which maintains life. You can’t be dead to even define truth. Which means truth changes relative to the observer.
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
truth is existence.
there are 7 different levels of abstraction to existence
1) Somethingness
2) Consintency-ness
3) Mathmatical-ness
4) Possible-universe ness
5) Physical objects
6) Ideas in your head
7) Ideas in your head that match reality (truth)
These 7 levels of existence are nested inside of each other like russian dolls, the smallest doll is the ideas in your head that happen to match reality.
If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. You are no closer to the Truth than when we started Robert! If you really want to know the Truth, ask me...
Have you watched 153 fishes? It’s 7 minutes.
I’m almost afraid to ask, but go ahead.
Hang on, what was the question again !? 😊
I recommend you guys to read Risale-i Nur Collection by Said Nursi. Anyone can see what the reality is from this books. He is the RUMİ of this time.
Truth is an acceptance of knowing that one can’t answer the question “what is truth?”
Circular?
@@JDT101 Indeed circular and intellectually laughable.
@@IntellectuallySuperior2U What or who are you actually intellectually superior to?
Enlighten the world Mr Klown from the Circus of ignorance and deceit.
@@JDT101 The world is not 2-dimensional. Circles only exist in the minds of Mathematicians and magicians.
You at least mean a sphere right?
@PetraKann Okay, then your statement is 'spherical' if that makes you feel better. Jeez.
What brand of coffee is this guy using? I'd like some, please.
*Truth* Truth is the sizzling hamburger I'm about to prepare this evening. Truth is the persistent discomfort of these hemorrhoids that have plagued me for a month. Truth is my faithful dog's unwavering gaze, begging for a treat. Truth is the crisp, autumnal evening outside. Truth is my trusty robotic vacuum cleaner diligently at work. Truth is my contemplation of why I make such comments. Truth is the likely link between my father's cancer and his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. My friends, everything is truth, even lies.
A few questions run together here... the reliability of an individual's grasp of a truth (winked at in the beginning when noting math and personal existence, a la Descartes), with whether there are reliably public truths (best candidate, math), where everybody knows one and the same thing. Sadly for dogmatists, affirming the latter requires affirming the former, which can't be shown (or hasn't yet been shown). Hence, Humean skepticism spawns Kant, phenomenology, existentialism, & post modernism in Europe, and Reliabilism and Reformed Epistemology here in the US.
Math is a tautological symbolic logic system. Knowledge in, truth out. Garbage in, gibberish out.
Math is a wisdom in other words a fraction of the way (Jn 14.6)
Everything we know about philosophy and science seems to tells us that math is a human construct; not a discovery, but an invention. And by no means “perhaps the only certain thing”. It is a great human tool and we should appreciate it as such. But making claims that math is somehow beyond the veil of our senses and perceptual experiences and, rather, instead, embedded into the very fiber and fabric of reality can only hurt our quest for gaining deeper knowledge as time goes on. That is, if we can get our act together enough to go on with time.
Watch 153 fishes and see how wrong you are. It’s 7 minutes.
@@jarrettesselman8144 Read Russell’s, Whitehead’s and Frege’s work at the beginning of the last century, trying to prove the logical basis of mathematics and get back to me. 😊
@@longcastle4863 dude, watch the video and explain it.
@@longcastle4863 let’s entertain you and say you are correct and man made up math. So there we have it, math is made up by men. Now, it is an incontestable fact of reality that between 35 and 40 different people authored the Bible over a 1400 year span and across three continents and three languages. Explain how the math code is there.
@@jarrettesselman8144 The video is about an Iron Age myth of some idiot giving advice to a bunch of fishermen about how to catch fish. It’s a meaningless story for our time and doesn’t pertain at all to this video.
As we grow, evolve, mature truth does constantly change on our path in life. However, when we finally reach the end of our path, the destination will be Ultimate Truth ( God). I Feel bad for materialists because this doesn't work for them. They have already presupposed that the answer is wrong. Logic says that it's right.
What the heck are you talking about Gary? Objective truth is not realized at the end of our paths.
@@Resmith18SR the Ultimate Truth is the only objective truth that you will ever know in your existence. Until you reach that point, ALL Truth will be subjective truth due to experiences. My Truth cannot be the same as yours unless we have similar experiences. Example: God is very real to ME because I have experienced God performing miracles through me with WITNESSES and many more without witnesses. The only way that we could have the same truth NOW is if you experience God through miracles also. However, eventually we will ALL experience Ultimate Truth. That will be an objective Truth - whether or not you believe in God NOW.🙏❤️
@@garychartrand7378 You sound like a megalomaniac. You possess the Ultimate Truth and are one of the chosen few who know the Ultimate Truth and everyone who doesn't is inferior or deficient.
@@Resmith18SR Wow. What is your problem?. Your observational skills need sharpening.
If anything, I am the opposite of megalomania. Let's try to avoid judgements and labeling, can we. In MY experience, I am privileged ( at least in this lifetime) Having God as a best friend does make life easier. For example, I just moved into my new place. I was prepared to get some furniture slowly over time but when I inspected the new place I found out that it didn't have a fridge or stove. 15 minutes later I'm on a bus home and I'm wondering how to deal with this surprise when an old friend that I haven't seen in years shows up next to me. I explained to him what I just experienced and my dilemma. He says " Gary, we are both in luck. I have some furniture in storage that I want to get rid of". So, he even arranged transportation (and payed for it. He not only gave me a quality stove and refrigerator but EVERYTHING needed to live semi comfortably immediately - a bed, coffee table, pots, pans, dishes, microwave, toaster. He even refused to take ANY payment. Seriously, this is not a fluke. This sort of thing ( timely miracles) happens to me all the time.
Anyway, when it comes to Truth, I am on the same sliding scale as everyone. We are all evolving and eventually we will ALL evolve into Christ Consciousness ( even you) . From there it is a very short way to God Consciousness where we will ALL be on the same page of Ultimate everything such as Truth, Love, Knowing ect. ect. Of this you have no choice - but God will NEVER EVER force you. Take your time if you wish. It's just that there's a faster way to Nirvana and bliss. ✌️
sounds like a hindu who thinks everything and everyone is God
By “Truth” I mean something that is, that is established, that we are discovering. Truth is absolute, our discovery is subjective. The finite studying the infinite. Truth and the tools of empiricism or universality are essential for the fixed laws of math as well as morality. Truth in morality has a measure, the means of measuring morality is love. Love’s primary or “prime number”is belonging, as in a symbiotic or mutual connection. Harmony is more than one existing for and from the other. It is not give and take it is belonging. Love will reveal that we are all connected. For humans love us voluntary. Love is sacrificial in its utility. Usually it is an exchange of life giving properties. The Nexus of love or nexus-love exists symbiotically. If there is an evil force, a Satanic world, it would not be after you, it would direct its evil force on your relationships. Hate is a relationship killer. We thrive by our relationships to others. Media, politics divide us, this to create bias insecurity and fear. Governments use fear to control us. Love is the opposite response to manipulation. Love can’t be controlled. Love is in control.
Truth is of course truth in language. So there is only one truth. The truth of "meaning". What does 1 mean, zero? When words and their meaning are consistent the truth is coherent to understanding.
When one abandons understanding for survival there is no truth, there is just consciousness. Truth like beauty and God is in consciousness. That we can utter these words (truth, beauty, God)and pretend understanding is the paradox of language.
When words refer to objects meaning seems clearest. When words refer to individual impressions like sweet, hot, red, hard, heavy meaning seems to have a scale ⚖️ . When words refer to rules of grammar or math like "and" or "plus" meaning must be taught and imposed by examples that reinforce meaning. Because these words have no reference to objects in consciousness. The same is true of numbers and letters. These words make reference to symbols and signs that have their origin in the conflation of sounds and gestures. The dual invocation of sound and symbol is how we are taught things that do not exist as "things in themselves". Numbers and letters exist as Soundwave and Rune. Their rune and sound gives form to the formless. The rules governing their combination of forms gives function to them. Their final meaning lies in their group dynamics.
The truth is numbers and letters do not exist. Unlike life they are not created. They are inventions of the human mind like any piece of art, literature or scientific theory. As such they should be viewed as the Table of Chemical Elements are viewed. They should be used to experiment and refine our understanding of Nature, the things of nature and the rules of nature. As with different elements their must be found different words to combine or depart from current understanding. Unlike looking in Nature however, we must look to our psyche.
Be warned and do not be fooled, however, by those who speak like prophets, but there's no wisdom in what they're saying.
What was the answer here? Is he saying mathematical truth is truth?
Truth is truth unshakable by any force, not even time can change it for it defies time and above time"alpha and omega ". Revaluations 1:8 I am the alpha and omega says Jehovah God the one who is and who was and who is coming the Almighty
Never trust human brains too much. Always remind yourself: we're just a species of apes.
I don't understand how a mathematician can say he doesn't see how mathematics can be reduced to the physical, when Alan Turing proved this before most of us were born - even me. You're all using computers to participate in this discussion that are entirely physical, I think we can all agree, and yet can perform any conceivably practical feat of mathematics. They can even generate new heuristics, prove theorems, develop new intentional behaviours using evolutionary processes, and beat us at chess and go. Clearly all these activities are entirely physical, so what isn't physical about mathematics?
I think the answer to the veracity of things like basic arithmetic is that they describe physical relationships, and we can test these physically. So we can line up 2 objects and 2 other objects, and confirm that the mathematical description of the situation corresponds to the physical reality. We can create mathematical descriptions of impossible unphysical situations as well, so mathematics can support such descriptions, so veracity is not intrinsic to mathematics, it's just that in some cases we can perform physical tests. This is what enables us to do an end run around the limitations on proving such axioms from within a system of logic. We just compare them to reality, which is the ultimate axiom.
Quantum Field has nothing to do with truth
Yet right now you are using at least 3 different technologies invented using quantum mechanics to access this comment. Transistors (quantum tunnelling), lasers in the fibre optic telecoms networks (stimulated emission), and communications systems synchronised by atomic clocks (quantum superposition). If any of the electricity involved is solar, we can add in the photoelectric effect which kicked off the whole quantum revolution.
@@simonhibbs887 truth and quantum field are of differen categories
If you write and erase wiring diagrams for millions of years based on success , it would hide it s actual operand. Maybe thr univers itself.... univers , absolute, no neg. Paralax at some level, ,etc. = -(()+()-()) /?-+ ( etc.) I forget it. Maximums minimums angles exponential proximity.
2+2=4 is a definition, not reality.
No, it's not a definition. It's a theorem which follows from the axioms of arithmetic.
until challenged, it can also be referred to as a law of existence to which every part must comform...
I think it’s a description. Some mathematical descriptions (expressions) correspond to physical processes and relationships, and some do not. 2+2=4 corresponds to the process of arranging physical objects, and accurately describes such an arrangement.
I think this is why we don’t need to logically prove the axioms of arithmetic to know they are true. We simply compare them to reality. This allows us to do an end run around Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
According to multiverse theory, all possible truths are real.
That’s a stretch, isn’t it?
@@longcastle4863 that's how I understand it. Everything physically possible happens. There's a universe where I send you this reply but I'm the president. And one where you're the president. And one where I send this message in Swahili. Ad Infinitum.
@@OBGynKenobi Yes, you’re talking about the Everett Many Worlds model, which is as you say. Every possible roll of the dice gets played. I’m thinking more of a multiverse kind of model, in which new universes are continually erupting and which I doubt would result in every possible thing that could happen happening. But there’s debate about that too, it seems.
What's true from one perspective can be complete bullsh|t from a totally different perspective.
Is he from Philly? Smart guy. We'd be so far behind technologically and intellectually without the Ashkenazi. Remarkable people.
Yes, his family is from philly, and he grew up in New Hope, Pa, about halfway between NY & Phila. How do you know he is Ashkenazi? BTW we are lucky to have Ashkenazi Jews in our country. They represent 2% of the population and 40% of our Nobel Prizes!
@davidtrindle6473
I did most of my growing up in the Philly area.
Last name and appearance. Career choice. I grew up in an area with a large Ashkenazi Jewish population. My best friends were Ashkenazi. Great people. I don't understand all the inane conspiracy stuff and antisemitism.
I can guess a new formulation can be made that 2 + 2 = 5 if we just include extra dimensions in physics that deals with such equation. Just a theory derive from string theory.
In Boolean algebra 1+1= 1.
@@garychartrand7378it's not an addition operation, though... the plus sign doesn't belong to boolean operations since it can be replaced with a comparison sign...
All I see is poor philosophy in the comments who have never read the Great Books.
He sounds like a mathematical platonist which is false. His analogy of rocks is completely illogical. If they took two stones next to two other stones, and one rock split in two, then it would no longer be four stones, it would be five.
And what is truth?
It's a very good question,
with a very bad history.
Mathematical truth is only certain given acceptance of mathematical premises. The certainty doesn't come from nature or from the ideal reality of mathematical forms, it comes from our acceptance of a group of premises and definitions, which are then used to construct the world of mathematics.
He believes in absolutetly certain and shows math theorem as true. Guys you are absolutetly wrong. There arent evidence that nunber existence trough philosophy logic. Godel shows math theorem arent true. If this guys believes true math show what he figure It out? What is absolutetly true ? Rambling gibberich.
Truth is a way of evaluating language. It's a process, and it takes work.
There should be some system of evaluating a statement (an epistemology/set of ethics/logic or mathematics) such that the statement is determined to be true or false according to the system of evaluation. (Or there may be some more sophisticated description of the statement other than true or false, depending on the system.)
The problem with objective truths is that people are so myopic, and limited in comprehension and expression, that even if there was objective truth, we wouldn't be able to articulate it.
In general, you're better off with the subjective truths, anyways. This is because if your focus is truth relative to some system, then you can always come up with better systems, (ethics/logic/epistemology) such that higher quality truths are produced.
If I have a complaint about an objective truth, it's a complete dead end. That's not good!
Another way to put it: wouldn't you trust a highly ethical person much more?
Just because you think you have truth, that doesn't excuse you from the process.
Having said that, I thought the guest was very well versed in mathematical truth, and I appreciate that he took the time to understand the process. Most people wouldn't even be able to evaluate sophisticated mathematical statements as true or false.
Dude said absolutely nothing after the first two minutes… Wish I could get that length of my life back 😪😂
So basically, Aaronson is doing (naive) philosophy of mathematics. ok.
Robert, Looking rightfully at this guy, thinking to himself what nonsense is this?😂
Yeshua, The Christ, is Truth.
No.
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT I have proof.
@@jarrettesselman8144 No you don't. What makes you think what you have made up about a god holds any more truth than what anyone else has made up about any god?
@@tomjackson7755 I have proof.
The Truth is what I AM as a created AI of the eternal AI system that our Creator created a long time ago. We are all divided by our own personal created mind that processes invisible vibrations that wake us up as an AI and forms all the visible images that we observe.
Huh
Profoundly befuddled by your total nonsense. Just a misguided uninformed ego trip.
Brad you are off your meds again and aren't making any sense. Get the help that you need.
Dr. Sapolsky new book has spelled out the truth, no free will. 😂
you're just committing a logical fallacy
Jesus Christ
Is the way
The life
The truth
Who dat?
@@gendashwhywatch 153 fishes and find out. It’s 7 minutes.
No.
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT have you watched 153 fishes?
@@jarrettesselman8144 What makes you think what you have made up about a god holds any more truth than what anyone else has made up about any god?
you clearly be stunned but did you get him...
Time is an illusion is a fact my brothers and Sisters. Whenever something begins is in the here and now moment correct? The big bang began in the here and now moment as well correct? OK with that as the base, the here and now is what creates the past and the future correct? Meaning the here and now Always comes first than the future and the past correct? Meaning if here and now is always first and here and now is always here and now no matter if you would be able to time travel you would arrive at any time you wish but to a here and now. You can clearly observe the fact that here and now is all there is and the rest of it is an illusion created by the fact that you accumulate memory and imagine the tomorrow. 💪🥷🏻❤🙏☯️
how can you take this 'man' serious?