"Regarding God, I think we must dispense with the idea of a personal world-spirit, a creator with thoughts and emotions and desires that could be comprehensible to humans. TON 618 is a black hole that appears to have a mass approximately 66 billion times that of the sun. There are quasars we have observed with temperatures of over 18 trillion degrees Fahrenheit. Pulsar PSR J1748−2446ad is about 30 kilometers in diameter, but due to its incredible mass and energy it rotates 716 times per second, meaning that its surface is moving at 24% of the speed of light. The galaxy Porphyrion contains cosmic jets (super-energized, violent discharges of gas and subatomic particles) which are over 23 million years long. That means that the origin of the jets (a supermassive black hole digesting objects and flinging mass and energy outwards from its accretion disc) is so awesomely powerful that it is launching matter and energy a distance which is around 1,500,000,000,000 times the average distance between the Earth and the sun. So, if there is a being who created and oversees and controls all of this, such a being cannot be comprehensible to us. We might behave as if He (it) is, but He/it simply cannot be."
Logic is synthetic a priory. x equals x because you have defined "x" "equals" and "x" in such a manner that it hold and it can be related to other systems of logic.
An alien species of hive insects, even ones that developed space travel via some means, would almost certainly not come up with such a thing, and creatures from another dimension if they could even comprehend it might argue that it is plainly not the case because in their dimension the definitions of all things shift after 3 charachers and this is the basis of their computations.
Logic is a ssystem of abstractions human minds use to model and maintain the relations of their own ideas, and have an eternally tenuous relationship to physical reality mediated by experience and judgement, just a bridge might collapse from faulty welds in the steel that appear nowhere in the mathematical diagrams of its architecture....
The map is not the territory, indeed to the extent any territory resembles the map at all is a meassure of the individuals judgement of import and usefulness...
"There is not a single identifiable universal truth."
If we include that phrase in its own definition and scope we're back at an ages-old paradox. If the claim is true, the claim is untrue. And of the claim is untrue then there is a universal truth?
No, because the claim that there is no universal truth being wrong doesn't in itself prove there is a universal truth, unless said truth can be proven.
Which it can't since providing proof would require true omniscience on the part of both the one making the claim and the one testing it.
Which neither can prove to the other to be in possession of, without proving that universal truth can exist.
And round and round we go.
Things are true, to a point, under certain circumstances, if conditions are met, from a certain point of view with varying degrees of probability, uncertainty, ignorance and definitions used.
Descartes' phrase reads better as "I think I am" or "I am the sum of my thinking/my thoughts" than "I think therefore I am", really. And that is probably as close to universal truth we can come:
The thought questioning if it itself exists.
Since the question can be asked, there is someone who can ask it, perceive it being asked, and also ponder if and how it can be answered.
Truth is true by degrees. As is reality: real by degrees.
The reason for this is not anything to do with the nature of truth or reality, but because we only have our senses and our mind to work with, and they cannot (re)solve the issue: hence the need for many to invent an absolute authority they can use to rationalise their own impulses as being divinely mandated by something representing "universal truth".
Simply put, being responsible to oneself for one's own being and acting, is too much for most. And that is certainly universal, even if how true it is, is certainly up for debate.
oh right… because we all care to see what some tart thinks about the Devine….
What are you? some sort of cosmic wisdom authority?
for fucks sake.
"Regarding God, I think we must dispense with the idea of a personal world-spirit, a creator with thoughts and emotions and desires that could be comprehensible to humans. TON 618 is a black hole that appears to have a mass approximately 66 billion times that of the sun. There are quasars we have observed with temperatures of over 18 trillion degrees Fahrenheit. Pulsar PSR J1748−2446ad is about 30 kilometers in diameter, but due to its incredible mass and energy it rotates 716 times per second, meaning that its surface is moving at 24% of the speed of light. The galaxy Porphyrion contains cosmic jets (super-energized, violent discharges of gas and subatomic particles) which are over 23 million years long. That means that the origin of the jets (a supermassive black hole digesting objects and flinging mass and energy outwards from its accretion disc) is so awesomely powerful that it is launching matter and energy a distance which is around 1,500,000,000,000 times the average distance between the Earth and the sun. So, if there is a being who created and oversees and controls all of this, such a being cannot be comprehensible to us. We might behave as if He (it) is, but He/it simply cannot be."
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/ad-astra
I have no Gods, but x = x.
Logic is universally and eternally true.
Logic is synthetic a priory. x equals x because you have defined "x" "equals" and "x" in such a manner that it hold and it can be related to other systems of logic.
An alien species of hive insects, even ones that developed space travel via some means, would almost certainly not come up with such a thing, and creatures from another dimension if they could even comprehend it might argue that it is plainly not the case because in their dimension the definitions of all things shift after 3 charachers and this is the basis of their computations.
Logic is a ssystem of abstractions human minds use to model and maintain the relations of their own ideas, and have an eternally tenuous relationship to physical reality mediated by experience and judgement, just a bridge might collapse from faulty welds in the steel that appear nowhere in the mathematical diagrams of its architecture....
The map is not the territory, indeed to the extent any territory resembles the map at all is a meassure of the individuals judgement of import and usefulness...
Who are the pagans, I wonder?
"There is not a single identifiable universal truth."
If we include that phrase in its own definition and scope we're back at an ages-old paradox. If the claim is true, the claim is untrue. And of the claim is untrue then there is a universal truth?
No, because the claim that there is no universal truth being wrong doesn't in itself prove there is a universal truth, unless said truth can be proven.
Which it can't since providing proof would require true omniscience on the part of both the one making the claim and the one testing it.
Which neither can prove to the other to be in possession of, without proving that universal truth can exist.
And round and round we go.
Things are true, to a point, under certain circumstances, if conditions are met, from a certain point of view with varying degrees of probability, uncertainty, ignorance and definitions used.
Descartes' phrase reads better as "I think I am" or "I am the sum of my thinking/my thoughts" than "I think therefore I am", really. And that is probably as close to universal truth we can come:
The thought questioning if it itself exists.
Since the question can be asked, there is someone who can ask it, perceive it being asked, and also ponder if and how it can be answered.
Truth is true by degrees. As is reality: real by degrees.
The reason for this is not anything to do with the nature of truth or reality, but because we only have our senses and our mind to work with, and they cannot (re)solve the issue: hence the need for many to invent an absolute authority they can use to rationalise their own impulses as being divinely mandated by something representing "universal truth".
Simply put, being responsible to oneself for one's own being and acting, is too much for most. And that is certainly universal, even if how true it is, is certainly up for debate.
Happy New Year, Kulak!
Come now, even the least perseverant of pagans, Heraclitus, asserted the universal of change.
UT only comes when enough people believe the lies.
Ever hear of God?