Creative,

Since our coversation appears to have degenerated into nothing but pot and kettle calling each other black, I propose we both take equal responsibility for that and just end our dialog. Agreed?

Tribo I agree.

I seriously do not understand what is mean when JB says agreement, nor observer.

If by observer you mean a being within this 3 D reality, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

If you mean a being beyond this 3d reality that is the universal observer, and we all just experience this sources agreements, then this is just a fancy way of saying cause god wants it to be so. And if this being makes those observations and agreements before we encounter said thing to observer, then WTH, this is what we have now, with an outside truth from our inside perception.

The thing is everyone seems to vomit up soooooooooooooo much stuff to really come back to simple arguments.

I like to strip away fluff to get to the heart of things.
_____________________

I see relationships that exist between things such as the relationship between the numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3 exist outside of any observations such that under any circumstances they will remain the same, if all conscious being "within" this universe where killed off, and another set evolved later on, they would uncover these relationships to be true as well.

On observation...

The notion of an observation requires an observer. This alone is not and does not constitute any reason to believe that the existence of that which is being observed is dependent upon observation or the existence of an observer.

The only thing that it proves is that in order to use the term observer, there must be something to observe, an observation. That fact is not in question.

The concept of observation requires an observer, but the content does not. That which is being observed is given the value of being an observation only after it has been discovered.

Discovery itself necessitates actuality's existence prior to knowledge of it, as Billy has already laid out some groundwork for.

Uhh...

Facts are unreliable and can be wrong. Facts can be untrue, simply because the declaration of a fact depends on agreement.

Facts are declared and agreed upon. Truth is truth.

If no one agreed that it was true, (even if it was true) it would never had been declared a "fact." Therefore the designation of whether something is called a fact or not REQUIRES agreement,-- whether it is truth or not.

Example:
If you were accused of having an affair and it was not true but the evidence was damning and indisputable to everyone, they might all declare that your affair was a "fact."

For evidence: they had pictures (they were faked or you were drugged and photographed) they had DNA or seaman (planted) they had evidence (forged letters etc.) they had testimony (liars or mistaken interpretations) and any other variety of evidence planted to frame you. Still the only one who knows it is not true is you and you can't prove your innocence.

What good is the truth then if you have no evidence to dispute the wrong or planted evidence being used against you?

I agree that truth is truth and it prevails; but facts are based on evidence and agreements such as in the case where a person was framed or set up.

By the very reason that declared facts are agreements, they can be wrong. They can be disproved, if they are indeed not true.


Creative wrote:


Truth is true. Information designated as "Facts" are still agreements. If they were not, then everything that science has ever declared to be a fact and then later learned was not a fact could not have been changed or corrected.

The important thing about facts is that they are subject to human observation and human error.

If you discover that what had once been declared (by agreement) to be a fact, was then proven to be false or in error, many might just say... oh well I guess that was not a fact after all. We were mistaken.

DUH. Yes you were.

So you cannot say that facts are always true because facts are declared to be facts by observers via evidence and the observers agreements then they declare that they "must be true" after considering all the evidence.

That is why you cannot have complete faith when someone tells you that this blah blah information is a fact.

It could be in error. It could have been falsely declared to be fact by incorrect interpretation of evidence.

Sky...

You are more than welcome to continue in the discussion, in fact I welcome it. The use of improper, not to mention inaccurate, personal insults to anothers person and/or character should not be at the heart of one's material. I am not here to attack anyone nor their belief system, but I will not allow another to deliberately attack or slander me. Eventually I will get fed up with it. Most of the time, I allow perceived slights to exist without public acknowledgment. Unfortunately this has the potential to validate another's false sense of victory in the battle which rages within the minds of those with that nature.


My arguments are not hollow.


I have confidence in my beliefs because they are based upon facts, which I can, have, and will display for others to examine.

Life is not a game to me, and neither is what constitutes knowledge.

On facts:

Facts are not invented by humans, they are discovered.

The rest is elementary.

Does 1+2=3?


Is that a fact? Is that true? Does that depend on observation?

I did not say that facts are invented by humans. Neither are they "discovered."

Information and evidence is discovered.

You are trying to convince people that information designated as "fact" (by some authority) --is the ultimate truth.

This has been proven wrong so many times the idea is ridiculous. It means that if someone tells me that "blah blah blah" is a "fact" I may as will accept without question what he says hook line and sinker.

Never question what someone tells me is a fact?? In your dreams.

Bull Bull Bull. Propaganda.

So is that a yes or a no?

I don't think that is what he is saying at all.

Fact 1+2=3
Fact []with a U, then a [] with a /u at the end will underline what is between them in this forum which is called HTML. . . . You know this . .. I have observed you using it . . . .

These are facts, they are true, this exists outside of whether or not you or I observe it or not.

Yes I agree that these are facts. I am not saying that all facts are wrong. I am saying that all "facts" are not "truth".

Some "facts" are incorrect, and untrue. Unless someone knows they are incorrect and points it out and offers evidence that they are incorrect, then they find enough evidence to show that, and people agree with him, then the fact is no longer called a fact.

For example:

This was once called a fact:
Lee Harvey Oswald a lone gunman, assassinated John F. Kennedy.

Is that really a fact? Who really knows? I've seen too much evidence to the contrary on that one to accept or agree that it is a fact.

Here is another disputed "fact."
Osama ben Laden is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

I think its a bold face lie and outrageous pathetic propaganda. Yet many people believe this to be "fact."

People tend to believe what they are told and accept authority for what is fact and what is not fact. You can't trust those kinds of facts.

I have no problem with obvious facts, like if my car runs out of gas it will stop going down the road.

JB

JB, it seems this whole thread has only propagated past the first page due to misunderstanding of your beliefs.

God did it. Whats real is gods truth, what maybe true is humans truth, what is fact is where human truth has come extremely close or nailed it on the head of gods truth.

Gotcha. See that only took one paragraph.

Anyone who has read many of my posts would not misunderstand my beliefs if they read my words for what they are. I don't try to disguise my point. I put it all out there more than anyone on this entire club.

And that is what I said earlier. Its all about a the belief in a spiritual existence vs a non-spiritual existence. I am spirit and I am infinite.

My definition of an observer is any thing that vibrates and can respond to other vibrations. That would include the bottom of the quantum soup, the elusive Higgs Bosen particle that has not yet been measured.

then i would have to comment that the only real factual truths are the natural truths we can observe - such as gravity, entropy, etc..

Tribo,

I read your post before you deleted it. Why did you delete it?
Anyway I posted this in another thread and it is my final answer to the Observer and what I believe it is.



Now I think I am done with this entire subject. I am going to quit now and go do some painting. I'm burning out on this subject.

sorry JB, i saw that Bushi had posted what i was asking and you seemed to agree so i was just going to let those thoughts go -

My lady, it has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with my reality which is all i know for sure, anything past that is mere speculation. If other/older life forms exist[and i/m not saying they don't] i have no way of knowing if they perceive as i/we do - or if they could communicate with me to let me know whether they did or not. having perception abilities either like ours or different does not necessarily mean there brain functions like ours does - do the animals here function with the same brain we have? do they think as we do? reason, suppose wonder? so how am i or anyone to know if other life would be able to see or smell or taste etc.. as i do? as i say it's not arrogance or self centeredness here its lack of you or anyone being able to prove that there are quintillion's of other observers out there somewhere, thats all. i am not going to simply agree with you or sky or Abra or creative or bushi based on things i cannot see and perceive and understand whether they are what i consider to be reliable facts/truths/obseervations blah blah blah.


sorry.


BOOK OF TRUTHS:

"the only thing we can ever know for sure is ourselves, it's the only thing we have inside information on."

I agree 100% that the only thing I know for certain is that I exist.

But I can prove that there are billions of observers in this universe -- besides humans by my definition of an observer.

It begins with the premise that everything is conscious (to a degree.) (Spiritual consciousness, an opinion)

It continues on the premise that everything vibrates and has its own unique frequency and that vibrations are what everything is made of.(Scientific fact)

An observer is anything (including a rock) that gives out and responds to vibrations.

Therefore just about everything that exists, observes in its own unique way.

Sky...

Your are welcome to add positive substance to the discussion, or not... no harm, no foul...




On change and fallibility...

The fact that we live in an ever-changing world necessitates that our knowledge base change as our understanding of that which we experience changes. Human knowledge is fallible. That is not to say that all that is known should be blatently discarded without substantial cause. On the contrary, as we acquire new understandings through the discovery of new elements of actuality, the value placed upon the relevant parts of the knowledge base must change accordingly. That is the epitome of growth in knowledge.

We must recognize and accept that human knowledge is fallible, if for no other reason, because of the fact that our understanding evolves. Therefore, holding an absolute certainty value to or label to human knowledge is to possess a naive and close-minded thought constitution.

It follows then that absolute certainty is not necessary for a sufficiently justified belief. Beliefs can be self-justifiable enough to be acted upon with a high degree of confidence without holding the value of absolute certainty. That is to say that absolute certainty need not be present in order to maintain self-justification in a belief.

The self-justification of a belief depends not only on how well it translates to to our experience in the past and present, but also how well it maintains it's validity in the future. Awareness of this concept's application requires discipline of thought in belief and understanding of it as well. Personal truthes will accommodate change as long as one does not maintain a sense of finality to that which they believe. Having a well-justified belief depends more upon the process by which it is arrived at then the actual substance of the belief itself. One must be able to repeat the process by which they have arrived at their conclusion(s) in order to maintain a genuine sense of understanding.

One cannot maintain a genuine belief in that which they do not understand. Keep in mind, that individual understanding does not need to be accurate in order for it to be believed to be true.