If that is true, then everyTHING is an illusion.

(Which actually could be true.)

You seem to have a real hang up with language. The words are only REPRESENTATIONS of a concept. They are NOT the concept itself.

This is where you are confusing the map with the territory.

But if you read my words more closely you'll see that I didn't just say "sizes", I said "cardinal sizes".

Cardinality is a very well-defined concept within Cantor's Set Theory, and yes, he does indeed claim that infinity comes in different "Cardinal sizes". In fact, he proves this using various algorithms. Strangly enough his algorithms are flawed. In particularly his "Diagonalization Proofs". They are totally false and I can prove it.

Gee, I guess I can then say that it's true that Cantor's Diagonal proofs are false.

By the way, I downloaded your video you posted in your other thread. Unfortunately I haven't been able to watch it yet. This computer doesn't have a compatible video program so I'll have to fire up a different computer to actually watch the video. I'm so unorganized right now! So many things to do, so little now to do them in.

No. If that is true, then what we think of as truth only holds value insofar as it can be described.

Your statement that I seem to have a real 'hang-up' with language is quite telling, is it not?

Of course the things which words describe are not equal to the word which describes it, I have never claimed otherwise. Your thought is not equal to the thing being thought about either! How is that relevent to the matter at hand, other than serving to further support the case I am presenting?

Then explain what you mean by "Aside from language there is no truth."

That does not make any sense. "Truth" does not depend on language unless you are thinking that truth is only a verbal statement.

I see "TRUTH" in a more spiritual sense, and as what is real.

It is an observation. Everything you post on this subject is about 'language' as if you are attempting to drive home a point of some kind, which I have yet to understand what that point is.

It is relevant because you stated that: "Aside from language there is no truth."

This make no sense.

Truth is just another word for real, truth lets us have an assessment of things people claim are real. If true its real, if not true, its not real.


Unless you are coming from the mindset of idealism, or spiritualism, then "truth" and "real" make perfect sense.

I agree. When I say truth, I mean real or reality. That is what I mean when I say every THING is real.

A fake apple is a real fake apple. It is not a 'real' apple, but it is a real fake apple.

Right and a thing is the set of physical characteristics it displays.

If no physical characteristics exit, then the thing also does not exist.

I do not agree with this conclusion.

If no physical characteristics exist, then the thing is NOT PHYSICAL but that does not mean it does not exist.

It only "does not exist" in physical reality. Physical reality is reality that moves (vibrates) within a set range of frequencies.

But all matter (material) is not all physical, and this matter exists even though we cannot detect it. We cannot detect it because it moves (vibrates) at a different frequency and has a different density.

Whatever I say is the truth.......... Really!

Well, all phsyically measurable observables don't necessarily qualify as 'material' anyway.

I never really thought about this before but when I was listening to these lectures on "Consciouness and Its Implications" the speaker came to this fact, and used the term "physicality" rather than "material" to refer to the physical world because all physical phenonmenon are in fact, not material. As a specific example he specified electric charge. A clearly measurable and observerable property of this universe that has no 'material' existence in its own right.

Of course, a particle physicists could argue that electric charge is carried by photons, however, photons are pretty weird massless particles in their own right. So it's all quite interesting.

I renewed the library loan on that course. I'm going to listen to it a second time. It is really done well, I like the way this fellow speaks. He's very clear and to the point. He also mentioned Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in a new light which I found very enlighenting.

So I'm going to listen to this course through a second time. It's quite profound. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested.

However, I strongly suggest that you check your local library or try to get it through interlibrary loan. Why pay for it when you can borrow it?

It's called, "Consciousness and Its Implications" by Professor Daniel Robinson of Oxford University. It's published by The Teaching Company and can be found in either audio CDs, or Video DVDs.

He raises a lot of really great questions, and he's very non-biased. He just tells it like it is and let's you decide which philosophers are crazy and which ones might be onto something.

Look JB you don't have to agree with me. But you will if you accept a single definition. That of what is physical.


If physical is that which interacts, then only physical things exit.

I can show a logical proof.


All things are described based on a set of characteristics. It is these characteristics that we use to tell one thing from another.

The set of characteristics that detail thing A, and necessarily at least slightly different from the set of characteristics that detail thing B.

The only way to take note of these characteristics is by logging data through one of the sensory modalities (sight taste touch smell), or technology (detectors, sensors, measuring apparatus) also we can "see" things that we normally cannot by their interactions with other things that then we can detect through a normal method. (an example is a black hole, or neutrinos)

This includes all forms of energy, matter, ghostly matter, light even gravity.

If something exists it must interact with reality. If something is real, then it can be detected through these interactions. Maybe not now, but eventually, or the potential to is there dependent on the level of interaction.

The less it interacts, the harder to detect . . . ect.

But to exist is to interact, to be physical is to interact.

All that exists is physical. So is not that matter is everything, but that everything is physical and matter is physical and can me transmuted into that which is not matter, yet still be physical based on its interactions.

I will be happy to seed defeat if you can show me something or describe something that does not interact with reality.

No less the word Physics says it all . . .

Truth does not exist...

Hope, faith, knowledge, beauty, love, hate, confusion, etc...

None of these things exist by that definition Jeremy.

I see a problem with it.

It makes perfect sense, Jb...

Truth is a property(or not) of a statement. A statement is completely dependent upon language(as commonly understood) for it's very existence. Language is man-made. Therefore, truth is also... man-made.

Aside from language, there is no truth.

Yes, matter is physical.

All physical things interact with other physical things. (But physical things are not the only things that exist.) They are simply the only things that you know exist because you are also physical and you can interact with them because they are physical.

All physical things exist within a certain frequency and interact with other physical things within that same frequency.

Our sensory organs evolved for the purpose of detecting these things which are within this frequency. They are vibrations and reflected light having these physical properties.

Not all things that exist have these properties and not all things that exist are within this frequency range.

There are other things that exist that are material and can be interacted with if you could match their frequency. They are not 'physical' but they are material.

A lucid dreamer creates a world that is not physical and yet it appears to be physical and the dreamer, in his dream body, can interact with the things in his dream. He can touch them, feel them, smell and taste them. How is this possible if these things do not exist? These things exist for the dreamer as much as the things in this world exist for you. Yet his dream world does not exist for you because you cannot interact with it.

That was an example. I am not saying that dreams are real to anyone but the dreamer. But a lucid dream can be just as real as this that you call reality for a short duration. Extend that duration and it can become reality for the dreamer. Enhance the senses and it can become more real than the dreamer's former reality.

So many practical pragmatic people dismiss dreams as illusions or delusions of the mind, or as 'unreal' passing or fading thoughts, without stopping to wonder how they are created and how THIS REALITY is created in the same way.

If that is your understanding of truth, then I understand why it makes sense to you.

Frankly I think that is a very limited definition of the word "truth."

The concept of truth, for me, means REAL.

TRUTH IS WHAT IS.

They do, you are being narrow in definition in this post.

Your own admission from the other thread (on language and thought) that all ideas come from nature contradicts this post.

Whats it going to be Creative?

That ideas are not physical and thus do not interact with physical things like brains, or do they.

I will state this very basic argument again if any one is paying attention.

The premise is that if something interacts, its physical.

If you accept that premise YOU MUST ACCEPT MY CONCLUSION.



Here is the kicker, if something does not interact then how can we ever know it exists?

EVER. A invisible non interacting unicorn is just as likely to exist as anything else that does not interact.

0 interaction means it is not something that has ANY effect on ANY thing in this reality, and never will until it does, and then we can determine things about it based on its interactions, and then its also considered physical.

This is so basic, that it makes me wonder, the only way to beat this logic is to NOT agree with the premise and then explain why. What it really makes me wonder since no one has refuted it, is if these poeple I call intelligent are either a) not really smart, or b) not really reading this . . .

I want an example of something that does not interact with anything in this reality, and I want someone to describe its characteristics without referencing something physical that does interact with this physical reality, then I will buy into whatever philosophy explains how we can know these non interacting non physical things.

Until then Ill stick to naturalism, physicalism, materialism ect . . .

Hi, everybody! * * *
I am StarJane -- a twin sister of HANDLEWITHCAUTION (who is temporarily indisposed). So, in the meantime, I will replace her -- for all intends and purposes, you should treat me as her!..

First of, Gentlemen, the gist of Jeanie's question has gotten lost in the discussion of various philosophical aspects, such as language, the nature of truth, even mathematics... -- while really it conserns only the Law! (am I right, JB?) Thus, from that point of view:
1. the essence of truth (as correctly noted by Metalwing) is a relative matter which depends solely upon its definition.
Our forefathers have put forth a set of rules -- The Declaration of Independance -- that is the basis of the modern Law which governs our society. Thus, the Law is the reference upon which the truth is determined! Consequently, since our personal beliefs ought to have no bearing, it follows that
WE BELIEVE BECAUSE IT IS TRUE -- ACCORDING TO THE LAW * * *

2. Again, the Law defines the answer:
even if the majority is at the false assumption -- thinking something is True -- but really (i.e.ACCORDING TO THE LAW) it is false (Not true), then the law must prevail, overriding the rule of majority!
Consequently, IT IS NOT TRUE *According to the Law*.