How do you know if something is true?

How many different ways are there to know?

Which ways appeal to you the most?

what i usally do is follow my gut feeling .. if i ignore that gut feeling ..and do the opposite thats when iam heading for trouble..but i do think that gut feeling is god saying " dont do that" plus being a recovery alcoholic changeing my thinking to gods way of thinking cant be difficult.. sense i always want to be in control.. i just trun it over .. let it go and remmber whos in charge there is a god .. and its not me

Usually common sense and gut feeling should tell you what's true.

And if you don't get on with that, research.

find the experts.


i asked a question like this once, "what is it you know to be true but cannot prove?"


there is a very nice group of minds at play and inspired....
one of the sites set up for us to stimulate healthy discourse is The Edge.Org


as far as this question though


i know that something is true by my experience.

and my experience is that truth is not absolute

You can never know if something is objectively true. And that’s probably the only truth that you can know.

Being a physicist I put a lot of faith in observation and experience. However, even with all I know about the nature of the universe I cannot say what it’s true nature is. All I can say is what “appears” to be it’s true nature.

Being a physicists doesn’t prevent me from also being a philosopher, and I have had many discussions with philosophers. One thing they continually bring up is the idea that the universe might be nothing more than an illusion with no physical substance at all. They suggest that all of my “physics” goes right out the window at that point. But they are wrong. I don’t view physics as “absolute” knowledge. Physics is the study of what can be observed, or more accurately it’s the study of what has been observed. Even if the universe is an illusion it appears that that illusion obeys the laws of physics. Therefore the laws have validity even if all they express is the constraints that are placed upon the illusion. If the universe were to radically change its behavior tomorrow that still wouldn’t negate physics, because physics merely states what has been observed, and what can be observed. In other words, all that would amount to is saying that the physics of the universe has suddenly changed in nature. There’s nothing in physics that requires that this cannot happen.

So truth can be fleeting. Truth is only a statement or observation about something that appears to be a certain way. For example, classical physics had the “truth” about time all wrong. Modern physics has a differnet picture of time. Is that picture now the “truth” or is that just another limited view from a different perspective.

Truth takes many forms. If you find a mate, marry and have children, then that situation becomes your “truth”. Does that give it substance? Of course not. You mate could leave you, your children could die, you could become mentally ill and no long be able to participate in the family. Your apparent ‘truth’ about your situation is fleeting and has no real permanency.

What kind of truth are you seeking? Permanent truth? Absolute truth? Truth that doesn’t require a perspective, a situation, or a reference of any kind? A divine truth? There may or may not be such an absolute truth, the only thing we can know with certainty is that no one has ever been able to give any evidence for such an absolute truth. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, it simply means that if it does exist it’s probably not knowable or provable.

People who need that absolute anchor tend to believe in a god. In god they find an absolute. Not proven, but merely believed to exist. It gives them piece of mind in what would otherwise seem like a meaningless existence.

I don’t feel a need for such an anchor because in my mind there would be nothing for that anchor to be anchored to. Creating a god is to do nothing more than pretend that something can be absolute. In the very early days of religion it was believe that the heavens were perfect and unchanging. Of course, they also believed that the heavens were overhead. They believed that all of the planets and the sun were indeed in heaven, and that only the earth was “earthly”. Of course that view has long since been disproved. So once again, what was once believed to be a truth, turns out not to be a truth after all.

The only real truth that we can know is that which we experience in the now. That is “truth” for us, whether it has any “reality” or not is irrelevant because from our point of view it certainly appears to be real to us. We can only exist in the now. There is no other time in which we can exist. Our worries about tomorrow are unfounded because there is no truth in tomorrow, there is only truth in now. Take no thought of tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. This moment is the only absolute truth you have.

i said that too!!


but i like your version!!!

Alex, I think we're stuck dealing with the limitations of our own sensory apparatus -- which is just another way of saying, as you did earlier, "experience."

The problem is that there is always the possibility (I would be more inclined to call it a likelihood) that at least some of what our senses tell us is true, is in fact wrong.

But, then, it's all we really have, unless we choose to believe arbitrarily in things which have no rational basis. I would include religion, televison commercials, and representative democracy in that category, among others....

Abra;

I agree with most of what you have stated - the one thing I disagree with - is that I believe there is absolute truth. What I agree with you on - is that we make assessments about truth through our perception - and draw conclusions about validity based on experience. That does not disprove however that truth is absolute. As in your example of the changing of the physics of the universe. What has indeed changed was the perception of it - not the truth of it. It is what it is - and that is absolute. What we do as "scientists" or simply layman is draw conclusions rom our expectation of patterns. But we draw these conclusions over a period of time - and force our perception to recognize a pattern - then label this as truth. It may be so. The only absolute truth we can be sure of - is that we will all die. But here again - time limits our perception. Over the time of our existance on earth - in the age of documentation - we tend to claim this as an absolute truth. Until there comes a time when it can be proved that there exists one who will never die (without running amuck with semantics) - we accept that as absolute. But the absolute truth of even that fact - is we cannot know. Until we can see through time - both backwards and forwards - the only absolute we know - is we cannot know the absolute truth about everything. However - that does not prove absolutely that an absolute to truth does not exist.

Exactly in line with what has already been written, I would simply add the dimension of CONSENSUS.

The larger the human consensus on a particular experience/observation, intepretation or 'illusion' of anything, the greater it appears to be accepted as 'really' true (absolute: 'that's just the way it is': orthodoxy unquestioned).

But what's fascinating, is that what we as a species (human) have 'created' as 'truths', has so often proven, over time, to be untrue or radically different than originally conceived.

It was held has God given true that the hearth was flat, or that the sun gravitated around the earth!!! People have been burned at the bush for suggesting otherwise. It was the truth (irrevocable concensus) of a time.

And if you consider that too old to consider the point credible, think of the more recent irrevocable consensus on solids, liquids and gases!!!

Thank god we are not burning them at the bush, but 'quantum mechanics' scientists are suggesting there is no such thing as SOLIDS!!! What has appeared and has been conceived, and has been held as absolutely true, through 'human experience' forever, SOLIDS, don't exist!!!

That's today!!!

No solid particules around anywhere!!! None that can be observed anyway. What has been observed through nuclesar accelerators, are flashes of energy, of different chemical compositions (density), appearing in this dimension, and disappearing in some other dimension! Where do the particules of light (energy) disappear to, ... nobody knows!!! (Abra, you could probably critique this part which much richer precision).

Where does this energy go??? Fascinating question...

Anyhow, back to truth. It obviously keeps CHANGING based on new observations, and newly formed, wide-spread consensus on just about anything that's been held as TRUE.

God, Dogma, Love, etc., in my books are part of those powerful consensus, made into truths that a whole lot of people have stopped questionning objectively.

When GOD, LOVE or any other concept which provides inspiration to ALL human beings,
... remains a fabric of mystery, begging to reamain an inquiry: fascinating and inspiring, all is well (IMO: not absolutely true).

On the oter hand,

When TRUTH becomes a concept OUTSIDE OF THE DIMENSION OF HUMAN CREATION AND CONSENSUS, outside of one's experience and observation,
... PERVERSION OF TRUTH, AS SOMETHING WHICH TOO MANY OF US RELATE TO AS AN IRREVOCABLE, NON-NEGOCIALBLE REALITY,
... THAT KIND OF TRUTH, OUTSIDE OF VERY RELTIVE HUMAN CONCEPTION,
... IRONICALLY BECOMES ONE OF THE MOST DESTUCTIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY.

ain't it the truth!!!!

Violleazur

Sigh

Do we ever know?

I use my psychic powers of course!!!! My senses......your vibrations...aura....gut feeling....it all comes into play.

Eljay wrote:
“As in your example of the changing of the physics of the universe. What has indeed changed was the perception of it - not the truth of it. It is what it is - and that is absolute.”

Not necessarily. Science has actually observed that things such as the gravitational “constant” are changing with time. In other words, the very nature of the “physical” universe itself is indeed changing. So even the nature of the physical universe is not absolute. The truth of it’s structure and existence changes over time (albeit at very large time scales compared with the lifespan of a human being). But none the less the truth of what it is, is changing.

Also as Voileazur points out there is no such thing as solid matter. That is indeed an illusion manifest by fluctuations in energy (whatever the hell energy is!). Even physicists don’t “know” what energy is, they have simply defined a concept that they can put a quantitative value to, but other than that they really have no clue what the “true” nature of energy is.

In fact, in truth (notice that we are finally getting to some truth here), physics doesn’t say anything at all about the actual nature of the universe. All it really does is quantify various observable phenomena and show that they apparently display quantitaive behavior according to the “logical” rules of mathematics. And even that isn’t absolute as there are even inconsistencies within “our” mathematical formalism. Mathematics itself is not even an absolute truth. It a man-made construct that contains it’s own paradoxes and inconsistencies.

On a personal level, I believe that all is “energy”. Energy is all that exists. I also consider energy to be “spirit”. But that’s just a fancy word that gives this concept of “energy” an entity-like quality. However, I argue that since the universe is made of energy, and we are made of the universe, then we are also energy. We are the spirit of the universe in it’s most fundamental essence. All is one. There is nothing else to be. We are this universe. We are “God” if you will.

I don’t know your beliefs, but based on the few posts I have read of yours I see that you speak of Jesus, and therefore I imagine that you have a Christian-like faith. That faith, (at least it seems to me) imagines that there is a self-conscious and basically egotistical god that is somehow separate from us. That faith also seems to assume that we can somehow be separated from god and still exist in our own right. It also suggests that our “spirit” comes into existence at birth, yet it has the potential for existing for eternity after we die.

In other words, in that faith, we are creating new spirits from nothing every time we conceive a child, and those new spirits have the potential to exist forever. They are deemed to be separate from god and will somehow live under god’s rule and serve god for all of eternity like workers in a beehive where god is the queen bee.

I don’t buy into that scenario at all. It’s far too problematic, not only from a logical point of view, but on many philosophical grounds as well.

What makes much more sense to me is that we are this universe. We have always existed, and always will exist. Time itself is an illusion (which we actually have observed to be the case in physics). All that really exists is a primordial “now”. Time as we know it is relative to motion. There is no such thing as "absolute time". Therefore there simply is no other absolute time in which to cease to exist.

We are the spirit of the universe. We always have been, and always will be. The universe is ultimately spiritual in nature, it’s physical form is a manifestation of the spirit. We are that spirit. We are this universe.

For me this is a fundamental primordial everlasting truth. It is primordial because it’s only true now, and now is no differnet from eternity because physical time is itself an illusion brought about by the dance of the spirit.

In short, I’m quite comfortable with a natural pantheistic view of our existence. To me it’s primordial, eternal, and non-threatening. The idea of an external, egotistical, and judgmental “Santa Claus”-type of God does not appeal to me at all. I see that as being extremely problematic on far too many levels from physics to philosophy and even into morality.

Of course this is just my view. I can’t say what is “truth”, anything could be true. Bill Gates could be god and has merely programmed us as a subroutine of Windows. Anything’s possible. But some things are intuitively unlikely. I’m much happier with knowing that I am this universe, than to think that I’ll be judged by a self-proclaimed egotist (i.e. Thou Shalt have no other God’s before me, for I am a jealous God!)

That kind of egotistical crap just doesn’t sound like a very nice god to me. I think the universe being god is a much more friendly scenario. I’m part of god and I cannot be separated from god, I cannot even exist outside of god because I am god. Just as you are god. Just as everything in this universe is god.

That’s unconditional love! You are the spirit of this universe. You are the primordial everlasting universe. You didn't come here from "elsewhere". You belong here, and have always been here. The universe is who you are.

This I believe.

I love it when you talk science

That's as close as you will get to what rings absolutely true...

... to me.

Any others??? Do we have a large 'truth fabrication' consensus on that one???

... never mind even seeking consensus. It makes no difference in the end. All besides, all the fun we derive from debating would be forever lost.

What MIGHT matter above all, is being true to one self. To that God in us Abra speaks of.
... And JUST AS IMPOORTANTLY, defend the right of all to be true to their 'selves'.

Only in our profound and mutually respected differences, are we all the same.

>> Also as Voileazur points out there is no such thing as solid matter.

What is it precisely which you and Voil are claiming to 'not exist' ?

As beings who are generally 2 meters in size, equipped with senses that are only able perceive qualities of matter on a certain scale, we naturally come to wrong conclusions about the true nature of solid matter. Having developed the instruments and mathematics which allow us to understand solid matter more thoroughly, we see that our previous conceptions were misguided. Solid matter is not continuous/homogeneous,, most of the mass is concentrated in fantastically small regions - most of the remaining space has no mass, it is held together (on the inter-atomic level) by electric force, -every- component of matter is involved in a vibration of some kind (thermal vibration, the vibration of electrons, the vibration of nucleons, etc etc), and these components cannot be located at precise location in space.

So you are right that our previous conception of the nature of solid matter was all wrong.

But this doesn't change the fact that 'it' still exists. This just means that our sense deceive us regarding its true nature. An aggregate of vibrating elements is more accurate model than a 'chunk of material', but the aggregate of vibrating elements still exists, and still has the qualities which lead us macro-scale beings to perceive it as a 'chunk of material'.

"Elements" in the sense of "components", not in the chemical sense.

>> "Elements" in the sense of "components", not in the chemical sense.

Yes, but it's the stance of modern physics that even those "components" have no "solidity".

The entire universe is nothing more than a hologram for all intents and purposes. This is what modern physics is saying. Believe it or not.

Most laymen generally aren't aware of this. Most people are still living in a Newtonian world in their minds. They think of atoms as little billard balls. But that's not the case at all. Not even close.

All just consciousness Abra? That is what makes sense to me...