abra,

I am no one's disciple and I certainly feel no call to defend Leary views, which can sound all over and 'preachy' at times. His has the merit though, of trying to bring it all together, and whether he personnally succeeds or fails is not important.

That specific article I posted, more than Leary himself, fortuitously brought all the elements I had attempted to bring together in this 'what is the thruth and how do you know?' post. Kind of a fluke. It saved me writing yet another reply to my friend 'massage'. Maybe I'm just getting lazy.

Anyhow, I found it fascinating to read the specific manner in which you responded. Fascinating in the sense of forwarding this fun inquiry.

You offered the following counter argument to one of Leary's point:

'... It makes no sense at all to give individual brains complete responsibility for the construction of reality. Why not? Simply because brains themselves are physical constructs. The basis of reality necessarily must spring from beyond the physical brain.'

Well fine, but we need to agree on which brain or part of brain we are talking about. Leary has to be referring to the neo-cortex (the rational thinking/ reasoning brain). The one that decides, discerns, discriminates, judges, calculates, etc. In other words the brain, of several brains or part of many parts of the brain we own as human beings, and the one which we are most familiar with and conscious of.

And I fully agree with you Abra, while that neo-cortex gives us our perceived fractional and incomplete 'reality', its raw material has to come from somewhere else, and certainly the elusive whole must lodge somewhere else too. You seem to suggest a 'somewhere' outside of us:

you wrote:
"... There is necessarily a missing non-physical or spiritual element the gives rise to the entire illusion prior to the development of a physical brain and physical sensations which include any sort of observations.'

Maybe so, but way before we start considering that aspect, we must take into account a whole bunch of fundamental 'details' Leary has left out in his rush to a conclusion.

And of course I'm just suggesting a possible, maybe, what if, who knows...
... 'SOMEWHERE' well inside us.

But inside us in a way we can sense, maybe even conceptually understand.

When you borrow this 'God is us' concept, you and I and many others share, I for one find it fascinating that there actually might be more truth to it, than necessary faith. But again, IS IT 'TRUE', I don't know?!?!?.

I'll borrow another point you raised with Leary to pursue the exploration :

You wrote:

“Leary argues that out of the million signals received from the outside world per second, the human brain ignores most and organizes the rest in conformity with whatever model, or belief system, it currently holds.”

Leary is wrong. It is to best of the knowledge of R.G.Jahn and B.J. Dunne's work on measuring brain activity, 4 000 000 million bits of data, that is bombarded to the NEO-CORTEX part of the brain.

As for the missing fundamental details missing from Laeary's article, they come in the 400 billion. That is 400 billion bits of information second being bombarded indiscriminantly at the other parts of the brains, mostly the lymbic, reptilian (primitive) brains.

Now a few more missng details from Leary's log. Again from Jahn and Dunne's work: 'Vector representation of the subliminal seed machine'.

Just picture a quadrant where upper quarters are the mental (left), and material (right), concsious part of the brain: an event occurs (material quarter: you're present to it obviously), and the interpretation you make or have of the event occurring (mental represention without which there is no expereience).

Below the horizontal line lies the unconscious and at the bottom of it all, at the root of the reptilian brain, a bulbshape nugget our scientific friends have called the 'seed'. The receptor so to speak of this 400 billion bits/seconds of universe data.

So 400 billion bits/seconds of 'universal' non-personal information, sort of 'WAVING THROUGH' you and me and everyone else, at the subconcsious lymbic and reptilian levels of the brain. Intuition's general head-quarters??? You bet!!!

Now, the math is mind boggling. Our reality, interpreted, represented, fabricated, or dicriminated by the neo-cortex, is using only 4 000 000 bits of the 400 billions bits of this universal flow of information. It becomes concsious of this 4 000 000 bits, and remaions in the fog with the rest.

An illusion of reality, entirely fabricated by the neo-cortex, I'd say very likely, while we feel or sense, or otherwise intuit the lion share of the remaining bits.

As you keep saying Abra, it's may very be all within each and every one of us. Flowing or waving as ArtGurl was suggesting.

Our biggest job from this perspective would be to surrender our insistence to control most everything though our very limited and limitng Neo-Cortex, and let more bits through...

Maybe, you never know, what the heck...

For the fun of considering it for a moment...

... one single unifying flowing cloud or wave-like bits (flashing lights) of infinite continuous energy/knowledge/light! ... Of which we are wholly part.

The fractional illusion of reality of the neo-cortex simply will never get this: ... We're probably absolutely whole, but our neo-cortex condemns us to a fraction (4 000 000 bits / 400 billion) BY DESIGN!!! The ultimate paradox!!!

It gives not taking ourselves (the neo-cortex part) to seriously, a whole new twist, don't you think?!?!



Do your MAGIC Abracadabra!











And further you raise the

“Leary argues that out of the million signals received from the outside world per second, the human brain ignores most and organizes the rest in conformity with whatever model, or belief system, it currently holds.”

This could be argued to be true even without any reference to the ghost-like nature of our existence. This could have been true even in a purely Newtonian world. I do agree whole-heartedly with this view. All our experiences are based on our judgments and preconceptions. Much of how we experience the world has been decided for us by our own prejudices and our own expectations. We shut out what we disbelieve, and embrace what we’d like to believe.

Sorry folks!!!

My last message ends with 'Do your magic Abracadabra!

The rest was cut ad past left overs!

Abra: My favorite part of physics classes was always when a noted physicist would say they didn't understand something- I frequently didn't understand something so it was reassuring to say the least. So thank you for reminding me that "no one understands quantum mechanics."

What is true? How could we ever know? So much of what we "know" about our universe, even our own planet is theory- and what I always remember about theory is: this is what we haven't disproven so far... not "this is true".

It seems to me that "truth" for most humans is either 1) what they can directly observe with their (obviously limited) senses or 2) theorhetical truths that are accepted by majority rule (a preponderence of opinion) or because they have the loudest or most charismatic proponent thereof. Just seems to me that "truth" is often used as an absolute term and I don't see how it can be absolute when there is no consensus on what constitutes a truth. And it will always be a relative truth anyway- a contextual truth. Because we constantly realize that what we thought was true was a misperception or misconception.

To me, the most basic truth is that I don't know what happens when we die and neither does anyone else.

“To me, the most basic truth is that I don't know what happens when we die and neither does anyone else.”

I’m in total agreement with you there Anoasis

I don’t claim that my vision of the universe, or god, or anything else is “correct”. It’s simply the most attractive and compelling vision that I’ve yet come across.

The truth may be that god is demonic and egotistical. If that’s the case, I’d just rather not know about it. I’ll pretend that god is nicer than me until I know with absolute certainly otherwise. Then I’ll just have to deal with the fact that I’m at the mercy of a demon. Not much I can do about it at that point.

Voil wrote:
“You seem to suggest a 'somewhere' outside of us:”

Now you’re really treading into the depths of philosophy.

Our everyday perception of the universe is that it is 4-dimensional. Three vectorial dimensions of space and one scalar dimension of time. However, physicists really have no precise definition for either of these primitive concepts, they are ultimately defined in terms of each other. Position only has meaning contextually, same is true of time. Einstein has shown us that time and space are as interchangeable as matter and energy. In fact, Einstein actually taught us that matter and energy are interchangeable too. Wasn’t that man a marvel?

Do you realize that Isaac Newton was the first scientist and mathematician to actually consider time as physical quantity. It’s true that people were keeping track of time prior to that, and even Galileo had used time to as a backdrop to calibrate his measurements of motion. But Isaac Newton actually treated time as one of the fundamental quantitative properties of the universe. Of course, his rigid picture of time was incorrect, but he was on the right track.

Einstein took it further and showed that time is more than just a convenient human construct but has a “reality” of its own. Ironically that reality turned out to be quite bizarre compared with how we previously thought about time intuitively. Time is not constant, but its quite malleable as I’m sure you know.

This may seem like a side-track, but I’m working toward the nowhere that is ‘somewhere’ outside of us.

Einstein realize that nothing can travel faster than light. However, that realization is not trivial, it has profound consequences. In order for that to be “true” this means that time must slow down as things approach the speed of light. In fact, time slows down exponentially as an object reaches the speed of light. This means that if an object can actually travel at the speed of light, for it, time will pass infinitely slowly, (i.e. it will stop).

What does this mean?

Well, consider this,… the faster you travel the slower your time passes. This means that if you observe the rest of the universe whilst you are traveling fast it will appear to be in “fast-forward”. You time is going slow compared to the rest of the universe, therefore the rest of the universe’s time must necessarily be passing faster. This phenomenon has actually been observed to be “true”. In other words, experiments have been done that show that the universe does indeed behave this way. It’s not “just a theory”.

Let’s take this the limit. Let’s travel faster and faster, our time goes slower and slower, the rest of the universe passes before our eyes faster and faster (in fast-forward). Billions of years past before our eyes in a flash. We finally reach the speed of light (impossible for us, but photons do this every day). What would a photon “see”. Well, since it’s traveling at the speed of light, that means that it’s time has stopped completely, that means that for it, the entire life of the universe has passed before it in a blink.

In conclusion, from the perspective of a photon of light, there is no such thing as time. The universe happened all at once.

To me this is the “truth” of time. There is no such thing as time in the Newtonian sense (in the way we experience time in our everyday world). All that exists is a primordial “now”. A single point of existence. It is now and forever, this instant and all of eternity. For “god” there is no such thing as time. All is now. Now is eternal.

Well, remember at the beginning of this post I said that time and space only have meaning in context with each other. They are interdependent, as well as interchangeable. They are two sides of the same coin.

I don’t want to go into length contraction, but Einstein’s Relativity shows us that its not only time that slows down at high speeds, but space also contracts. And this is also an exponential function meaning that at the speed of light the entire universe is reduced to having no length at all. For light, not only is there no time, but there’s no breadth to spatial dimensions either. For light everything happens “here” and “now”.

So when you speak of “elsewhere” it makes no sense. From the perspective of light (pure energy) there is nowhere else but “here” and “now”.

The spirit of the universe is like light. It is primordial, eternal and without dimension. It’s not a physical thing. It’s spirit. There is no “outside” of us. We are the universe, the universe is everything, everywhere, everywhen.

There’s nothing left to explain. The essence of the universe is spirit. It’s not physical. It needs no “place” in which to reside. It *is* place. It pervades everything. It *is* everything. It’s is all that exists, and we are it. Eternally. No need to invoke a human-like Santa Claus or wizard of Oz. The spirit is spirit. And we are it.

From the original post:
How do you know if something is true?
How many different ways are there to know?
Which ways appeal to you the most?
-----------------------------------
First of all, it always depends on what the definition of 'is' is. In the day to day sence, its true if it works everytime.
Of course, what works for me, might not work for you. So, my truth might not be your truth.

I think there are only two ways to know what you know. direct/indirect experience and reasoning or deductive logic.

I suppose, direct experience is my preferred method of experiencing truth but, I rely on whatever is available.


As for the other 6 pages of replies, I believe practically everything everybody wrote. But the truth is, I'm gullible.
So, how does one know its true?


If the proof is in the pudding. Make mine chocolate.

Abra;

The more that you have expounded on your beliefs in the matters of truth - God - physics, etc - citing what you believe against others who's theories you quote, the clearer it becomes to me of what your overall belief or vision is. I find myself agreeing to a number of things you post - and not with others - but what I have concluded - is that I do indeed understand it.
I will bring up these two matters - since you've addressed them:

""For me, to “believe in Christ” is to believe in the moral values that Christ taught. You see, I automatically believe in Christ from that perspective. In fact, from that perspective there is no difference between believing in Christ and believing in myself because I feel the same way. Had I actually met with Jesus I we wouldn’t have much to say to each other, other than, “Yep, I agree”.""

>>> As A Christian - I would say that what you have stated - is that "You believe Christ" as opposed to "Believe in Christ".
Okey - so that may be quibbling over semantics - but believing in Christ for me is more than just agreeing with his moralistic views or how he believed people should treat one another. It also encompasses what he said about himself - and who he was. For it doesn't make sense to me to believe in what he says on a moralistic/societal level - but then say he was dilusional when he says that He and God are one - that no one gets to the Father but through him - that one must be born again of the spirit to spend eternity with God - or that Satan is the master of this earth. I might be out on a limb here - but I would guess that the whole idea of Satan - hell - the lake of fire...
These are fairy tales to you. Yet if one does not believe in these things - when Christ did - does that not make it a contradiction to say one "Believes in Christ" as opposed to "Believe Christ" (albiet - selctive belief.)

"I don’t know why you keep bringing up the idea of prison and bad people."
>>> I brought it up only out of curiosity as to how you see it in the context of Pantheism. You explained it - and my curiosity has been satisfied. Nothing more than that.

Abra,

Sorry my magician friend but we're losing something here in the Quantum translation.

You wrote:

"... So when you speak of “elsewhere” it makes no sense. From the perspective of light (pure energy) there is nowhere else but “here” and “now”.

I did not speak of elsewhere. I suggested from something YOU had written, that YOU might have implied elsewhere, outside of us. Of course, I couldn't believe that you could have stated such a ridiculous concept, but I figured clarifying the point couldn't hurt anyone.

Here's the part you wrote:
"... It makes no sense at all to give individual brains complete responsibility for the construction of reality. Why not? Simply because brains themselves are physical constructs. The basis of reality necessarily must spring from beyond the physical brain."

The '... spring from beyond the physical brain', had me wonder if you of all people might have meant 'outside of us'.

I wrote:
"... You seem to suggest a 'somewhere' outside of us".
(With which I would obviously have disagreed.)

You wrote further:

"... The spirit of the universe is like light. It is primordial, eternal and without dimension. It’s not a physical thing. It’s spirit. There is no “outside” of us. We are the universe, the universe is everything, everywhere, everywhen."


That was exactly my point!!!

I wrote:
"... And of course I'm just suggesting a possible, maybe, what if, who knows... ... 'SOMEWHERE' well inside us.

But inside us in a way we can sense, maybe even conceptually understand.

When you borrow this 'God is us' concept, you and I and many others share, I for one find it fascinating that there actually might be more truth to it, than necessary faith. But again, IS IT 'TRUE', I don't know?!?!?.

As you keep saying Abra, it may very be all within each and every one of us. Flowing or waving as ArtGurl was suggesting.

... one single unifying flowing cloud or wave-like bits (flashing lights) of infinite continuous energy/knowledge/light! ... Of which we are wholly part."

I might be quantum dense, but I think in very different manner maybe, and from different angles surely, we're somehow 'unifying' on this one, in some unexplainable manner. Darn the quantum thing again!!!

As it relates to 'the truth, and how we know',
... the 400 billion bits/second of universal light flowing through or within all of us (as implied by brain mapping studies of Jahn and Dunne),
... could hold the truth we sense intuitively, let's say for argument sake.

Then, the neo-cortex, which only deals with a fraction of the 4 million bits that reaches it form the lymbic and cortex region of the brain, can only remain confused about the 'whole truth', let's say for another argument sake.

Thus our concsious dilemma on the issue of 'sensing it to be true', and yet, 'never knowing within reason' for sure if it is true, let's say again.

Covering all of it with a big don't know for sure, of course,

... but you got to admit, it rather 'quantum-waves-through' nicely!!!

Let's keep those 400 billion lights on, I say!!!

are we still arguing the truth???? Don't let me get out my whips now!!!!

Eljay wrote:
“>>> As A Christian - I would say that what you have stated - is that "You believe Christ" as opposed to "Believe in Christ".
Okey - so that may be quibbling over semantics - but believing in Christ for me is more than just agreeing with his moralistic views or how he believed people should treat one another. It also encompasses what he said about himself - and who he was. For it doesn't make sense to me to believe in what he says on a moralistic/societal level - but then say he was dilusional when he says that He and God are one - that no one gets to the Father but through him - that one must be born again of the spirit to spend eternity with God - or that Satan is the master of this earth.”<<< End of Eljay’s post quote

You’re obviously a very wise man Eljay, and you fully understand precisely what’s important and what isn’t. A while back, you suggested that I might have the wrong idea about Christianity and that perhaps I should hit the books again. Well, I actually have hit the books in great detail to address the very issues that you bring forth here. I had posted my thoughts on all of these issues some time back in another thread. I’ll try to briefly encapsulate the essence of those posts.

About Jesus you say:

“For it doesn't make sense to me to believe in what he says on a moralistic/societal level - but then say he was delusional when he says that He and God are one.

Did I not also say that I and God are one? Am I delusional?

It is my belief that Jesus traveled to the far east in search of truth, in search of enlightenment of the nature of life and of god. I believe that he met enlightened wise men who taught him the ways of the Tau. That all is one, that we and god are the same. That god is indeed the essence of our spirit. I believe that Jesus became enlightened to the truth of this.

He then returned to his home land where he began to preach to the masses these things that bring peace of mind and closeness to God. He taught brotherly love, and to love others as you love yourself. It was natural for him to claim that he and the father are one. What else could he claim? This is the “truth” of pantheism.

There was a problem. Jesus couldn’t just come right out and denounce the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham was how his flock perceived God. So Jesus did the best her could to try to teach the way of pantheism to a culture that had been blinded by mythology.

He was constantly saying, “It is written that you should do that,… but I say unto you that you should behave differently and do this instead. Don’t seek revenge and justice as in an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth –for-a-tooth, but instead turn the other cheek, forgive your enemies.”

Jesus was challenging the notions of the old testaments, and trying to teach people a new outlook on life. Treat your enemy as your brother for he is your brother. Judge not others lest you be judged by your very own standards. These are all very pantheistic principles.

You see Jesus as having claimed to be the one-and-only incarnation of the God of Abraham. I see Jesus as an enlightened man that knew that he and the father are one. He knew that we are all one with the father, and the only way to come to “know” the father is if we can come to know ourselves, but the only way we can truly know ourselves is to be “born again”, to look at life entirely differently than we have been taught. To realize that all are one, everyone is our brother, and we and the farther are one in the same.

This I believe. So in this sense I do believe that Jesus was God.

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t stop there.

The followers of Jesus did not truly understand what Jesus was trying to teach them. They’re picture of God was entrenched in an imagine of a separate deity, the God of Abraham. Jesus could not just come out and denounce the God of Abraham, he was trying to work within the confines of that image. Unfortunately it backfired. It didn’t work. His very own disciples report that Jesus himself said to them that they do not understand.

What do we know of Jesus today?

Everything we know of Jesus was reported to us by the disciples who misunderstood him. The Bible does not contain a single word actually written by Jesus. All of the supposed “words of Jesus” are distortions of hearsay by disciples who clearly misunderstood him. They reported their version of what they thought Jesus was attempting to say. They reported their “truth”, not the truth of Jesus.

They immortalized him as the one-and-only incarnation of the God of Abraham.

This I believe.

Eljay wrote:
“- that no one gets to the Father but through him”

The only way to realize that you are one with God is by doing the things that Jesus taught.

Eljay wrote:
“- that one must be born again of the spirit to spend eternity with God”

I don’t believe that Jesus every said anything about eternity. Even if it says so in the Bible, keep in mind that this is his disciple’s version of what they thought he meant. There are no direct writing from Jesus. Jesus never wrote down a single solitary thing.

I believe that what Jesus meant when he said “Ye must be born again” is simply that we must take on a new outlook on life. The very outlook that he taught – to treat everyone with the same respect and dignity that we treat ourselves. We must be born again into a vision that all is one. We must lose our arrogance, our self-importance.

Eljay wrote:
“- or that Satan is the master of this earth”

Satan is the illusion of the ego. The illusion of self-importance. The illusion of being separate from God.

Eljay wrote:
>>>"I don’t know why you keep bringing up the idea of prison and bad people."
>>> I brought it up only out of curiosity as to how you see it in the context of Pantheism. You explained it - and my curiosity has been satisfied. Nothing more than that.<<< end post quote

I didn’t really explain it in much detail. I summed it up short and sweet. If all is one, and all is God then to harm anything is to harm god, and yourself.

That’s the bottom line in a nutshell. But we could delve into very lengthy discussions of many other reasons. There is even further ideas associated with karma etc, which I’d really rather not go into at this point because they could just easily muddy up the waters.

The pantheistic view implies reincarnation. And some believe that what you do in this life will affect what your next life will be like. Like a boat in the water your spirit creates a spiritual wake which you must swim through on your next incarnation.

However, these advanced ideas are pure speculation. They have some merit, but they also create problems as well. To believe that all spirits have their own individual wakes goes right back to an egotistical point of view of separate spirits. This may or may not be possible. With god all things are possible I suppose. Who’s to say. However, in this physical world there are many indications that I find compelling to believe that at least the physical world I all one. Whether spirits can actually have individual identities can be nothing more than pure speculation, wishful thinking of creatures who are obsessed with their preserving egos.

I don’t claim to know what’s “true”.

I’m just sharing my views. To me, the pantheistic view makes much more sense than the imagine of the God of Abraham. I personally believe that Jesus was a pantheist and not the sole incarnation of the God of Abraham. It just makes so much more sense to me. It makes sense in what he taught, it makes sense in how he was misunderstood by his own disciples and large masses of people who followed them.

So you see, Eljay, I’ve been down that road in quite some depth. I don’t denounce Jesus. I merely claim that he was misunderstood.

I do however, denounce the God of Abraham as folklore and mythology. Could I be wrong? Of course! But obviously I don’t feel that I am. I’m much more comfortable with the pantheistic view, and I even embrace Jesus within it as a fellow pantheist! To me, Jesus is my brother. I admire him! But I do not worship him as I do not believe that he would even want me to.

Gypsy wrote:
“are we still arguing the truth???? Don't let me get out my whips now!!!!”

I haven’t seen an argument in this entire thread. Just philosophers exchanging views.

However, if you still want to get out the whips this could get interesting.

Voil wrote:
“But inside us in a way we can sense, maybe even conceptually understand.

When you borrow this 'God is us' concept, you and I and many others share, I for one find it fascinating that there actually might be more truth to it, than necessary faith. But again, IS IT 'TRUE', I don't know?!?!?.”

Yes, I agree. It may actually be possible to discover a “truth” to it that is beyond the need for mere “faith”.

In my mind, there already exists many compelling reasons that “point” in that direction. Perhaps taken collectively they do represent some sort of “evidence”.

In the end. What ever is, is.

Que sara sara.

Why have any other attitude?

God must ultimately be nicer than me. That’s my fundamental “truth”. So I can feel pretty safe because I'm pretty nice.

And if there is no spiritual aspect to our existence, then fretting about it won’t change that reality anyway, so what’s the difference? Just live and let live and enjoy the life we have with respect and dignity. That should be everyone’s ultimate “truth”.

Abra wrote...

"Just live and let live and enjoy the life we have with respect and dignity. That should be everyone’s ultimate “truth”."

Works for me.

so i take it, a mere mortal can not prove any truth. its all based on faith?

I am LDS or Mormon and there is a scripture that says something like if you lack wisdom let him ask of god and then there shall be a burning in your bosom if it is true and yea a stupor of thought if it be not true

so that is my answer to your question

I take that as a yes vote for 'its all based on faith'.

Invisible wrote:
“so i take it, a mere mortal can not prove any truth. its all based on faith?”

I wouldn’t say that. I think it all depends on what “truth” you’re trying to prove, and what you’ll accept as “proof”.

I believe that I can confidently say that if you are true to yourself, and you behave in a manner that you are genuinely happy with, then you will like yourself, and you will be a peace with yourself and with others, and therefore you will also be at peace with whatever god you might imagine.

Seems to me that this is a form of “truth” in and of itself.

It’s a truth that can only be experienced, it’s not a truth that can be proven via logic.

So the bottom line there is whether or not you accept experience as "truth" I suppose.

nice answer. I like it. Yes, I can accept experience as my own personal pointer to truth. But, thats personal
And I agree it depends upon the context of what and why you're proving and that determines what is needed to accept a particular proof of truth.

I think I read too much into the original question: How do you know if something is true?

Invisible wrote:
“so i take it, a mere mortal can not prove any truth. its all based on faith?”

Any group of mere mortals can go about their business of proving something as true, for another group of mere mortals. It is strictly a matter of argumentation between mortals. The mortal, or group of mortals with the better argument wins, and gains the consensus of others. And thus installs something as 'true', for that group. But it is for that group only.

I wrote in my first post on this thread:

"... 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)." I stress: 'appears to be 'really' true'.

Where it gets tricky, is when we come to the really true part, as in true for everyone, and I mean everyone. The difference between 'what is true',
true for some, however large the sampling of 'somes', and,
... 'THE TRUTH'.

We would like to believe there is such a thing as 'THE TRUTH'. A lot of us (us, excluding the person writing) go through life absolutely convinced of some absolute truths, God being one, favored by a lot.

Given this, I would argue, in answering your question, that (imo) mere mortals, while they can prove, and agree or diagree on what is true or false amongst themselves, cannot prove any fundamental or otherwise absolute truth. Absolute just doesn't exist other than in the form of an instinctive 'wish', seeking to ease our relationship of 'fear' and 'not knowing' towards 'life'.
Absolutes would make it so much less complicated.

We (excluding the writor) so much want to believe in absolutes, with or without prooves, that regardless of the fact that know of no one in human history, that has given us an absolute (we had to invent God for that, and than Jesus).

And that wasn't enough, so we invented MIRACLES as sort of 'God engineered proof', which no human needs to analyse!!! If we can't argue intelligently for what is true, let's throw a miracle in there. But whatever we (ex. the writor) do, let's keep that belief in 'absolute' alive!!!

In spite of centuries of 'hard' miracles and holy books of 'absolute truths, we still have evangelical troops, trying to 'sell' us on their consensus.
Absolutes need EVERYONE on board. Evangelists are not going away anytime soon. (nothing against eveangelists by the way. It just makes for colorful exchanges between us that's all).

The faithfuls call us 'sceptics', 'un-christian' and unwilling ot listen, and we call them 'naive' and 'blinded'. Another way of demonstrating that we haven't reached 'absoluteDOM' yet.

That's for the faith side of thruth.

But science helps not a bit more in reaching the Quantum perfect world of absolutes.

Science can help prove certain specific 'what is true's', but can no more than religion land any form of 'absolute'.

Absolutes in a popular way, not the strict 'absolute', witin a specific 'agreement': it is absolutely correct that this weighs that, given our agreement on weighing principles, mathematics, the actual weighing gear used, and the actual context in which the weight was weighed. An with all that, it will only be a popular 'absolute' for the interested few, whom agree with all the principles.
Science goes no further than fath in helping establish 'ABSOLUTE - ABSOLUTES'.

If anything, science 'proves' with every breakthrough of proof, that 'absolutely so' is 'probably' absolutely not probable!!! Not an absolute either.

For fun, as a 'live', 'real-time' expriment on the elusiveness of 'absolutes', just watch for the replies this message gets (maybe).
You can be certain we won't have an absolute here. And again, that's not an absolute that there is no absolute!!! We couldn't even agree on that one. Some of us maybe, but asolute means 'everyone', the whole human race!!! Improbable!!!

Love the question Invisible :) .

Hey Voil,

I think we're getting pictures confused with screen names now.

Maybe it's time to take a break from our computers for a while and let our delusions evaporate a bit. (ha ha)