Origins of the Universe

[Haver]

Well, I was being funny in the first bit. Haden dropped in the phrase 'universal truth'. Some (most?) modern philosophers believe there is no 'objective' or 'universal' truth, and some ask the question 'Why not untruth?'.

 

Thus, if we go back one question, we can ask, 'Why do we care about the origins of the universe?' or 'Why do we care about the truth?', or 'Why would the 'truth' about the origins of the universe be any more valuable than the 'untruth?'.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the second part of your post. Firstly, there is no shame in referencing in far smarter men. I will never have Marx's turn of phrase. And so far as holding typical, or common, views, I would say to you that this would be a grand thing! Reason is taking a beating right now. It is not a shameful thing to be a reasonable man.

 

And to go one step even further back, who is to say what is the 'truth', about the cosmos or anything else? And how is it that we would grasp it, if we saw it, and say firmly, with Total Belief, 'this is the truth'?

 

Mr Odwin, well, I am a man of science and mathematics, however, I would hold it to you that they are based on certain artificial assumptions. I mean, 'What is one?' What the hell is One? Where is the edge of One? Show me one, and I will concede, but you cannot, and never will be able to. And so I would ask, can mathematics really claim 'truth'?

 

And this makes me an 'intuitionist', according to Wikipedia. Feel free to be a Platonist, I won't be offended.

 

(And, oh yes, how can we possibly call this a secular country if our monarch -- constitutional or not -- is a Christian? If we sing 'God Save The Queen'? If we sing 'All things Bright and Beautiful' in schools?)

 

These are some jumbled thoughts for you.

 

Gawd that one bit is really clumsy. This is why I quote other people!

[The fish]

(And, oh yes, how can we possibly call this a secular country if our monarch -- constitutional or not -- is a Christian? If we sing 'God Save The Queen'? If we sing 'All things Bright and Beautiful' in schools?)

 

How are we not secular? Our society is equal towards all belief systems, and is an open society. Therefore it is secular. Simple!

 

The thing about school assemblies is all awful, the government really cocked up on that one.

I found it stupid when I had to do it in year 6! My secondary school is a Christian foundation school, so I thought nothing exceptional of it there.

My recent reading into the exact requirements of school assemblies has made me realise that it is, in want of a better word, stupid.

 

They should teach people how to think, not what to think...

 

cept, theres like historical unbiased records of jesus being alive, and you admitted to him walking around on the earth >.>

 

Oh yeah, I remember that!

 

No, wait, that's a lie.

 

I have yet to see any non-theological historical evidence to say he existed. Enlighten me, please.

[Slaggis]

Oh yeah, I remember that!

 

No, wait, that's a lie.

 

I have yet to see any non-theological historical evidence to say he existed. Enlighten me, please.

 

I'm sure he existed in some form, though most likely just a guy preaching his views, or some random nutcase. But I think there's just too much stuff about him for him not to of existed in some form or other. Though then again I could be wrong.

[Wesley]

 

Oh yeah, I remember that!

 

No, wait, that's a lie.

 

I have yet to see any non-theological historical evidence to say he existed. Enlighten me, please.

 

And what form would this evidence be in?

 

At the end of the day you won't have any kind of pictures or videos; all evidence about civilisation at that age is drawn from scripture and art. And a hell of a lot of the scripture and art is about Jesus. So is that not proof? And if that wasn't proof, then how can any of the other things we believe from that era be classed as truth?

[The fish]

And what form would this evidence be in?

 

At the end of the day you won't have any kind of pictures or videos; all evidence about civilisation at that age is drawn from scripture and art. A hell of a lot of the scripture and art is about Jesus. So is that not proof? And if that wasn't proof, then how can any of the things we believe from that era be classed as proof?

 

The earliest art depicting Jesus is circa the 4th Century.

 

By 'scripture' I take it you mean the bible, which is about as much use as a historical document regarding a person it centres it's principles around as a tub of ice cream is for telling us what life was like Novgorod on the 5th June 1527.

 

(That's fairly useless, by the way... )

[Oxigen_Waste]

Maybe not for arty-farty types like you, but as a mathematician my work and education is based on theorems and methodologies that are proved correct by ... er ... mathematical proof.

 

You know, it's actually inaccurate of you to say that. Mathematical only works as a universal truth as long as you're a human, and, therefore, limited to your 5 senses for interpretation. Oh, and do keep one thing in mind, just because nothing has ever proved mathemathical science wrong, it does not mean that it can't be wrong. It's still the most accurate science we have, but hell, we only perceive about 10% of matter, so we only have about 10% of universal knowledge.

 

Most likely, maths are universally true, however, there is no way to be sure, as humans. Therefore, there are no facts.

[Hellfire]

You know, it's actually inaccurate of you to say that. Mathematical only works as a universal truth as long as you're a human, and, therefore, limited to your 5 senses for interpretation. Oh, and do keep one thing in mind, just because nothing has ever proved mathemathical science wrong, it does not mean that it can't be wrong. It's still the most accurate science we have, but hell, we only perceive about 10% of matter, so we only have about 10% of universal knowledge.

 

Most likely, maths are universally true, however, there is no way to be sure, as humans. Therefore, there are no facts.

 

You're actually wrong mathematics IS a universal truth in our dimension, regardless of planet or species. Thinking that maths can be wrong, just because there might be minds that opperate in ways different than ours is incorrect, what is true is that mathematics is a science that's always evolving and correcting itself, so we, not knowing, nor understanding everything about the universe haven't explained everything (and never will) yet through math, but with time, more and more things will be.

For example, black holes existance was proven by math/physics without ever having "seeing one".

[Shino]

A unit of something is always valid, no matter what your measuring. And I don't get what you mean by senses, and universal knowledge.

[Oxigen_Waste]

You're actually wrong mathematics IS a universal truth in our dimension, regardless of planet or species. Thinking that maths can be wrong, just because there might be minds that opperate in ways different than ours is incorrect, what is true is that mathematics is a science that's always evolving and correcting itself, so we, not knowing, nor understanding everything about the universe haven't explained everything (and never will) yet through math, but with time, more and more things will be.

For example, black holes existance was proven by math/physics without ever having "seeing one".

 

You know, that's precisely why it's NOT a universal truth. It applies to everything we know... correct. But we're still thinking about planets and species. What I'm saying is: yes, mathematics is a universal truth. But not the one we "know/teach". Our mathematics are still based on a three dimensional existence. If all that you learn is based on an uncertainty, how accurate can it be? Think about it, it's all standing on feeble ground.

 

NOW, because we are human, we will never even perceive if there is, or not, a fourth dimension (excluding time, of course, I'm talking about spacial dimensions), our existence is purely 3-dimensional, therefore, our maths are "universally truth", as far as we, humans, are concerned, but on a universal scale, they're completely pointless and uncertain. See what I mean?

 

(And if you can clearly remember, there are a whole fucking lot of rules wich apply on 2D that go bye bye when you take that extra step to 3D, because of that extra dimension.)

 

You know, the "sense" theory pretty much nuliffies every single thing we take for granted. Gotta love the human mind for even thinking about it. How can you establish anything when you can only perceive 10% of matter?

 

What's funnier... the only way they "proved"(well... sorta, lol) these wild theories was, you guessed it, through maths.

 

(This may very well be the only fucking advantage of taking that extra philosophy grade, you get to read these kinds of shit wich are... interesting, to say the least.)

 

Now, the number one flaw in this argument: nothing is trustworthy... SO, the theory itself is also not trustworthy.

 

A unit of something is always valid, no matter what your measuring. And I don't get what you mean by senses, and universal knowledge.

 

That is absoltely true. But know this, just because something is right about most things, it does not mean it's absolutely right about everything. Yes, 1+1 will always be too, but advanced maths, that's a different subject... I know it all comes from the premises that 1+1=1, 1-1=0, 1x1=1 and 1/1=1, but as you dwelve deeper in maths, you stumble across certain uncertainties such as the one pointed towards above.

 

Ok, off to bed. I'll answer later.

[Wesley]

The earliest art depicting Jesus is circa the 4th Century.

 

By 'scripture' I take it you mean the bible, which is about as much use as a historical document regarding a person it centres it's principles around as a tub of ice cream is for telling us what life was like Novgorod on the 5th June 1527.

 

(That's fairly useless, by the way... )

 

Okay, so yeah I get it, you discount the Bible. On them grounds would could you then count as viable evidence from that period?

 

I'll work it out for you: you can't. So if you can't count anything as viable evidence then you can't not count anything as viable evidence.

 

Now, I'm not even saying I believe that the Bible was correct or anything; I'm just making a point.

 

And also, by scripture I did not mean the Bible.

[DCK]

But Haden, as Derrida has made the case, there *is* no objective truth! You've opened a can of worms there!

That's contradictory to the meaning of truth; there must be only one truth according to the principle of falsifiability; something is true, and if it isn't it is false. For any factious statement you can make, you can name it true or false. Without falling into the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and therefore according to falsifiability all these facts could be determined objectively. Therefore the 'only' truth is the objective truth, which, in essence, is what science is trying to describe. If there would be no objective truth, truth wouldn't be a solid, well-defined concept and neither would reality, the universe or existence be. If these things wouldn't be solid or well-defined, they wouldn't be able to exist at all.

some ask the question 'Why not untruth?'.Check

Argument from ignorance. Why not untruth? Because untruth is false.

And to go one step even further back, who is to say what is the 'truth', about the cosmos or anything else?

We are, because the truth is a (actually, the) determinable thing. You can ask "How do you know that what we are determining is the truth?" but the things we are determining are the truth, because if they weren't they wouldn't be there - as all things that are not true are false, and therefore don't exist. All that can be determined is in fact the truth.

You know, that's precisely why it's NOT a universal truth. It applies to everything we know... correct. But we're still thinking about planets and species. What I'm saying is: yes, mathematics is a universal truth. But not the one we "know/teach". Our mathematics are still based on a three dimensional existence. If all that you learn is based on an uncertainty, how accurate can it be? Think about it, it's all standing on feeble ground.

That's completely untrue. Our mathematics aren't based on 'three dimensions' (it's actually maths that makes us capable of thinking that way); mathematics is a science of concepts based on some axioms (mainly appearing in the fundamental sciences of set theory and logic) that must apply everywhere for reality as we know it for mathematics, and therefore physics, and therefore reality, to work. This is because if the axioms would be false, all mathematics derived from them (like trigonometry and calculus) would cease to be true and they would conflict with the truthful mathematics in our 'part' of reality. It could be possible that the axioms are different in other universes, but this isn't a falsifiable theory, so nothing meaningful can be said about it.

 

Through these mathematics we can actually theorise about 11-dimensional string theory without any sort of proof for a theory in that direction. As long as things comply to the axioms, they can be true. It is up to science to determine if they are.

 

Also, we are not necessarily restricted by our senses. Most scientific breakthroughs now are made in areas that are way beyond what our senses could possibly perceive.

[Hellfire]

Oxygen, what DCK said.

If you studied math you knew that it applies to stuff we don't even know.

Of course that an alien might not wirte 1 "1" or plus "+", but that hardly matters.

[jayseven]

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the second part of your post. Firstly, there is no shame in referencing in far smarter men. I will never have Marx's turn of phrase. And so far as holding typical, or common, views, I would say to you that this would be a grand thing! Reason is taking a beating right now. It is not a shameful thing to be a reasonable man.

 

I hope you mean Groucho... I don't have a problem with who you use in a quote, just how the way you speak tends to come accross as artificial; a construct of what someone else has thought rather than your own opinion.

 

And to go one step even further back, who is to say what is the 'truth', about the cosmos or anything else? And how is it that we would grasp it, if we saw it, and say firmly, with Total Belief, 'this is the truth'?

 

Surely, as a practicing philosophian (or man of science and maths, too), you are aware that you need to define your terms before you start throwing them around? Again, this is why your posts read as if you don't really know what you are talking about even when I am sure you do. Define what you call a truth, or an untruth before you make statements such as "show me one!", for surely i could hold up a single finger and say "presto", and that would be a better argument than what you have presented so far!

 

QEE meboy!

[Haver]

OK. Well, the reason I don't churn out a bunch of stuff I thought up while baked is demonstrated for you in this thread. A lot of stuff in this thread is underdeveloped, most of it severely underdeveloped, where a quick trip through the Philosophy 101 reading list would do a world of good (I don't study Philosophy, by the way). People seem to think (especially on the internet) that it's a bad thing to read. And that's why hardly anyone has a grasp on these things.

 

For instance, DCK completely misunderstands what we're talking about, what 'truth' is as a philosophical concept, but I can't explain Philosophy 101 or its terminology in a forum post.

 

But if I asked you all to read from Plato to Nietzsche you'd all think I was a big arrogant prick, because this is the internet.

 

And as for the artificial language, well, welcome to Academia. It's how you present yourself, or you flunk.

[jayseven]

aha, so a slightly more personal response! Well I can assure you, this is not planet academy, so no need to be so upright about it all. I think your discussions have always been intriguing, which is why I am prompting you to further them - and I know you don't study philosophy - you're on my facebook

 

The point is, as you just showed by discrediting DCK, you are not competently arguing against others and what they are claiming because you yourself are not supporting your own opinion.

 

The people on this internet you talk of aren't including me - I enjoy a well-read discussion. I am merely pointing out that 'truth', as you define it, is undefined, and that you need to define your argument before you start saying someone else is misunderstanding you.

 

Personally I do not believe myself to be highly educated in the world of philosophy - it's a pet interest i've had for a few years that i've totally neglected recently, but I know what I know. I can only debate with you if you choose to define what you are talking about, because I would rather not have to spend several hours uncovering what the hell you're talking about!

[DCK]

For instance, DCK completely misunderstands what we're talking about, what 'truth' is as a philosophical concept, but I can't explain Philosophy 101 or its terminology in a forum post.

Maybe so, but that's only because I assumed a definition that you didn't mean, like jayseven pointed out. Even so, if you discredit what I said you should accept that your philosophical truth and physical truth of the universe are not the same thing, which is something that cannot be.

 

Also, I don't really like how you put yourself in the victim role by being 'well-read' or whatever you mean. There's no problem with it, and you should realise that you're really not the only one.

[Haver]

Firstly, I don't want or like to come across as snobbish. It's the last thing I want, and that's why I write using serious colloquialisms most of the time, and when I do write academically it's in the same spirit as mathematical language. It's for clarity. I also don't think I'm smart enough to write or even conceive a personal opinion that hasn't been developed elsewhere by a hundred other people. So I reference heavily, because talking someone else's idea up as my own isn't appealing to me. Secondly, it feels seriously uncomfortable to defend ideas that might seem new to the undiscerning reader but are age-old and debated to death, but I don't mind having a go if people understand there are far better answers elsewhere.

 

I also don't like ridicule, so I'm not going to pick apart an opinion that clearly isn't serious. It's like going up to some holy cheese and going, man, there's holes in your cheese. It's holy cheese, of course there's holes in it.

 

Anyway, as far as 'my' definition of truth goes, and I feel stupid already, I am a Constructivist, the Wikipedia definition of which is:

 

Constructivism is a perspective in philosophy that views all of our knowledge as "constructed", under the assumption that it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.

 

Which is to say, constructivists do not believe there is anything 'universal' to speak of, or rather, we cannot possibly discern it if it existed due to the limitations of our biology. 'Universality' implies that there is knowledge that is objectively fact, that undisputedly 'is'. Rather, constructivists believe that all knowledge is subjective, which is to say, subject to conditions, specifically, a perception of 'reality' (i.e. Our knowledge, our numbers, our science, our ideas, everything -- is all limited to our perception of 'what is' via our senses).

 

So, to develop, while there is subjective knowledge, which is super-useful for us, it is a construction limited by our perceptions of 'what is', which of course we cannot claim a monopoly on, else we would be the worst kind of chauvinists.

 

I have no problem with the Kantian idea that the reality we know is the only one we will ever know and thus, well, there's not much point in trying to go beyond it, as long as it is understood that it is a subjective reality and we can't claim objectivity.

 

The other part of the discussion was about the 'will to truth', which is a Nietzschean idea, that is to say, it circled the question 'Why truth?', which might seem like it has a simple answer but doesn't. Why do we have the will to truth? What are the benefits of searching for our subjective truth? If a subjective untruth was "life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding", why does it matter if it is 'not true'?

 

Of course there aren't definitive answers here but it is food for thought.

 

Here is some Nietzsche:

 

SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman--what then? Is there not ground

for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been

dogmatists, have failed to understand women--that the terrible

seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually

paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly

methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed

herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with

sad and discouraged mien--IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there

are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies

on the ground--nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to

speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all

dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive

and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble

puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it

will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for

the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as

the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular

superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition,

which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet

ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception

on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very

restricted, very personal, very human--all-too-human facts. The

philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a

promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in

still earlier times, in the service of which probably more

labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any

actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-

terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of

architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon

the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things

have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-

inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature

of this kind--for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and

Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it

must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome,

and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist

error--namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in

Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of

this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a

healthier--sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the

heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error

has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the

denial of the PERSPECTIVE--the fundamental condition--of life, to

speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one

might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that

finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates

really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of

youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against

Plato, or--to speak plainer, and for the "people"--the struggle

against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of

Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"),

produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not

existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one

can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the

European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice

attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by

means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic

enlightenment--which, with the aid of liberty of the press and

newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit

would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans

invented gunpowder--all credit to them! but they again made things

square--they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits,

nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS,

and free, VERY free spirits--we have it still, all the distress

of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the

arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT. . . .

 

1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous

enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers

have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will

to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing,

questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems

as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last

grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That

this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is

it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this

"Will to Truth" in us? In fact we made a long halt at the

question as to the origin of this Will--until at last we came to

an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We

inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the

truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?

The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us--or

was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us

is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a

rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it

be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had

never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern

it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in

raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.

 

2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For

example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will

to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the

pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such

genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse

than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different

origin, an origin of THEIR own--in this transitory, seductive,

illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity,

they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in

the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself--

THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"--This mode of

reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians

of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the

back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of

theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for

something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The

fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES

OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt

here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most

necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS

DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses

exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and

antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their

seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely

provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some

corner, perhaps from below--"frog perspectives," as it were, to

borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the

value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the

unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more

fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to

pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity.

It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of

those good and respected things, consists precisely in their

being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil

and apparently opposed things--perhaps even in being essentially

identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself

with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must

await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will

have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto

prevalent--philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense

of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new

philosophers beginning to appear.

 

More here: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/bygdv10.txt

[Wesley]

Way to make us read. Go back to the library, geek.

[Haver]

Sorry, can't, too busy having sex with your relatives.

 

Take that Scuzz!

[Paj!]

I can't be bovved thinking about it anymore.

 

1. We don't know (will never know?) how the universe came to be.

2. The Bible is a book. Full of stories. Stories that a moral guideline, not fact.

 

 

That's my view on it. *leaves via skylight*

[Zell]

Way to make us read. Go back to the library, geek.

 

Huzzah for childish insults. There seems to be a lot of that around here recently.

[Wesley]

Huzzah for childish insults. There seems to be a lot of that around here recently.

 

I'm pretty sure Haver, who I've known for... shit, 4 years (?), would of taken that as it was meant to be. A joke. Thanks for wasting 40 seconds of my life explaining it to you though.

 

Well, I'm thinking the Universe could of been created by Zell in his infinite wisdom.

[Zell]

I'm pretty sure Haver, who I've known for... shit, 4 years (?), would of taken that as it was meant to be. A joke. Thanks for wasting 40 seconds of my life explaining it to you though.

 

Well, I'm thinking the Universe could of been created by Zell in his infinite wisdom.

 

Okay then, sorry for a lack of prior knowledge, I'll know better next time. Thanks for the insult though, I really deserved that. Oh and although you're incorrect about my infinite wisdom, I do know that it's could have and would have. Could of is an insult to the English language.

[Wesley]

Okay then, sorry for a lack of prior knowledge, I'll know better next time. Thanks for the insult though, I really deserved that. Oh and although you're incorrect about my infinite wisdom, I do know that it's could have and would have. Could of is an insult to the English language.

 

Alright, alright, I'm sorry. Let's kiss and make up. Hey, I'm just playing anyway.

[DCK]

Constructivism seems pointless thinking to me for two reasons:

 

- Because there may be things that are beyond our sensory capabilities and our 'subjectivism' (which is the wrong term here and has the wrong associations) doesn't mean they are there.

- Even when there would be these extrasensory truths (and I'm going to violate my previous truth definitions under this truths as the assumption does) these truths would, by their very definition, not influence the sensory truth, meaning that they wouldn't have been involved with the origin of the universe or any part of the sensory truth as we know it. Since the sensory truth is all the truth we need, why would there be a necessity for the extrasensory truth for us at all?

 

It comes down that it is pointless fantasising. Knowing the truth about these extra truths would not give us any more insight.