What a lot of people believe vs the truth - What's important to you?

[PureX]

You didn't understand that it was a question. It's impossible that someone does not understand that and a person with any kind of thinking prowess would answer with a "why would I say such a thing".

So thanks for responding. Have a great day.

Perhaps if you had just made your point instead of baiting me with a silly question, you'd have gotten a better response.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps if you had just made your point instead of baiting me with a silly question, you'd have gotten a better response.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[BrightShadow]

Politics.

Is it really that simple? Just politics?
Other than political reasons - I think division also occurs when people have difference in opinion. People have difference in opinion when they interpret same thing differently!

So because people disagree, drop them all?

No one is suggesting to "drop them all"!
Of course - consider everything and only after careful consideration - discard one by one if necessary!

Some people do get convinced after careful consideration - some have a need for belongingness - some are just too gullible - these folks do grab a position.
The rest keep searching!

I believe religion is just a vehicle - many path can lead you home - so, nothing wrong in finding a new way home! When water is too murky - sometimes it is better to stop trying to filter it and just find a new source (a new approach). IMO

 

[firedragon]

Is it really that simple? Just politics?
Other than political reasons - I think division also occurs when people have difference in opinion. People have difference in opinion when they interpret same thing differently!

Specifically, it's politics.

No one is suggesting to "drop them all"!
Of course - consider everything and only after careful consideration - discard one by one if necessary!

Great attitude.

I believe religion is just a vehicle - many path can lead you home - so, nothing wrong in finding a new way home! When water is too murky - sometimes it is better to stop trying to filter it and just find a new source (a new approach). IMO

Based on your above standard which is great, what are the things you had done "careful consideration" of? You made general statements. A lot. Are you making those statements after careful consideration? You spoke of different interpretations generally. Have you considered them individually?

 

[BrightShadow]

Based on your above standard which is great, what are the things you had done "careful consideration" of? You made general statements. A lot. Are you making those statements after careful consideration? You spoke of different interpretations generally. Have you considered them individually?

Yes! and No!
I have made careful consideration on some. Then there are things I connected dots and decided with something that makes sense to me (hence the use of IMO). I also incorporated some from my personal NDE experience (years ago) but I am not going to get into that. I am very well aware of scientific explanations regarding "NDE experiences"!
I am firm believer that everything has a reason behind it and everything has an explanation. Without a valid explanation - I struggle accepting anything. Of course - my conclusion regarding some things may not be accurate but until another explanation makes more sense - I own my position!

 

[firedragon]

Yes! and No!
I have made careful consideration on some. Then there are things I connected dots and decided with something that makes sense to me (hence the use of IMO). I also incorporated some from my personal NDE experience (years ago) but I am not going to get into that. I am very well aware of scientific explanations regarding "NDE experiences"!
I am firm believer that everything has a reason behind it and everything has an explanation. Without a valid explanation - I struggle accepting anything. Of course - my conclusion regarding some things may not be accurate but until another explanation makes more sense - I own my position!

I respect that.
That's why brother, you should not make such generalisations.

Cheers.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Again, your use of the term "illusion" wants to suggest that it's invalid/not "real". This obsession with validity comes from the assumption that there can only be one 'truly true' truth and that we should seek it because any other concept or perception of truth is "invalid".
We invented clocks to synchronize our interactions with each other and with the environment we live in. You are calling synchronicity, "accuracy". Again suggesting that this determines "validity".
But time is not defined by synchronicity, which is why we experience it differently from each other in the first place. And why we had to invent machines and arbitrary scales of measurement to help us sync up with each other interactively. If anything were to be labeled "invalid" regarding time it's this mechanically imposed, overlay.

I have only used the word “illusion” once….
in a question to determine if you perceive time as such after having quoted your claim …

No one's perception of time is "invalid" because time is a perceptual phenomena. It doesn't exist apart from our perception of it.

The statement “It doesn’t exist apart from our perception of it” can easily be construed as meaning that it’s an illusion, and thus the question in order to clarify your meaning. To determine if YOU meant it’s not “real”.

So, do you believe time is an illusion; that it is not “real”?


When you claim: “We invented clocks to synchronize our interactions with each other and with the environment we live in.”
That’s not quite accurate.
Earlier instruments (sun dials/shadow clocks) accomplished those tasks.
We invented and perfected clocks/watches/chronometers to more precisely and unambiguously measure the passing of time in an objectively reliably, precise and accurate manner.

For example look up John Harrison, who invented the first chronometer after the British Parliament offered financial rewards of up to £20,000 (equivalent to £3.35 million in 2022) in 1714 in order to solve the problem determining longitude on a ship at sea.
In order to determine longitude, one needs a reliably accurate instrument that remains in synchronization with time in Greenwich to a very precise degree.
An error of a few seconds can result in an error of positions of miles.

We invented clocks to synchronize our interactions with each other and with the environment we live in. You are calling synchronicity, "accuracy". Again suggesting that this determines "validity".

“Synchronicity”: (An apparently meaningful coincidence in time of two or more similar events that are not causally related.)

“Synchronization”: ( To occur at the same time or coincide or agree in time.)
(To go on, move, operate, work, etc. at the same rate and exactly together; recur together.)
(To cause to indicate the same time, as on one timepiece to another.)

When you use the word “synchronicity” here, do you mean “synchronization”…wouldn’t that be more to the point?

I am taking it as the meaning you intended would be synonymous with “synchronization” ( To occur at the same time or coincide or agree in time.) ( To go on, move, operate, work, etc. at the same rate and exactly together; recur together) (To cause to indicate the same time, as one timepiece to another).

Would that be correct?

You are calling synchronicity, "accuracy". Again suggesting that this determines "validity".

Assuming you meant “synchronization” as outlined above……

When you have a room with 20 clocks (designated as A-S) all synchronized to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) and over the course of a week 18 clocks remain in exact synchronization, 1 clock (S) shows a time that is 43 seconds behind the 18 clocks that remain in synchronization, and 1 clock (F) shows a time 22 seconds ahead of the 18 clocks that remain in synchronization.
After another week goes by clock (S) shows 87 seconds behind, and clock (F) shows 44 seconds ahead of the rest of the group of 18 clocks that remain synchronized exactly with UTC.

Clocks (S) and (F) would be considered less accurate (the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement).

Would you not agree?

Since Validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure. High reliability is one indicator that a measurement is valid.

So yes, I’m suggesting that proven, reliable synchronization with a verified standard measurement is indicative of accuracy (the extent to which a measurement agrees with the standard value for measurement) and therefore more valid (sound; just; well-founded).

But time is not defined by synchronicity

Assuming once again the intended meaning here being “synchronization” in lieu of “synchronicity” as described above, you are correct it does not define it, but it is essential to demonstrably accurately, reliably, precisely, and unambiguously, measure the passage of it… which is what we’re talking about here.
Thus leading to the aplicable validity of it.

 

[BrightShadow]

I respect that.
That's why brother, you should not make such generalisations.

Cheers.

Specifically which generalization are you talking about? You are generalizing until you specify!

 

[PureX]

So, do you believe time is an illusion; that it is not “real”?

Again you equate illusion with being "not real". But illusions are "real" on a number of levels. Even to the point that "reality", itself, is an illusion.

When you claim: “We invented clocks to synchronize our interactions with each other and with the environment we live in.”
That’s not quite accurate.
Earlier instruments (sun dials/shadow clocks) accomplished those tasks.
We invented and perfected clocks/watches/chronometers to more precisely and unambiguously measure the passing of time in an objectively reliably, precise and accurate manner.

For example look up John Harrison, who invented the first chronometer after the British Parliament offered financial rewards of up to £20,000 (equivalent to £3.35 million in 2022) in 1714 in order to solve the problem determining longitude on a ship at sea.
In order to determine longitude, one needs a reliably accurate instrument that remains in synchronization with time in Greenwich to a very precise degree.
An error of a few seconds can result in an error of positions of miles.

What does this have to do with understanding the truth of time? Time is perceptual, and relational. It is not "objective". Which is why we had to quantize our experience of it and impose an external mechanical "keeper" that we all agreed to accept, to keep us synchronized. And my point is that for us to better and more fully understand time, we need to remember that it is NOT an objective phenomena. Nor is it a singular or static phenomena. It is a subjective, pluralistic, and dynamic phenomena. In fact, its not a phenomena at all except as it's association with motion, and space, and how we limited humans experience these.

“Synchronicity”: (An apparently meaningful coincidence in time of two or more similar events that are not causally related.)

“Synchronization”: ( To occur at the same time or coincide or agree in time.)
(To go on, move, operate, work, etc. at the same rate and exactly together; recur together.)
(To cause to indicate the same time, as on one timepiece to another.)

When you use the word “synchronicity” here, do you mean “synchronization”…wouldn’t that be more to the point?

Synchronicity is the concept, synchronization is the application of the concept. Mechanical time-keeping is an expression of both. But if you wind up your mechanical clock, set it on the table, and then suddenly all humans cease to exist, is that clock still "keeping time"? When the spring winds down and the movement inside the clock stops, has it ceased "keeping time"? Is it still an objectified expression of synchronicity? Even when it stops?

With these kinds of questions I assume you can begin to see the paradoxical nature of the truth of time.

When you have a room with 20 clocks (designated as A-S) all synchronized to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) and over the course of a week 18 clocks remain in exact synchronization, 1 clock (S) shows a time that is 43 seconds behind the 18 clocks that remain in synchronization, and 1 clock (F) shows a time 22 seconds ahead of the 18 clocks that remain in synchronization.
After another week goes by clock (S) shows 87 seconds behind, and clock (F) shows 44 seconds ahead of the rest of the group of 18 clocks that remain synchronized exactly with UTC.

Clocks (S) and (F) would be considered less accurate (the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement).

And that would, if course, be a foolish assumption to make. As their is no "right time" or "wrong time". Nor is there a right mechanism or a wrong mechanism for "keeping" time. There is only our imposed quantized labeling of the our experience of time and the machines we created to try and maintain it. Our subjective functional assessment of these is irrelevant to anyone but us.

Since Validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure. High reliability is one indicator that a measurement is valid.

Our intention does not logically define or determine the truth of anything but our intention. There is no "valid" or "invalid" time. There is only our imposed purpose and value. These are now a part of the 'truth of time', but they surely are not the definition or value of time.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have a friend of mine who studies wrongfully convicted people and how they were proven innocent or proven there is a reasonable doubt for conviction and released eventually, but after years and years of imprisonment. The Jury has to be unanimous, or there is a mistrial. Sometimes the majority sways, and sometimes the minority sways, or there is no end to it. The rule of thumb is the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes in reality he is guilty until proven innocent.

Recently there was a thread about Muhammed and his marriage to Aisha. The thread was claiming that Aisha was not a child at the time of marriage. This thread is not to discuss it's evidences, but something curious that took place. It's nothing new, it's a usual apologetic.

It does not matter if I believe this or that, what matters is there are millions of Muslims believe Muhammed married a child.

It's true in a way that what really matters is what a lot of people believe. That is going to shape society. That's a correct assumption. What society thinks is important, but is it really more important than the truth. In the case of a man on trial, is it really the societies perspective that matters or if he is truly innocent? What matters to you?

Muhammed is dead and gone. So who cares what he did? What matters is what people believe today. Another idea some may pose. Well, that is also true in a way. So bottomline is, if you think Muhammed married a grown up instead, you should not speak the truth. You should not be allowed to. Your speech should be muted. Because what people think is more important.

Or should it be that like many do speak up with enough evidence he did not marry a child based on their same old traditions? Maybe those who believe otherwise will also learn something! Or as these people say., no, no, no, you should shut up because what matters is what a lot of people think?

What is the ought in this conundrum? This can be applied to a lot of things in this world and it's history that might pave way to the future.

What matters the most?

I see that is the quandary all the Messengers face. The Messengers appear amongst ingrained doctrine from religions past, as God has been forgotten.

The people that reject a Messenger, will stop at nothing to hide the 'Truth of a New day of God'. They will not look for the truth a Messenger offers them, as it conflicts with their own thoughts.

Regards Tony

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Again you equate illusion with being "not real". But illusions are "real" on a number of levels. Even to the point that "reality", itself, is an illusion.
What does this have to do with understanding the truth of time? Time is perceptual, and relational. It is not "objective". Which is why we had to quantize our experience of it and impose an external mechanical "keeper" that we all agreed to accept, to keep us synchronized. And my point is that for us to better and more fully understand time, we need to remember that it is NOT an objective phenomena. Nor is it a singular or static phenomena. It is a subjective, pluralistic, and dynamic phenomena. In fact, its not a phenomena at all except as it's association with motion, and space, and how we limited humans experience these.
Synchronicity is the concept, synchronization is the application of the concept. Mechanical time-keeping is an expression of both. But if you wind up your mechanical clock, set it on the table, and then suddenly all humans cease to exist, is that clock still "keeping time"? When the spring winds down and the movement inside the clock stops, has it ceased "keeping time"? Is it still an objectified expression of synchronicity? Even when it stops?

With these kinds of questions I assume you can begin to see the paradoxical nature of the truth of time.
And that would, if course, be a foolish assumption to make. As their is no "right time" or "wrong time". Nor is there a right mechanism or a wrong mechanism for "keeping" time. There is only our imposed quantized labeling of the our experience of time and the machines we created to try and maintain it. Our subjective functional assessment of these is irrelevant to anyone but us.
Our intention does not logically define or determine the truth of anything but our intention. There is no "valid" or "invalid" time. There is only our imposed purpose and value. These are now a part of the 'truth of time', but they surely are not the definition or value of time.

I gather by your replies then that you are of the opinion that there is no “true” there is no “false”, there is no basis to determine the veracity of any claim, or concept, or reality, or physical existence, or time, or etc., etc., there is just “is”.
But then “is” is just a concept and since all concepts are just perceptions the “is” isn’t really “is”, is it?

This brings to my mind (whether that actually “is” I’ll leave up to you), a quote:

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense."

Hmmm, let me imagine your reply….
Maybe something like; “Common sense is just a perception of a persons concept of what other people’s concept of their perceptions of what their perceived society has conditioned them to perceive…blah, blah blah”?

Have a hit on that bong for me!

 

[firedragon]

I see that is the quandary all the Messengers face. The Messengers appear amongst ingrained doctrine from religions past, as God has been forgotten.

The people that reject a Messenger, will stop at nothing to hide the 'Truth of a New day of God'. They will not look for the truth a Messenger offers them, as it conflicts with their own thoughts.

Regards Tony

What you say is true.
I was referring to the principle, not necessarily the messenger Tony.

 

[PureX]

I gather by your replies then that you are of the opinion that there is no “true” there is no “false”, there is no basis to determine the veracity of any claim, or concept, or reality, or physical existence, or time, or etc., etc., there is just “is”.
But then “is” is just a concept and since all concepts are just perceptions the “is” isn’t really “is”, is it?

What I am trying to explain to you is that everything, for we humans, is "real" or "valid" via some criteria that WE IMPOSE. Thus, all 'reality' and 'validity' is subjective; i.e., subject to the criteria that we are imposing on the determination. And there is no escaping this. There is no "objective" measure of reality or validity. Because we are always choosing the criteria of measurement.

"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense."

That's because "common sense" assumes that truth is singular, and non-contradictory. When in fact is it complex far beyond our capacity to comprehend, and is profoundly paradoxical. Something we "commonly" ignore, so that we can pretend we understand (and therefor can control) it.

 

[firedragon]

What I am trying to explain to you is that everything, for we humans, is "real" or "valid" via some criteria that WE IMPOSE. Thus, all 'reality' and 'validity' is subjective; i.e., subject to the criteria that we are imposing on the determination. And there is no escaping this. There is no "objective" measure of reality or validity. Because we are always choosing the criteria of measurement.
That's because "common sense" assumes that truth is singular, and non-contradictory. When in fact is it complex far beyond our capacity to comprehend, and is profoundly paradoxical. Something we "commonly" ignore, so that we can pretend we understand (and therefor can control) it.

Common sense? You are arguing against common sense. You have not even responded to common sense arguments or even to human common sense questions. Humans are basically stupid, mindbogglingly dum and dusted according to your personal perception. You don't understand what a truth is, and when asked a question you are too high up to respond with a decent answer.

Something is seriously wrong with your type of world. It's not human.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What I am trying to explain to you is that everything, for we humans, is "real" or "valid" via some criteria that WE IMPOSE. Thus, all 'reality' and 'validity' is subjective; i.e., subject to the criteria that we are imposing on the determination. And there is no escaping this. There is no "objective" measure of reality or validity. Because we are always choosing the criteria of measurement.
That's because "common sense" assumes that truth is singular, and non-contradictory. When in fact is it complex far beyond our capacity to comprehend, and is profoundly paradoxical. Something we "commonly" ignore, so that we can pretend we understand (and therefor can control) it.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What I am trying to explain to you is that everything, for we humans, is "real" or "valid" via some criteria that WE IMPOSE. Thus, all 'reality' and 'validity' is subjective; i.e., subject to the criteria that we are imposing on the determination. And there is no escaping this. There is no "objective" measure of reality or validity. Because we are always choosing the criteria of measurement.
That's because "common sense" assumes that truth is singular, and non-contradictory. When in fact is it complex far beyond our capacity to comprehend, and is profoundly paradoxical. Something we "commonly" ignore, so that we can pretend we understand (and therefor can control) it.

If humans (subjective as they may be) come together and universally agree to impose a criteria for the standardization of measuring time, and then in order to prevent ambiguity and endeavor to promote precision and reliability of that universally agreed on criteria, set an agreed on standard in order to identify any deviation from that universally agreed on standard…..
Could it then be determined if there were an objective deviation from that universally agreed on standard?

 

[PureX]

If humans (subjective as they may be) come together and universally agree to impose a criteria for the standardization of measuring time, and then in order to prevent ambiguity and endeavor to promote precision and reliability of that universally agreed on criteria, set an agreed on standard in order to identify any deviation from that universally agreed on standard…..
Could it then be determined if there were an objective deviation from that universally agreed on standard?

What logical number of humans do you perceive to be necessary to agree on an arbitrary system of quantification for that system to become "objective"? Because logically speaking, every human on the planet is still human. And is still subject to the limitations of their being human. So I don't see how any number of them in agreement could overcome that subjective limitation, logically speaking.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What logical number of humans do you perceive to be necessary to agree on an arbitrary system of quantification for that system to become "objective"? Because logically speaking, every human on the planet is still human. And is still subject to the limitations of their being human. So I don't see how any number of them in agreement could overcome that subjective limitation, logically speaking.

Any number…it doesn’t matter.
I’ll let you pick a number.
Once these humans (regardless of the number you pick) agree on a criteria and then devise a standard that they agree to….could they not then determine objectively if any deviation from that standard and objectively how much?

 

[PureX]

Any number…it doesn’t matter.
I’ll let you pick a number.
Once these humans (regardless of the number you pick) agree on a criteria and then devise a standard that they agree to….could they not then determine objectively if any deviation from that standard and objectively how much?

Please explain how two or more subjectively determined criteria become an objective standard.

Bob and Steve determine that broccoli is "good". So now the goodness of broccoli is an objective fact?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Please explain how two or more subjectively determined criteria become an objective standard.

Bob and Steve determine that broccoli is "good". So now the goodness of broccoli is an objective fact?

You missed the important detail….

Once these humans (regardless of the number you pick) agree on a criteria and then devise a standard that they agree to…

Please note the;
“and then devise a standard that they agree to.”

So Bob and Steve agree that broccoli is “good”,
they then agree on criteria (A standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.) for determining that broccoli is good……

Lets say it’s crispness, it’s texture, it’s color, it’s ripeness, it’s compatibility with other foods, it’s shelf life, it’s digestibility, etc……

Then they (and this is the very important part)…
AGREE TO A STANDARD. (Something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
The authorized exemplar of a unit of measure.)

They agree to a particular variety of broccoli with just the right shade of green, with the perfect amount of crispness, picked at the right time, etc.,
as the official STANDARD against which all broccoli shall be judged.

Now they can objectively compare any broccoli to that standard.
Of course the example of the broccoli is absurd and not even remotely what we’re talking about.

Consider distance measurements;
There are several measuring systems used in the world today.
They started from simple beginnings….
From the length of an emperors ft foot, the length of out stretched arms, the weight of certain stones, etc. (Think sun dials)
For the crude applications needed at the time they served adequately.

As more precise applications manifested, more precise revisions were made and standardized.

Today among others we have Imperial and SI (metric) standard systems which have become extremely precise, which are STANDARDIZED.

Even though they use different standards, each can be objectively measured and any deviations from the standard can be objectively recognized precisely because it is a deviation from the STANDARD (which is recognized and agreed as the the singular and non-contradictory basis against which all measurements are to be judged when operating within that system.)

How far is it from New York to Los Angeles?
Is the number of miles the same as the number of kilometers…..of course not.
But, the distance is objectively determinable using either system (and converted from one to the other) because there is a known standard.

It so happens that (quite conveniently) both systems share the same standard (UTC) for time.