alternate reality

[michael7858]

Does alternate reality have alternate truth?

Do all our laws and theories and ideas belong to one reality alone?

Does this therefore make truth and law relative?

Is the principia relative?

Is relativity relative?

It is more profound to ask a question to which there is no answer than to give correct answers to thousands of questions.

In this reality alone is there no answer to a particular question.

Is there an alternate reality?

One truth is that we might never know.

Knowledge which has no end and no beginning is absolute.

But even this is one truth alone

To know much about two truths is a greater achievement than to know everything about one

[Phi for All]

There's no evidence for an alternate reality. Anything you might suspect might be a property of it can't be checked, can't be falsified. You'd just be guessing, and that's not scientific.

 

I don't know what "truths" you're talking about. Personally, I think truth, especially Truth, is entirely subjective. It's not as interesting as many people think it is. It's often used to justify a certain set of beliefs. It's almost never something universal to everyone.

 

 

It is more profound to ask a question to which there is no answer than to give correct answers to thousands of questions.
In this reality alone is there no answer to a particular question.

 

I don't know where this comes from, but I totally disagree with the first part. I can ask lots of questions that have no answer, so I fail to see anything "profound" about that. It sounds like one of those saying that's supposed to be "deep", but is just impractical.

 

Science actually doesn't look for "answers", we look for the best supported explanations. That way, we always keep looking for better ones, something we probably wouldn't do if we thought we knew the "answer".

[Strange]

I don't know where this comes from, but I totally disagree with the first part. I can ask lots of questions that have no answer, so I fail to see anything "profound" about that. It sounds like one of those saying that's supposed to be "deep", but is just impractical.

 

Good point. There is value in learning to ask the right questions - the ones that really test an idea or a belief - even if this doesn't actually get you any closer to "the truth" (it might just demonstrate that there is no such thing). This is one of the things that makes philosophy useful as a discipline.

[michael7858]

You say you can ask lots of questions that have no answer. You have misunderstood. I mean a question whose answer doesn't exist.

20/20 vision and blindness aren't so different.

If this isn't clear then people who have perfect eyesight usually can't see the wood for the trees.

So I repeat: to answer a question whose answer does not exist is profound.

I apologise. To ask a question whose answer does not exist is profound. Slip of the tongue.

[dimreepr]

You say you can ask lots of questions that have no answer. You have misunderstood. I mean a question whose answer doesn't exist.

 

 

No, it’s you that misunderstands.

 

 

20/20 vision and blindness aren't so different.

If this isn't clear then people who have perfect eyesight usually can't see the wood for the trees.

So I repeat: to answer a question whose answer does not exist is profound.

 

 

 

This is just nonsense.

[michael7858]

If Ronaldo is the queen, messi is the rook, knight and bishop.

Why are your replies confrontational? I quote. 'No it's you that misunderstands'.

Are you an authority? If you are then I will accept your criticism

I quote. ' no its you that misunderstands'.

A lack of maturity on your part

You are now a little angry. Quite predictable

[Phi for All]

To ask a question whose answer does not exist is profound.

 

I'm pretty sure you're using a different definition of "profound" than I am.

 

Also, a question is designed to elicit information. To ask a question whose answer doesn't exist is pointless. It's not a question since we learn nothing from it. I really dislike the misuse of knowledge and learning.

[dimreepr]

If Ronaldo is the queen, messi is the rook, knight and bishop.

Why are your replies confrontational? I quote. 'No it's you that misunderstands'.

Are you an authority? If you are then I will accept your criticism

I quote. ' no its you that misunderstands'.

A lack of maturity on your part

You are now a little angry. Quite predictable

 

 

OK (sigh), if you insist, presuming my statement was confrontational?

 

How was it wrong?

[michael7858]

It wasn't wrong. I apologise. Emotional content is hard to read in text. I accused you of being confrontational. Maybe I was wrong.

Does anyone agree that intellect holds the mind prisoner?

Is intellect or that is our perception of intellect applicable to classical science alone?

Is the problem with modern science the fact that even though the ideas are original the intellect behind them is classical?

Is classical intellect a horse with blinkers?

[Phi for All]

Is the problem with modern science the fact that even though the ideas are original the intellect behind them is classical?

 

You seem to have abandoned your original discussion topic. Are we moving on to what you think the problem is with modern science?

[MigL]

I have to agree with you.

Ronaldo is a bit of a 'queen'.

[Strange]

You say you can ask lots of questions that have no answer. You have misunderstood. I mean a question whose answer doesn't exist.

 

What is the difference between "no answer" and "answer doesn't exist"? I guess the difference is too "profound" for my feeble brain.

 

To ask a question whose answer does not exist is profound.

 

No it isn't. There are an infinite number of such questions and most of them are just stupid.

[Strange]

Is the problem with modern science the fact that even though the ideas are original the intellect behind them is classical?

Why do you claim there is a problem with modern science? What is the nature of this problem?

 

Does anyone agree that intellect holds the mind prisoner?

As intellect is a property of the mind, it is hard to see how it can hold the mind prisoner.

Intellect is a term used in studies of the human mind, and refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect

 

Does softness hold pillows prisoner? Do colorless green sheep dream furiously?

Edited May 27, 2015 by Strange

[3blake7]

Does alternate reality have alternate truth?

Do all our laws and theories and ideas belong to one reality alone?

Does this therefore make truth and law relative?

Is the principia relative?

Is relativity relative?

It is more profound to ask a question to which there is no answer than to give correct answers to thousands of questions.

In this reality alone is there no answer to a particular question.

Is there an alternate reality?

One truth is that we might never know.

Knowledge which has no end and no beginning is absolute.

But even this is one truth alone

To know much about two truths is a greater achievement than to know everything about one

Truth is relative, from most subjective to most objective, even the Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity could be subjective to our universe, while a higher level that explains the Multiverse, like String Theory is even more objective. There could exists other universes with difference laws of physics, which makes truth relative, even most of our scientific truths, which are universal from our smaller perspective. As for alternate realities, that depends on your definition of the phrase. Do you mean alternate Earths, alternate timelines? Whether they exist or not, I don't know. My assumption would be that most of our truths would apply in alternate realities but for example, a person could have different life experiences and have different subjective truths.

 

I am not sure what you mean, a question with no answer. Do you mean a question that has no answer or a question where the answer is unknown? I guess there could be one question without an answer, an answer that science itself may never know, and that is, how did the multiverse begin? How do you have a beginning without an explanation? What about the beginning of that? Then that? It seems no matter how far you go, there has to be some place where there is no beginning, maybe that is it in itself, perhaps it is like a circle, no beginning and no end, it is and has always existed. We'll have to wait and see.

 

You might have better luck if you are less cryptic, lol

Edited May 27, 2015 by 3blake7

[Briarep]

Alternate Reality Project? Now that sounds really interest... oh, urm, another bible translation? Oh, yippee. Just what Ive always wanted.

[Delta1212]

You say you can ask lots of questions that have no answer. You have misunderstood. I mean a question whose answer doesn't exist.

 

Which way is up in the absence of a gravity field?

What is north of the North Pole?

What's on the other side of a Mobius strip?

How many miles away is tomorrow?

Why?

[dimreepr]

What is north of the North Pole?

 

 

Why has nobody discovered the west pole?

[Delta1212]

 

 

Why has nobody discovered the west pole?

After a little digging, I did find a North By Northwest Pole.

 

[Gees]

Michael7858;

 

You seem to have a curious mind, which is good, and I am very happy that you have an interest in philosophy. But philosophy uses observations, experiences, logic, reasoning, and evidence to ask its questions and come to its conclusions. If a person just uses their imagination, then they are not doing philosophy, they are getting ready to write fiction. (You might want to review the thread, "If I can imagine it, it is possible" at the top of this Philosophy forum.)

 

Bearing this in mind, please consider my following thoughts:

 

Does alternate reality have alternate truth?
Do all our laws and theories and ideas belong to one reality alone?
Does this therefore make truth and law relative?
Is the principia relative?
Is relativity relative?

<snip> (This statement was moved and will be addressed below.)

In this reality alone is there no answer to a particular question.
Is there an alternate reality?
One truth is that we might never know.

 

First you must consider the idea of "reality". What is reality? Reality is that which exists. So an alternate reality would be something that does not exist -- or fiction.

 

Even if you could find a way to believe that an alternate reality exists, how would you justify its alternate nature? And it would have to have an alternate nature in order to be an alternate reality. If it had the same nature, then it would simply be an unknown part of our reality. There is a reason why we call Natural Philosophy, which is now Science, natural, and this is because Nature has a nature. Nature follows laws and rules that regulate it, so if there were an alternate reality, then it would have alternate laws and rules of nature. Where would these laws and rules come from? Another "God" or ideas like heaven and hell?

 

If you can not justify the idea of an alternate reality that has an alternate nature, then the rest of your questions are moot. Because you would then be talking about imagination, fiction.

 

There's no evidence for an alternate reality. Anything you might suspect might be a property of it can't be checked, can't be falsified. You'd just be guessing, and that's not scientific.

 

I agree, but it is also not philosophy.

I seem to have lost some of my quote titles, so I will add the appropriate names within the quotes.

 

Strange stated: Good point. There is value in learning to ask the right questions - the ones that really test an idea or a belief - even if this doesn't actually get you any closer to "the truth" (it might just demonstrate that there is no such thing). This is one of the things that makes philosophy useful as a discipline.

 

Strange makes some very good points in his statements. But how do we know what are the "right questions"? This is what philosophy studies, what we can know and how we can know it. To get the 'right question', your question must be based on observations, experience, and prior knowledge. What you must avoid are questions based in imagination, prejudice, bias, wrong information, misinterpretation, and anything that is not based in truth and reality. Then you must sift this information through logic and reasoning to come up with a valid question. It is not easy.

 

Michael 7858 stated: It is more profound to ask a question to which there is no answer than to give correct answers to thousands of questions.

Why do you think this is profound? It is obviously easy to give correct answers to any question that already has answers, but why would it be profound to ask a question to which there is no answer?

Delta1212 clearly pointed out that people can ask some very irrelevant and ridiculous questions that have no purpose and no value. There is nothing profound about this.

What I think you are doing is taking an old 'wisdom' and misinterpreting it, so to help you understand what I think this old wisdom means, I am going to talk about knowledge. How do we gain knowledge? By observing, experiencing, wondering, seeking, or questioning.

Can we ask the question, "What is 5x5?", before we know what numbers are? No, of course not, as we would not know to ask. This is the point of that old wisdom, we must first have some knowledge before we can know to ask. The more knowledge we accumulate, the better perspective we have, so the better questions we can ask. The first person to climb to the top of a mountain can ask more profound questions than another person, who is standing at the bottom, wondering what it is like on the top. So a 'profound' question is one that is asked, but not yet answered, by a person who has the ability to ask a valid question. This opens us up to a whole new level of learning, which is why it is profound.

Knowledge builds like bricks are used when building a house. This is why philosophy is rather neurotic about the 'bricks' being true and the foundation being solid, because we can build a very shaky and unstable house if they are not true and solid. So we try very hard to find truth and occasionally go back and look at the foundation, if things don't look like they are building straight and true.

Michael 7858 stated: Knowledge which has no end and no beginning is absolute.
But even this is one truth alone
To know much about two truths is a greater achievement than to know everything about one

 

I don't know about these statements and would like to know how you validate these ideas.

 

Gee