We are all born, live and die. But is that all there is? What is reality anyway? Is there meaning to us and the world around us?
We are all born, live and die. But is that all there is? What is reality anyway? Is there meaning to us and the world around us? In my opinion, these are the most important questions that can be asked and that should be tried and solved. These are such important and difficult questions that it is not surprising that since the dawn of human civilization we have been discussing them and trying to solve them. Starting with religious people who claimed to have the final answer, through philosophical ideas to science. But how do we know who is right? What is the path that will lead us to the truth? How can we be sure that the answers we arrived at are the real answers?
Think for example of the religious people, who is right, the one who claims that the truth is with him and it is forbidden to eat pork or the one who claims that only his religion is correct and it is forbidden to drink alcohol? Or maybe someone who claims that it is forbidden to eat cow meat? And maybe everyone is wrong and it is allowed to eat everything? If you try to understand reality in a logical and rational way, you realize that we have no way of knowing whether one of the religions is correct at all and we have no way of deciding which of the religions is correct. Each religion makes different claims and expects faith without any proof on its part. Religion does not seem to be a helpful way when trying to explore what the truth is. But is there any way in which we can be sure what is real and what is not?
You can of course ignore the problem and say that I don't care what is true and what is real, the main thing is that something does me good and gives me meaning, but this seems like an escape to me. After all, we all want to know what our meaning is, why we are here and what is this place we live in, the truth is important to all of us and we would not want to live in illusions and believe nonsense. In my opinion, if we want to try and understand our meaning, we should first try and understand where we live and how we developed, after all we are an inseparable part of the nature around us. We will explore nature and thus we will also explore ourselves and when we understand where we live we will move towards the real solution. Investigating the truth will lead to our meaning, real meaning and not worthless invented meaning. Therefore, for me, the value of truth is among the most important values (if not the...) and must not be given up.
We try to get closer to the truth through an investigation that relies on logic, relies on rational thinking. When someone makes a claim they have to give it logical reasons to convince us. If someone says that the truth is that we were all created by the flying spaghetti monster, we will not accept the claim as true just because that is what he believes. We must exercise critical thinking, question and test every reasoning and every claim before we accept it. With the help of that rational thinking and casting doubt, we saw that it is impossible to decide which religion is right, Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Each of them claims to be the right one and expects faith without foundation. This is the fundamental difference, in my opinion, between the approach of religion and the critical rational approach. All monotheistic religions that believe in one God require "true faith" or "love of God". For them, one should reach such a sublime state where they believe wholeheartedly in God and religion regardless of "evidence" from the outside. It seems that the desired situation for them is a situation where a person has a belief that is stronger than any doubting and any critical thinking. No matter what they put in front of you, your faith will remain intact and will not be shaken. This is a very problematic situation for those who want to investigate and understand what the truth is. You cannot assume the truth and stay stuck in your assumption and your belief. If the value of truth is the highest value, we need the process of casting doubt so that we can move forward without compromise towards the truth. You must be willing to change your views according to the facts we have discovered. It is possible to make working assumptions, but they are only assumptions that must be abandoned if it turns out that they do not correspond to the truth. The investigation of the truth is more important than our private opinions, beliefs and ways of life.
Casting doubt is a necessary condition for anyone who puts the truth as a supreme value and tries to investigate and get closer to it. It does not come naturally to us, when you look around you can see that every region of the world has its own beliefs and norms and usually the people do not question or check what is right and what is wrong. Instead, most of us are certain that the things we have learned from our environment must be true and do not question it. But our duty is to question and see that every region and every group has different beliefs and hence to ask, if every group has a different belief, why assume that the group I was born in is the right one? Maybe another group is actually right or maybe neither group is right and we should continue to doubt and investigate?
It may sound obvious, but most of us do not do this obvious. Because of his environment, it will be much clearer to someone born in India that it is forbidden to eat cow meat and may be shocked to see people eating cow meat, and to someone born in Israel it will be much clearer that it is forbidden to eat pork and may be shocked when he sees people eating pork. Someone who grew up in Mississippi in the USA a century ago, most likely it is clear to her that blacks are inferior, because that is how she was raised and educated since she can remember. She will truly and innocently believe this and if she does not accept the importance of casting doubt, she will continue the racism and pass it on to the next generation. Or another more local example, in Israel we usually define a beautiful woman as a woman who shaved her legs, it seems completely obvious, right? But in different countries female beauty is defined differently and there are countries (mainly in Europe) where women do not have to shave their legs and are still considered beautiful. Who is right? us or them? Who determines what true beauty is? What do you think?
This example highlights how difficult it is for us to question ourselves and all the definitions and beliefs we grew up with. Because although it is clear to us that the absolute truth is with us, it is not really true and part of growing up is realizing that we are not always right and that we must question, learn and develop. We must question the knowledge we are sure we know, the beliefs we are sure are true, the way of life that seems obvious to us, and the norms we were brought up with and now seem to us to be unquestionable facts of life. The casting of doubt should lead to examination, deepening, renouncing what is wrong and searching for what is true and what is real. During this search, the person creates new world images for himself and thus feels his development and his meaning. Casting doubt as a tool to get closer to the truth is not only important for us to understand the nature around us and ourselves but is important in general so that we can develop personally, so that we understand why we behave in a certain way and so that we are free to choose whether we want to change our behavior in society, therefore casting doubt can To be a tool for personal growth.
Life is a journey and learning never ends. Likewise, the pursuit of truth is a long process that never ends. If someone offers you the absolute answer and the correct truth, stay away from him like poison (and keep your wallet, because usually you will be asked to pay for this perfect answer...). All the pleasure comes from the path to the truth, from the investigation, from the unexpected turns along the way and the leaps of understanding that occur along the journey and not from the absolute answer that awaits at the end. For this journey, you need openness and broad thinking that relies on casting doubt.
An instructive example of such doubting and an uncompromising search for the truth, even if it means changing your beliefs and opinions, can be seen in the following interview that Yaron London and Moti Kirschenbaum did with the physicist Professor Haim Sompolinsky. This is a very interesting interview on the subject of is there even free will or are we some kind of sophisticated physical and biological robot? Chaim Sompolinski is a brain researcher from the Hebrew University and his research led him to the answer that there seems to be no such thing as free will. London and Kirschenbaum make it difficult for him, after all he is a religious man, how do these findings reconcile with his religious belief?
'Free will produced in a laboratory' - London Kirschenbaum is interviewed
The topic of free will is really a fascinating topic, and Haim Sompolinski's answer regarding his belief in God is also very interesting, and in the future I will go into the depth of these topics, but for now please note that Haim Sompolinski's greatest attachment is not the traditional religious attachment, but an attachment to the search for truth , and therefore it is clear to him that every belief, regardless of how traditional and basic it is, must be questioned and check whether it is true or not, and after the casting of doubt and the investigation showed him that these beliefs are wrong, he abandoned them in favor of the facts and found for himself a deeper way of believing that fits with the facts that were discovered.
You need confidence in yourself, depth and courage to change your opinions and develop and not go blindly to the facts with your head stuck in the wall in the safe place, but despite the difficulty in this way of casting doubt and striving without compromise towards the truth, that's where we should all strive to reach. The example of Chaim also beautifully shows that there does not have to be a contradiction between faith and science, faith is open to interpretations and those who dig deep enough can find a way to bridge their faith and the scientific facts. When a person succeeds in creating a new world image for himself, as Chaim did, then one feels the greatest personal development and great satisfaction. This is the right way and it is much better than distorting the truth, as most converts do (and those who want to delve into this way suggested by Haim Sompolinsky are invited to check the interpretation offered by Maimonides who was not only a religious man but also a great philosopher).
But as much as doubting and openness are essential conditions to discover the truth, they are not enough and something more is required to be able to solve the question, who is right and how do we know if we are indeed moving towards understanding the truth. What else is needed? The answer in the next post "Why do we need science?"
60 תגובות
Ilana,
The question is what do you doubt? For example, the US Declaration of Independence states that humans have a number of unquestionable rights, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And to maintain these rights there is a set of laws.
Rene Descartes questioned the senses, and really got into trouble with it….
An important insight: that "life is a journey and learning never ends...for this journey, you need openness and critical thinking that relies on casting doubt"
Please let it be.
Just remember that the second law is quite a mess. He only knows how to cause a lot of trouble. I wouldn't want him in charge of our freedom of choice.
Only in the sense that there is always thermal noise and therefore it will always seem as if there is freedom of choice. My intention is to say that there is really no freedom of choice, the point is not what the source of the randomness is. Penrose, for example, claims that it is due to quantum noise at all...
But what about entropy? Why is the freedom of choice not related to the first law as much? (because of the hotness of the situations).
2 stuff
The first is that not everything is allowed, even in a democracy. Do you think even a secular person is allowed to decide for himself whether to serve or not? Think of Kant…..
And regarding the second law. Our brain is a network of neurons. A neuron's decision depends on the amount of signals entering it. There is a threshold above which the neuron fires. I think this threshold depends on the temperature - and that introduces a seemingly random element.
That is, our decision depends on the input signals (the senses), our memories and also thermal noise. The thermal noise is the "freedom of choice".
His brother, speaking of blindness: what I wrote is: in a democracy, we make the judgment at the ballot box. The voice of an anxious person is just as good as the voice of a secularist. The voice of a homeless person from the street is just as valuable as the voice of Bibi or Dankner. The voice of a rabbit or a bonobo is worth nothing, even though they may very well be nicer than many people.
And in physics, not everything is relative. And whoever believes that 2 plus 2 equals 3 is simply wrong.
Could you maybe just explain the connection between free will and the second law instead of picking fights and introducing unrelated things?
Israel
You are the one who wrote asking us to judge the ultra-Orthodox, right? I asked if you think non-Jews should also not be judged.
I have seen homosexuality in apes (bonobos), rabbits and also in two cats who are also brothers....
It is also known in many other species
Even in blindness you have no idea. Do you think the same about amputees???
All in all what I'm saying is that not everything is relative.
??
111
Nissim, my friend, teacher and Rabbi.
As someone who does not understand physics and gays, could you enlighten me as to how you were able to conclude from my words that:
1. Everyone's opinion is equal.
2. The ultra-orthodox deserve the right to their unique point of view and their longevity.
3. You and your three children have to serve in the army (yes, the four of us are currently in uniform, and except for one time we are all fighters) and the ultra-Orthodox do not. (Well done, by the way, honestly. Good luck!).
4. Sacrificing one's life for the sake of the collective is the correct norm, but this does not apply to the ultra-Orthodox.
5. I am not aware that unisexuality exists in nature in many types of animals.
6. In my opinion a blind person thinks this is the norm and the sighted are the exceptions.
And regardless, I would love to hear your opinion on the connection between the second law and free choice.
Israel
Do you really think that everyone is equal? You claim that the ultra-orthodox deserve the right to their unique point of view and their longevity.
What do you say about non-Jewish groups that have their own point of view and a different lifespan? Is it legitimate in your eyes?
Do you really think that me and my three children should serve in the army (yes, the four of us are currently in uniform, and except for one time we are all fighters) and the ultra-Orthodox don't?
You wrote "Sacrificing one's life for the sake of the collective is the right norm.|" - So why doesn't this apply to the ultra-Orthodox?
In homosexuality, as in physics, your understanding is 0. Homosexuality exists in nature in many, many types of animals. I certainly agree that this is not the usual thing, no mistake of nature. Blindness is also an error of nature - but does a blind person think that this is the norm and the sighted are the exceptions?
Do you know what the second law has to do with free will? I personally think that there is definitely a connection, but I would appreciate it if you told me your opinion - we may be thinking exactly the same thing (on this subject only 🙂 )
withering.
My starting point was "everyone has their own truth, which depends on their point of view which depends on their reference system."
I also gave an example: "In physics, what is a point in reference system A looks like a line in reference system B that moves relative to it."
According to this thesis, you believe that "those who read between the lines can understand that heaven is a house of slaves, where there is a dictator (seemingly God but in reality some kind of spiritual "leader") a sadist who performs vile experiments on humans and punishes man for his natural curiosity."
But in the system of attribution of a believing person this slave house is the most noble ideal, as according to the world of concepts of a bee or an ant the sacrifice of life for the sake of the collective is the correct norm.
According to Torah law and also the law in many countries, homosexuality is a deviation and an offense for which the punishment is severe. their reasons with them. It is clear that God or evolution or whoever, did not create man to be same-sex.
But if we transform our coordinate system (cynics, don't laugh!), then we might see that in the reference system of the gay community, homosexuality is completely normal.
From the point of view of many secularists, the religious are a parasitic population that takes advantage of being the tip of the scales in democracy in order to cancel, live at their own expense, and not serve in the army.
However, according to the ultra-Orthodox point of view, they are the ones who kill themselves in the tent of Torah, and they have the right to receive a salary from the state as a permanent servant. According to their belief, all these planes and tanks are vanity and bad spirits, "my strength and the strength of my hand". What is important here is faith in God, who will "save us from them".
Who are we to judge?
In a democracy, we do it at the ballot box. However, according to democracy, it is absolutely possible for a minority group to be an extortionate tongue (blackmailing is of course my point of view).
Is it possible to change the face of things? Is it possible to stop believing in a higher power, reach a state of "social justice", make people more rational, end wars, will the moon rise in the seventh house and Jupiter and Mars line up?
In my opinion, the answer is negative, and the reason is what a tachyonist wrote, albeit in a slightly different context: the second law of thermodynamics.
I got you. right.
You are right about the question
I was revolted by the assertion that everything is done in our heads. An investigator intervenes in the proceedings, the interrogated is not aware of it and this is proof that it's all in the head? After all, in the same way, something else can also intervene.
not exactly. Movement of gas is not random. Give me the state of each molecule (position and momentum) at a given moment and I will calculate the position in the future for each molecule. Lack of knowledge is not random (on the philosophical level - on the practical level you are of course right).
True randomness exists at the quantum level. At least until we find out otherwise.
Geva,
I may have gone too far with your question, but that's what it's aiming for. Let's say someone influenced us - who influenced him? After all, he also does not influence us by his own choice.
Miracles,
Even if I wanted to ignore quantum physics, I can't 🙁
And to the point - we know that there are random processes. For example, the movement of a gas in an insulated vessel. It is related to thermodynamics because this movement is a reversible process - the change in entropy during this process is equal to zero. What is not related here is predicting the future - I did not talk about that at all. The second law of thermodynamics is true, regardless of whether you succeed in predicting the future or not.
tachyonist
What is the connection?
How did you get from the interview that something could possibly affect our actions without us being aware of it until the big bang.
Even if there is a relationship, there are many steps along the way and many options.
tachyonist
You are half right. You ignore quantum physics. There are processes today that we think are random. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Therefore, it seems impossible to predict the future accurately.
Nevertheless - I definitely think that there is no such thing as "free choice". Either we choose deterministically, or we choose randomly. There is no third option (in my opinion).
Geva,
Your question may sound simple, but it is very complex and borders on very deep philosophical questions - as stated in the interview. Your question can be rewritten as "Why do we do what we do?", why, for example, am I now writing you this response? Did I choose to do this or did this action begin 14 billion years ago? The claim is that everything happens as a result of chemical and physical activity and there is no free will. In the broader sense, everything happens according to the second law of thermodynamics - that is, from the moment of the bang until this very day, everything was "predicted" and happened in the direction in which the entropy of the universe increased, and we had no choice or free will in the matter. Will you now choose to respond to my response, or will you respond because the processes that will take place in your mind as a result of writing the response will cause the entropy of the universe to increase, and the feeling that you choose to respond to is entirely the result of these processes?
People, learn statistical mechanics - it's great.
Israel,
Those who read between the lines can understand that heaven is a house of slaves, where there is a dictator (supposedly God but in reality some kind of spiritual "leader") a sadist who performs vile experiments on humans and punishes man for his natural curiosity. The most despicable way to tame animals is by punishing them when they perform behavior that is not desired, and they will do it sooner or later as all animals are curious by nature. The most despicable, since training can be done by positive reinforcement and ignoring unwanted behaviors, this is a much more humane way of "education".
If I were in "heaven" I would run away from there as long as my soul is in me, because it is not heaven, it is a hell of idleness and degeneration, exactly what some religious people aspire to and wish for, to be mindlessly ignorant, to occupy themselves all their days with vanities and have others take care of them and fill them the lack of them. They strive for this to the extent that they are willing to continue being slaves to the representatives of "God". If they wanted to worship God himself (whatever d'et mince) they would not need intermediaries for that. As soon as there are mediators, they are already willing slaves of other humans (like Rabbodia and the like) no matter how impressive they are. I respect those who worship their God (even though I have no reason to think such an entity exists), but I pity those who sell their freedom and independence to those "representatives", and to those representatives for their cynical exploitation.
Geva
It's very similar, I understand. The experiment simply bypasses part of the mechanism.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean...
Miracles
That's not what I meant
When you throw your hand away, you know that you did not initiate the action and therefore you do not associate this action with your intelligence,
This is not at all similar to the process described by the professor, which is carried out as a result of stimulation by an electrode
Geva
Of course some of the orders come from outside. Have you ever touched something hot? Have you ever ducked a bullet?
In the article Prof. Haim Sompolinski says that various studies show that an external stimulus in the brain (electrode) will make us perform a task and we will think that we did it voluntarily, which he claims shows that everything happens only in the brain.
But such a mechanism more easily explains how an external factor can take over our brain and our memory. That is, the process that takes place in the brain is like this: a command comes to the brain, from where? by whom? The brain executes the command. and at the same time document elsewhere that we performed this action on our own initiative.
So maybe not everything takes place only in the brain
I thought he forgot about us. I was already offended….
Miracles.
Point now in the spaceship, with the aliens of Gezuz.
(Simply, jokes of botar pazmaniks).
Israel
There are truths that no one wants to know. it's clear.
All I want is to hear the proof of a point - why you can't know the whole truth. It does not belong to the question - do we want to know the whole truth.
withering,
Y.S. raised a problematic point. There is a confusion of concepts such as knowledge and opinion in his question. A person (or a dog) can lack any knowledge, but they cannot be mindless - even if they wanted to.
The jellyfish, for example, are mindless. And jellyfish, as far as humans are concerned, are an affective animal.
All of this is probably known to you, but I thought it was worth mentioning following the next question that came up in his response.
Today there is no technology (or whatever it is) that can predict the day when we will need the equipment.
If there was - we would have behaved differently.
It could be that the company would have relied on its knowledge of the expiration date, and then planned its production processes in more efficient ways.
In any case, in my opinion today it is not possible to answer such a question, as well as many other questions.
Except that there are enough questions that need to be answered - and get 'Shapo' for your dealings with them.
Miracles.
The question was: "For those who believe that knowledge is always positive:"
It seems to me that from the responses we have received so far, from skeptics, atheists, and those condemned to death, it is: "No".
I pretty much believe this will also be the response you will receive from most believers.
Here is a basis for widespread agreement among all of us!
And this is perhaps the explanation why the pursuit of truth is not always so sacred.
(Unless you prefer to undergo root canal treatment without anesthesia, because the truth is that it is very very painful).
Israel
I have not heard of a death row, or terminal cancer patient, who is happy that he knows the day of his death.
Camilla, if you allow me, I will summarize your words in a slightly biblical tone:
You choose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, even at the cost of being expelled from paradise (which in your eyes is perhaps a paradise for fools).
By the way, this is also my choice.
Until now three out of three non-believers have chosen not to know the day of their death (including me). And this despite the obvious advantage of this matter, with the life insurance policy.
Israel,
I once saw a rat that was connected to the pleasure center and allowed to stimulate itself at will. Her life was a continuous and lasting pleasure. I can understand if someone would prefer such a life but I would not want this kind of life even if I know that in the future I will experience a lot of suffering and that one day I will die without any continuity. There are many behaviors that allow people to feel better about themselves even if it comes at the expense of others. In social life, I expect that people who are interested in being part of that society will not be content with feeling better due to such and such vain beliefs, but will also consider the good of those who live next to them and sometimes also support and protect them.
It is likely that an animal that is in good conditions is happier (as far as an emotional analogy can be made) than most people. So what? I wouldn't want to be a cow in a field even if they promised me fine grass and a comfortable temperature all day long. Would you like to do so?
I don't think I would want to know the day of my death. There are times when I tend to be positive, and there are times (in most cases) when I tend to be negative. In both cases there are positive sides and negative sides. In any case, since absolute knowledge of the date and manner of death is not possible in the foreseeable future, I do not see much point in this question. Would I be interested in knowing everything there is to know? I tend to answer in the affirmative. Would I be interested in knowing everything that I am curious about (and it is possible to know it in principle)? Of course it is.
Among the religious, an interesting game has developed in which a very branched system of explanations (or rather excuses and sophistry) has been set up that come to give a lifeline to religious skeptics who are not really interested in checking whether their belief system is valid. In this respect, religious people, and especially those who lead the religious society, are nothing more than successful lawyers who have nothing to do with truth or morality. It is not for nothing that they are very successful in politics.
Israel Shapira
Belief in life after death completely makes life in this world redundant
What is eternal life in heaven compared to 70-80 years of suffering that often ends in death in agony?
Why save sick people?
Why protect the environment?
And describe to you that the next world can also be very bad, and that must not be encouraging.
Israel - I have no desire to know the day of my death. After all, it is a very sad day for those I hold dear. It could also be tomorrow.
A clue to your question lies in the fact that the chance of a person who grew up in an environment where they believe in a particular religion to hold that particular religious belief tends to one. In essence, brainwashing from a young age. These constitute the overwhelming majority of religious people in the world. There is a very small minority of converts, and here there are a variety of fairly simple reasons. What is amazing is that there is a similar number of captive babies who have turned away from religion and started to take responsibility for their lives, they are the truly interesting cases in my opinion, and they are the ones who deserve all the praise and help for their courage.
For those who believe that knowledge is always positive:
Doesn't the belief in life after death, even if it is a false belief, significantly improve life in this world?
Is an ignorant and uneducated fool less happy than a learned professor? He does not know that he will die, or even grow old, maybe that is why he is always so happy.
Would you like to know the date of your death?
There is no doubt that it will be able to help you in early planning of your life, in all respects (financially, for example).
So will you answer the question with an emphatic "yes"?
I agree 🙂
But I am very interested in why people believe in religion. Also people who are quite smart.
I know several reasons for the origin of the belief.
Freeman Deason, a renowned physicist, says that religion is a process of not thinking, and that fits what you said.
Anyway, I'm waiting for proof of a point.
There is no connection.
You must be familiar with the saying: religion is an opinion whose eye has been taken out".
It is not for nothing that the religion teaches that eating from the tree of knowledge is the greatest prohibition for the slaves of the religion, because the natural instinct of curiosity and morality are the greatest enemies of the enslavers of the soul wherever they are.
withering
It is not at all clear to me what the connection is between truth and religion.
A point raises the issue of defining truth. Interestingly, he is not interested in the concept of 'knowing'.
point,
Let's say you prove to Nisim that the truth will never be known, what religion exactly do you ask him about, will he still be rejected? Any religion? Or are you just the Jewish religion?
Are you claiming that religion is the consolation prize for those who have concluded that we will never arrive at one absolute truth? Why do you think this direction should be preferred over any other direction?
It is implied from your words that you have proof of the non-attainment of the truth regardless of how you define what truth is, otherwise you would first ask for a definition and only then claim that you have proof for such a definition. Since you did not ask for a definition in advance, before you firmly claimed that you have proof as above, it follows that this proof should be valid in any case. If you think this is not the case, please explain.
Just for the sake of the exercise, could you give some definition of truth and then prove that it is not attainable? Surely you can do this on a private case of your choice, right?
I understand what you mean about the relativity of a point. But let's be precise. The point of my chair moves relative to the sun. Movement of a point is along a line but it is not a line. If you look in 4 dimensions then it's a different story, in any case my seat is a line. A point is an event and not a place, and everyone sees an event as an event.
What is the connection with the subject of suicides? what is shaikh Let's assume that the answer lies with the science geniuses.
If we separate populations in the way you suggest then I agree that there are personality differences. Fighter pilots, for example, are very confident and very sensitive artists.
But, I would argue that personality differences are one of the reasons why people choose to belong to a certain population, and not a result of it.
Israel, there is probably no argument between us. I still have no idea what the point is trying to say…….
Miracles
The chair you are sitting on is a point in the coordinate system of the room and a curve in the coordinate system centered on the sun, which is several hundreds of kilometers long at the time of writing this comment.
A question that will illustrate my intention regarding the relationships of human systems:
Who has a higher suicide rate - the religious geniuses or the science and math geniuses?
And yes, it is permissible to take a look at the "genius" entry in Wikipedia, mainly below, personality characteristics.
So please define truth and then prove what you wanted.
You're just dodging at times.
Father and miracles, why? I really do not come to claim that there is no truth and that the truth is relative to a person.
I'm just asking you for a definition of the concept of truth. So that later you don't say that my proof is not about the concept of truth as you perceive it.
point
How do you know what has changed for me so far and what hasn't?
Until now you have not said a single sentence that someone is waiting here.
Avi Cohen
You said well.
point,
Is your point that the essence of truth cannot be agreed upon, and therefore cannot be known?
I can tell you what I'll do after you say the proof. I will consider her, and then I will decide if she is acceptable to me or not. If not, then nothing happened. If so, then I'll look for cases to disprove your proof, and until then, I'll accept your definition as true.
Miracles,
It won't change your life. Because it didn't matter to you until now.
point
Don't fall for the avalanche of definitions. It's a very steep slope. I will give you a simple example. A baby car seat is a seat - right? And a chair is a piece of furniture - right? So a baby car seat is a piece of furniture?
And what will I do if your proof? Do you really think it is right to pre-decide actions? Shouldn't you think first?
If you don't have proof then that's fine. don't feel bad Truth is a very complex concept in philosophy.
I would love to hear your opinions on the matter. There may be a lot of wisdom in your words. And it may change my life. Why would I miss such an opportunity?
Israel Shapira
To be precise - a point remains a point in any reference system, and a line also remains a line.
Let's assume you're right - it doesn't follow that everyone isn't right. Perhaps it follows that the observations depend on the point of view of the observer.
I don't understand the connection between truth and society. There are big differences between companies - these are cultural differences. Beyond that we are all the same.
Right point.
In physics, what is a point in reference system A looks like a line in reference system B that moves relative to it.
And so everyone has their own truth, which depends on their point of view which depends on their reference system. It is very difficult to know who is right and who is wrong.
I believe the same rule holds for human systems. What is true in one society is false in another.
Except that in geometry, doubt = Amalek.
point.
And one more thing before I bring the proof. I'm interested to know what you will do after you understand the proof. what will you do then How will it affect your life?
Before I bring the proof that the truth cannot be known. In preparation for the proof, I need someone to define what truth is, for everyone to agree on the definition.
I agree with the question of miracles, I am also curious to know what is the proof that the truth cannot be known...
Other than that, excellent article.
Notice that he touches on the most important point here: "...for me, the value of truth is among the most important values (if not the...) and must not be given up."
He does not think that the most important thing is to prove that he is right, to prove that science is right, to prove that his way is right, but on the contrary, to be ready to doubt your way... and this is something that some skeptics sometimes forget...
So do you have such proof?
Hi Nissim,
You got a little confused. You talk about learning or solving mysteries, and we talk about knowing the truth.
You are talking about religion and science and I am talking about proof that the truth cannot be known.
I mean, it seems you assume you already know the truth… I mean, a skeptic aren't you.
point
I guess in my lifetime we won't solve all the mysteries of the universe. So, I accept your proof blankly.
I will continue to do in my life exactly what I am doing today.
I try to learn as much as possible because it interests me.
I try to leave a better world for my children, because that's what I would have done (would have done - don't know how to say it in Hebrew....).
And of course I will continue to reject religion. Religion contradicts science - no matter how you look at it.
And suppose I prove to you that you will never know the truth. What will you do for the rest of your life? Will you reject religion even then? Or then you will already say that it doesn't matter because everything will be wrong.
magnificent! Waiting with great interest for the next article.