Philosophy Discussion Forums

Apply whatever methodology yields knowledge or its simulacrum, what we know is what we presume to know at the moment. Some of that "presuming" yields facts while most of it yields theories. Our job is to remove the fat from bacon and not depend on anyone's idiot theories.

Alan Masterman wrote:Atreyu, please go away and study some of the philosophy of science and mathematics. The question you are asking here has been answered and re-answered in every epoch, from Euclid to Bertrand Russell. Oy ve....

Alan do I know you from another forum? That oy ve sounds familiar.

-- Updated May 27th, 2015, 12:14 pm to add the following --

No reply? I know your dad's name., I know your mom's name. What are you doing in a place like this? Lol

-- Updated May 27th, 2015, 1:00 pm to add the following --

Radar wrote:Can any sane person say, "I don't know whether consciousness exists"? Or actually believe that existence is fundamentally incoherent? I think not. But beyond that, all knowledge is relative to the Actual.

Know thyself and you will know if consciouness exists. madera

-- Updated May 27th, 2015, 1:10 pm to add the following --

Alan Masterman wrote:Atreyu, please go away and study some of the philosophy of science and mathematics. The question you are asking here has been answered and re-answered in every epoch, from Euclid to Bertrand Russell. Oy ve....

Okay Alan, I won't request a reply. I KNOW. Have a good day..

I have a general understanding of where "knowing" 'swings' to...
If you are interested, you can read part of my book for free (and leave a comment please since I haven't had any readers at all)
And please let me know if I wasted my time with that book I posted on the internet, or if it's just average ...
I can also explain some things that might be interesting, like a modern/post-modern view of behaviorism over knowledge
Sorry for the inconvenience and the "ad thing" ... (kindle store: A theory of everyone by Renis Kariqi)

P.S. I don't talk there about decoding language, but other than that you might enjoy reading some of it.

Atreyu wrote:So my question to you all is this: If everything we really 'know' is merely defining one unknown relatively to another, from whence can we depart in our quest for any objective truths or causes? Is there anything we really know? Is there any 'truth' we can assert about the world independent of ourselves, without defining it by other unknown variables?

Very interesting OP.

The endorsed scientific method is emphasized on pragmatic theory of truth, which its propositions are deduced in the subjective reality of cosmos. Its validated propositions that is unassailable, are not necessary immutable truths for the actualities as proposed.

IMO, the scientific method is seriously missing out on correspondence of truth, and its coherent theory of truth is fallaciously based on incorrect posits for its goals of pragmatic theory of truth; the tripartite theory of truth for the mainstream scientific method, is in question.

By eradicating Gettier problems in the correct application for the tripartite theory of truth, truths on actualities with their propositional knowledge, can be immutable. An example of this is how Galileo illustrated Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

I think it is only natural that epistemology should precede ontological/metaphysical enquiries.

I mean how can you delve into such investigations without first analyzing the possibility, extent, and validity of knowledge itself?
It's like attempting to work on calculus when you don't even know the basic mathematical operations.

At this stage I think it's safe to generalize that all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe we sometimes hopelessly concern ourselves with.

quote="Siphersh"]I think it's obvious that the concept of absolute knowledge is not meaningful within rational thinking. And I don't understand why that would be a problem in any way, and why some people want to transcend the fundamental relativeness of knowledge.

Maybe it's something that comes from the monotheistic need for absolute truth, so that the unquestioning belief in the validity of absolute political power can be maintained?[/quote]

Or maybe it's because some people keep speculating about concepts that transcend the fundamental relativeness of knowledge which might require the help of absolute knowledge, which you have established as "meaningless within rational thinking" and therefore impossible.

Killosopher wrote: At this stage I think it's safe to generalize that all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe we sometimes hopelessly concern ourselves with.

Perhaps "The paradoxical effect of nature", is why all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe.

Paradigmer wrote:

Killosopher wrote: At this stage I think it's safe to generalize that all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe we sometimes hopelessly concern ourselves with.

Perhaps "The paradoxical effect of nature", is why all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe.

Hey paradigmer, I apologize for the late reply. I have been lightly overviewing your site for the past couple of days and I find your ideas regarding the vortical universe interesting. I also agree with your skepticism of the methods used in scientific research and assertion that quantitative proof should be backed up by qualitative proof.

As for the paradoxical effects of nature.

"The observable universe in a universal vortical system is intrinsically imbued with this paradoxical nature."

"We could always be fooled by our preconceived ideas that innately arise with our inherent shortcomings. What we have believed as a truth that refers to reality is one issue, what is the truth is another issue."

I agree with the second quote but,
I have questions regarding the first assertion quoted from your site.

1. I get it, the sun seems to move across the sky though it doesn't, because the earth is in vortical motion around its own axis, but how does this show that the universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect, vortical or not? I have always thought it is our own sensory perception that is liable to many errors as it is affected and biased by our perceptual set, which constantly tints our experiences of the universe with these seemingly paradoxical effects.

Some years back there was an advertisement, that showed a man resting on a grass while a little girl was sitting on a swing swinging herself. Then suddenly the man yawns and the girl jumps off the swing simultaneously. Though the girl simply jumped off on the other side of the man, at a certain angle from the this side, it seemed that she jumped into his mouth. Now for this image/action to be intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect,
the paradox needs to emanate from within the image/action itself, but it didn't (the movements were not contradictory). It emanated in this case, from the angle of perception or in many other similar cases from the perception itself.

Take the the blue field entoptic phenomenon or Scheerer's phenomenon for instance,
if you looked up at a clear blue sky on a sunny day you would see tiny particles swimming through the air, but these particles are not in the air or in the sky, they are actually cells in your eyes. Now you cannot say that the sky or air is exuding some sort of a paradoxical effect.

Or try the more famous Muller-Lyer illusion.
It basically illustrates 2 lines that seemingly present a paradoxical effect of the apparent inequality of the lines that is easily noticeable and the actual equality of the lines that goes undetected.

These illusions occur not because these images are intrinsically imbued with paradoxical effects, but because our perceptual cues are liable to be manipulated by them. We are looking at the same retinal images but simply perceiving them differently, i.e, what we perceive is not the actual visual information that entered our eyes. In fact, the stereogram analogy/example you used on your site shows how our brain gauges depth perception by perceiving the distance of objects in the environment using binocular cues.

2. The sun moving across the sky and not moving across the sky may seem to present a paradox but does it really in this case?
For example, if you said death is both an end and a beginning, this would be a paradox, though true, because death is the actual ending of this life and actual beginning of afterlife. But does the apparent mobility of the sun across the sky and actual immobility of the sun across the sky constitute a paradox?

Overall, I feel under-qualified to comment on or criticize your ideas, as I think the work and effort you seem to have put in your site deserves adequate attention and time dedicated for its detailed and in-depth perusal, which is only fair to you and beneficial to me or any one who reads it.

Killosopher wrote:As for the paradoxical effects of nature.

"The observable universe in a universal vortical system is intrinsically imbued with this paradoxical nature."

"We could always be fooled by our preconceived ideas that innately arise with our inherent shortcomings. What we have believed as a truth that refers to reality is one issue, what is the truth is another issue."

I agree with the second quote but,
I have questions regarding the first assertion quoted from your site.

1. I get it, the sun seems to move across the sky though it doesn't, because the earth is in vortical motion around its own axis, but how does this show that the universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect, vortical or not? I have always thought it is our own sensory perception that is liable to many errors as it is affected and biased by our perceptual set, which constantly tints our experiences of the universe with these seemingly paradoxical effects.

Hi, appreciate your effort.

We know the sunrise is a cognitive paradox, as in it is not moving across the sky like it apparently seems to be; it delusion is know. Nonetheless, many empirically observed natural phenomenon, as a result of their natural negations, their delusions are not resolved, and thus their delusional observations hitherto are not even brought to our awareness, least to say their cognitive paradoxes were addressed.

UVS postulates a vortical universe, and our observable universe is vortically manifested, and there is a fundamental negation mechanism in all sorts of vortical manifestation that are imbued with a paradoxical nature. And it is through the case studies by identifying the vortical fractals of unisonal vortex in the empirically observed natural phenomena, their observational delusions were subsequently elucidated, and thus their cognitive paradoxes were addressed and resolved.

The sunrise example is for illustrating a natural negation, as well as for defining, explicating and relating the terminologies for the paradoxical effect of nature, such as cognitive paradox, delusion, illusion, and their more extensive terminologies, such as transcendental levels, cognitive paradox fallacy. This sets the ground for the explications on the universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect from macrocosms to microcosms with its extensive case studies based on the UVS model.

You are on the right track for improving your clarity on the universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect. A suggestion is to explore the case studies of UVS on those enigmatic natural phenomena with resolved cognitive paradoxes. And have a look at "Preface" for the details on this suggestion.

Killosopher wrote:But does the apparent mobility of the sun across the sky and actual immobility of the sun across the sky constitute a paradox?

Yes it does.

It is merely not a paradox when its delusional observation is now known, and thus not considered as a valid empirical observation.

With its cognitive paradox resolved in modern science, we know what appears to be a mobility of the sun across the sky, fundamentally rendered by its vortex mechanism with its natural negation under its delusory circumstances, is paradoxically a cognitive contradiction of its actuality.

-- Updated September 29th, 2016, 11:39 pm to add the following --

Killosopher wrote:I also agree with your skepticism of the methods used in scientific research and assertion that quantitative proof should be backed up by qualitative proof.

Am glad with your agreement.

Killosopher wrote:Or try the more famous Muller-Lyer illusion.
It basically illustrates 2 lines that seemingly present a paradoxical effect of the apparent inequality of the lines that is easily noticeable and the actual equality of the lines that goes undetected.

These illusions occur not because these images are intrinsically imbued with paradoxical effects, but because our perceptual cues are liable to be manipulated by them. We are looking at the same retinal images but simply perceiving them differently, i.e, what we perceive is not the actual visual information that entered our eyes.

Indeed, these illusions occur not because these images are intrinsically imbued with paradoxical effects.

Killosopher wrote:In fact, the stereogram analogy/example you used on your site shows how our brain gauges depth perception by perceiving the distance of objects in the environment using binocular cues.

The stereogram analogy in that UVS context, is merely a simulation for illustrating the peculiar circumstances for attaining the amazing experiences of the intuitively organized perceptions that have aroused with the applications of the UVS methodology.

It could take a while to internalize the details of those UVS case studies with resolved cognitive paradoxes, and thus realizes the underlying mechanism of nature that universally causes many of its vortical manifestations to be intrinsically imbued with all sorts of paradoxical effects in a typical topsy-turvy manner.

Please feel free to suggest how to improve on any of the UVS context for the benefits of those who read it. Thank you.

Paradigmer wrote:You are on the right track for improving your clarity on the universe is intrinsically imbued with a paradoxical effect. A suggestion is to explore the case studies of UVS on those enigmatic natural phenomena with resolved cognitive paradoxes. And have a look at "Preface" for the details on this suggestion.

Perhaps my view was a bit biased and limited by my field of interest in my previous reply to you. After contemplating what you said and looking at your suggestions, I now understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying it to me.

Paradigmer wrote:

Killosopher wrote: At this stage I think it's safe to generalize that all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe we sometimes hopelessly concern ourselves with.

Perhaps "The paradoxical effect of nature", is why all the reason, experience, and intuition of humanity combined still cannot answer the great questions about the Universe.

If your model is correct, then perhaps so.
In my original reply to the others, i was merely stating that human reason is too limited, our experiences are too few, and our intuition is often untuned and unreliable for what is required in gathering, processing, and interpreting all the information in the universe to know any thing with certainty. There are still so many unknown variables and data out there that we are unable to grasp or have yet to discover. This is even without considering the questionable veracity of all that we think we know so far.

Paradigmer wrote:It could take a while to internalize the details of those UVS case studies with resolved cognitive paradoxes, and thus realizes the underlying mechanism of nature that universally causes many of its vortical manifestations to be intrinsically imbued with all sorts of paradoxical effects in a typical topsy-turvy manner.

True, it would take time to cover all the information on your site that explains and describes your ideas. I will definitely keep reading it, but it would only be wise that any further thoughts from me on this subject should come after a thorough read and consideration of all the implications of your model. I may ask you questions in the future to clear up any confusions that may arise. For now though, I will leave you with these questions.


The OP was asking if we can know any thing with certainty (the entire basis of our knowledge itself).

1. Does the UVS model or solving these paradoxical effects provide that certainty?
2. The entire idea of UVS model is based on your knowledge of vortical motion, phenomena and structures of the universe from microcosm to macrocosm how are you certain of that knowledge?
3. If the universe is intrinsically imbued with paradoxical effects, and there are many paradoxical effects that have yet to be discovered, how do you know for certain that the initial observations on which you base your ideas and on which the resolved paradoxes rely on are not illusions themselves?

Killosopher wrote:The OP was asking if we can know any thing with certainty (the entire basis of our knowledge itself).

1. Does the UVS model or solving these paradoxical effects provide that certainty?
2. The entire idea of UVS model is based on your knowledge of vortical motion, phenomena and structures of the universe from microcosm to macrocosm how are you certain of that knowledge?
3. If the universe is intrinsically imbued with paradoxical effects, and there are many paradoxical effects that have yet to be discovered, how do you know for certain that the initial observations on which you base your ideas and on which the resolved paradoxes rely on are not illusions themselves?

1. Affirmative.

2. Simply put, with the tripartite theory of knowledge applied with resolved cognitive paradoxes in the UVS epistemic process, IMO, it does provide that certainty in the objective reality for establishing the knowledge.

The certainty of the knowledge based on the UVS model, IMO, can be attained with the proper applications of the proposed coherentism, this could be accomplished by qualitative analyses with its epistemic process in empiricism with the elucidated delusions in enigmatic natural phenomena.

A famous example is how Galileo proved Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth; this is a certainty for its propositional knowledge on the actuality of the apparent observation with positive assertion.

You might be interested to mull over a UVS topic on "A perpetual motion experiment". And I believe you would then be able to tell me is gravity a pull-in effect as postulated with conventional wisdom.

3. I believe I mentioned ".... there should be many more vortical phenomena in nature that are yet to be uncovered.", what I meant was, within the scope for seeking immutable truths in objective reality for the actualities of their apparent observations, under the postulated paradigm of UVS, there should many more peculiar types of vortical events to be discovered.

Metaphysically, I can state with the conviction of UVS that the objective reality is merely a conceptualized structure of nature; objective reality is merely an illusion in the transcendental perspective of nature.

In a sense this echoes what great thinkers such as Einstein had put it: “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”, asserted with his famous e=mc2 mass-energy equilibrium equation. And so you can see this is what I meant by “The observable universe is paradoxical.”. The realm of objective reality is evidently a paradoxical construct of nature, and thus it is fundamentally illusory.

The case studies of UVS for the actualities of apparent observation of natural phenomenon, for its certainty in the objective reality, other than the posits for the three spatial space and absolute time as per se in objective reality, doesn't cross the line into the nature of reality for its evaluations. This is despite there are several UVS topics that speculate on it.

Ultimately, IMO, in human pursues on the nature of reality, all ideas of objective reality even with the resolved paradoxes, are illusions themselves.

-- Updated December 30th, 2016, 10:37 pm to add the following --

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandevent ... 4-15-32-44

We are made of light!

We observe and thus know the observation with this, we can model and see wether our modelling coincides with other observations. Even the equality of expressions and the properties of the induced equialence relation with it are just a modelling in a term algebra. We just know what we observe and we just understand those models still not vitiated within the scope of their validity.