|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 19, 2022 19:23:56 GMT
How true any interpretations are? Can it be a truth is separated from its interpretations? Let assume Fx is true, then if Lp is an interpretation of Fx, Mq is another interpretation, Nr is another, and so on, then the situation can be the next: a) Fx = Lp = Mq = Nr b) Fx ≠ Lp ≠ Mq ≠ Nr
In the first case we've got more, than one truth, in the latter – only one of it, the first.
I see no reasons for the truth to have only one interpretation or the shape. Seems like if there's a truth, each of it interpretation is ok if and only if this interpretation is the same as the truth.
For an interpretation to be correspond to the truth is important to have one one specific meaning. This may occur only in case if a certain interpretation has no other interpretations.
According the previous definition, the truth can have interpretations, but it seems that its subset truths or derivated truths have to got no other interpretations.
Since sub-true or subsets of true should have no interpretations, then the truth in that case is such a truth that has interpretations while its interpretations have no further interpretations.
Summary, in the case of (a) we should might have interpretations for the truth, while these Interpretations should have none further interpretations; in the case of (b) we risk to have no relevant or correspondence interpretations.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 24, 2022 20:49:24 GMT
How true any interpretations are? Can it be a truth is separated from its interpretations? Let assume Fx is true, then if Lp is an interpretation of Fx, Mq is another interpretation, Nr is another, and so on, then the situation can be the next: a) Fx = Lp = Mq = Nr b) Fx ≠ Lp ≠ Mq ≠ Nr
In the first case we've got more, than one truth, in the latter – only one of it, the first.
I see no reasons for the truth to have only one interpretation or the shape. Seems like if there's a truth, each of it interpretation is ok if and only if this interpretation is the same as the truth.
For an interpretation to be correspond to the truth is important to have one one specific meaning. This may occur only in case if a certain interpretation has no other interpretations.
According the previous definition, the truth can have interpretations, but it seems that its subset truths or derivated truths have to got no other interpretations.
Since sub-true or subsets of true should have no interpretations, then the truth in that case is such a truth that has interpretations while its interpretations have no further interpretations.
Summary, in the case of (a) we should might have interpretations for the truth, while these Interpretations should have none further interpretations; in the case of (b) we risk to have no relevant or correspondence interpretations.
There are potentiality infinite interpretations which means that from a perspective of the totality of being (everything) there are actually infinite interpretations (as the potential is actualized when viewing it from the perspective of totality being actual). If there are infinite actual interpretations through the total then "interpretation" as a phenomenon is obscure as there are no boundaries to it. In these respects the question of whether or not there are infinite interpretations leads to an obscurity as infinite interpretations result in formlessness considering infinity contains no boundaries. Without boundaries infinity is as good as nothingness therefore the question of "infinite interpretations" is paradoxical. Infinite truth follows the same logic as infinite interpretations thus eternal truth is as good as void, ie "nothingness" or "no-thing" is true as being is relegated to a phenomenon beyond form. In these respects truth, as void, is a complete stillness of the manifestation of forms; it is beyond form. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 26, 2022 8:23:39 GMT
But can true truth be known? Because is all we can observe our interpretations how can we know that the interpretation we first see is the truth to then call that knowledge and share with others?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 30, 2022 22:26:02 GMT
But can true truth be known? Because is all we can observe our interpretations how can we know that the interpretation we first see is the truth to then call that knowledge and share with others? "...all we can observe are our interpretations..." this is a truth. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 30, 2022 22:55:00 GMT
But can true truth be known? Because is all we can observe our interpretations how can we know that the interpretation we first see is the truth to then call that knowledge and share with others? "...all we can observe are our interpretations..." this is a truth. Not necessarily. It is more fallacious than anything, or bold I should say |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 30, 2022 23:17:37 GMT
"...all we can observe are our interpretations..." this is a truth. Not necessarily. It is more fallacious than anything, or bold I should say "It is more fallacious than anything..." is a truth. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 31, 2022 5:37:35 GMT
Not necessarily. It is more fallacious than anything, or bold I should say "It is more fallacious than anything..." is a truth. I didn't think we were talking about "ax truth's I thought we were talking about the most high unfalsifiable will always be regardless of if we exist or not kind of Truth the kind that can't be topped by another truth the kind that's true if every single person on the face of the planet were to discover it the kind of truth that cannot be denied that kind of Truth because if that kind of Truth exists then to me all other truths below it that are from people in their opinions are just opinions |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 31, 2022 22:27:56 GMT
"It is more fallacious than anything..." is a truth. I didn't think we were talking about "ax truth's I thought we were talking about the most high unfalsifiable will always be regardless of if we exist or not kind of Truth the kind that can't be topped by another truth the kind that's true if every single person on the face of the planet were to discover it the kind of truth that cannot be denied that kind of Truth because if that kind of Truth exists then to me all other truths below it that are from people in their opinions are just opinions And that is a truth. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 1, 2022 5:32:42 GMT
I didn't think we were talking about "ax truth's I thought we were talking about the most high unfalsifiable will always be regardless of if we exist or not kind of Truth the kind that can't be topped by another truth the kind that's true if every single person on the face of the planet were to discover it the kind of truth that cannot be denied that kind of Truth because if that kind of Truth exists then to me all other truths below it that are from people in their opinions are just opinions And that is a truth. Nevermind |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 7, 2022 19:18:54 GMT
If it is possible for a truth to be falsified then eventually, over the course of time, it will be falsified. Non-falsifiable truth cannot be relative as the relativity of said truth necessitates an eventual falsification given the introduction of a new context. Absolute truth, as unfalsifiable, cannot be relative. This however causes a problem as any absolute truth is seen relatively through the angle of observation of the observer thus only a part is observed. This partiality necessitates that what is observed appears differently when the angle of observation changes. By necessity the absolute truth must not change in appearance when the angle of observation changes and this leaves us with nothing, as an absence of thingness thus definition, therefore leaving us with the simple point, or dot, as absolute given the point/dot is nothing or rather "no-thing". |
|
