The Real and the Truth
3/15/2018
Sven Gelbhaar
In a previous paper we discussed whether procedural mathematics is true or real.
I’d like to expand this topic further still. What is “real” and what, by
inference or mental prognostication, is “the truth.”
As I’ve previously penned: Cogito Ergo Deus (pantheistic sense). Viz: I think,
therefore there must be something to think about. Thoughts must, by definition,
have a topic, and if there were nothing besides some cosmic “I”/personality,
this personality would be mentally mute. The only non-relative adjective are
mathematics. But again, without specific instances of objects, mathematics
would not apply and therefore would not be thought about.
So it’s settled, the fact that thoughts are being thought not only necessitates
that a thinker exists, but also something else exists to be thought about.
The above argument is axiomatic, if not intuitive (it took me to think of it) so
it could be categorized as intuitive among some of us.
Point of order: contra Descarte, thoughts requiring thinkers is learned ‘a
posteriori’. It is inferred from interaction with the “real world.” So a
thinker thinking this thought is not a guarantee in some grandiose bit of
supposition and logical sophistry. All we can be certain of is that there is
something which caused the thought. Even this clause, that effect is caused by
cause from a previous point in time, is up for grabs. Galilean Invariance might
not be the modus operandi of reality. We are finite beings, so we must be
content with logical shortcuts compared to infinite perception of all that is.
We have no choice but to assume certain things if we are to survive. It is a
biological imperative to maintain and react to certain stimuli; tempered by
previous experiences in the “real world.”
Schopenhauer, that philosophical hero of bygone days, posited that the world
contains, exclusively, will and Representation. He says that the world we
perceive need only be isomorphic/similar to some underlying system of existence
to provide an advantage in a Darwinian sense. He goes rather far in defining
his Will, likening it to the blood of a (human) being, and so on and so forth.
What is relevant here is his supposition that our ostensible, perceived “real
world” might be illusion and representation of some deeper “truth.”
It is bad form to use terms before having defined them, but the above was a
useful prelude to this.
Schopenhauer claimed that perceived reality is congruent with the core reality;
foundational reality.
Some might claim that other people have the same ‘perceptions’ (stimulus and
mental categorizations), but this can easily be rebutted with the counter that
other people are themselves a part of apparent reality, but this way lies
solipsism. Another tract is that other people, consistently having seen red
where I see green, have come to know these divergent yet persistent stimuli by
the same name or category with completely different stimulation.
This begets the queries: what is fundamental reality, are our mental shortcuts
as close to being “true” as is possible, and how can we know?
Reality exists in that we react to it, either as perceived or as ‘real’ in as
many ways as possible with our Weltanschauung, or as previous civilizations
contend, All Is Maya (illusion and deception).
I present the notion that our concepts and precepts are higher level
epi-phenomenon than we realize, and that the equivalent to Assembly to our
C++-esque surely exists with which to perceive and manipulate our world with.
Now to the problem of multiple “truths.” Some contentions are more veracious
than others. For instance, we could blame the force of Gravity on invisible
pink unicorns. These unicorns consume matter, so they herd it into chunks which
we then perceive as the heavenly bodies and our Earth and Ourselves as well.
Entropy must always increase, despite the appearance/veneer of order like the
conjugation (physical proximity) of matter. Even without the logical
inconsistency (and therefore fictitious) characteristics of Pink and Invisible,
this would not be considered as “truthful” as Unified Force Theory, which makes
likelier claims regarding existence. Nobody has, as of yet, observed pink
invisible unicorns, whereas electric theory assails us every day. Electric
theory, and all it entails (is derived from it; Unified Force Theory), is a lot
more likely than fantastical beings that we not only don’t observe, but rather
can’t.
So now “truth” is a relative term. Our conceptions of fundamental reality is
limited, both in time and scope and perspective, however these mental maps of
the “real” terrain are a lot better than no map/conceptions at all.
I’m at the headache/conclusion stage. If any of my dear readers have any
idea(s) as regards to clearing up these issues, I would love to ‘hear’ and
publish them.