Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

So?

It's like movies - they keep making the same ones over and over.

And if it's not a remake, reboot, re-envisioning, retread, re-up, rehash, re-visitation, return-to, retcon, retrospective, new take, update, director's cut, extended edition, home-release-version, modernization, prequel, sequel, continuation, franchise, alternate-concurrent-splinter-reality, TV-to-movie, book-to-movie-to-comic-to-movie-to-cartoon-to-movie-to-toys-to-movie-to-video-game-to-movie-to-TV-series-to movie-to-Web-series-to-movie, then it's an idea that's been done before in some way, shape, or form...

...Yet we keep discussing them!

@Captain Steel

Naysayers aside, what says you Capt? Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

I believe there is... but then I kind of contradict the concept by putting the word "believe" in there. If there is an absolute TRUTH or reality, then "belief" in the concept (mine or anyone else's) has nothing to do with it.

Under the concept of absolute truth, belief is irrelevant.

The next question is: does anyone know if there is absolute truth... or does anyone claiming to know only think (i.e. "believe") they know and are thus only following a dogma of faith (which, under the concept of absolute truth may be correct, partially correct or completely and utterly wrong)? Can anyone actually know?

P.S. The reason I "believe" there may be absolute truth is that science seems to point to an external reality that has certain rules that apply to everyone and everything equally across the board. Things like gravity (although the theories on exactly how it works are arguable)... the fact that it always works and is consistent everywhere is an example of an unalterable constant.

But... metaphysics often claims otherwise.

And the scientific method may only be a means of studying one observable aspect of reality, whereas other aspects may be far more malleable than we realize. When we get into how attention seems to effect things on a quantum level, it begins to point to a universe that might actually be directed by intention!

Attention? Are you referring to the observation effect?

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Yes, I believe so - that sub-atomic particles allegedly behave differently when they are observed. Although, I'm not sure how scientists know that if they are not observing the particles that supposedly do not act differently when no one's looking at them!

(Or maybe I'm referring to the Mandela effect!)

Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

Yes! You would rather talk politics and religion on a movie site.

InfoWars is this direction > https://www.infowars.com./

Site Rules

No Duplicate Threads
If you're new, and want to start a thread, use the search page to see if something on the topic already exists. If it does, post in that thread, rather than starting a new one. You can safely assume that we've covered most of the broader topics by now.

Note: some exceptions may be made if the existing thread is exceptionally old, or a new slant is being put on the topic.

Thread Closed.

After some discussion, we're re-opening this thread.

Its not that they act differently because of the observation, its that when you are trying to measure things on such a small scale you, inevitably, effect what you are trying to observe just through the use of the equipment to observe it. For example, the photons needed to SEE a what you are looking at can change the state of the matter being observed by interacting with it and knocking off electrons or such. Its not an issue when what you are observing is macro phenomenon but on a sub atomic level it can significantly effect the results because of its interaction with the material being studied. But its not about the conscious mind somehow effecting the subatomic material. This phenomenon is true even when they "observing" is done with non human detectors. It still alters the results because of its interference with the material its trying to observe.

Discovery and breaking assumptions is always exciting! I was fascinated by this back in college:



As a bonus, there's a slight reference to..... CATS!!!! It just doesn't get much better than that

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Feel free to debunk or defend... but I've heard a lot about Random Number Generators (or Random Effect Generators) and their statistical results.



Now, if power of intention effects reality (and we all know it does to various observable extents, but here we're reaching beyond the idea of simply wanting something out of your refrigerator, intending to get up and get it, and then doing so) on levels beyond the simple and observable, does this counter the concept of absolute truth?
Or is the power of intention effecting reality PART of a larger absolute truth?
Or, is reality simply and only what you make of it (meaning there is no single, objective, absolute truth)?

I dont know what the collective unconscious is but I have believed in a collective conscious since learning meditation way way back when

Hi Cap. Bit of a quiet weekend, was it? Good to0 see you back to shaking things up.

Thanks, Dani.

The collective unconscious was developed by Carl Jung...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

An expansion on the idea (which may fall under the idea of an absolute truth) is that we all share or are part of a single larger consciousness and our perception of our conscious individuality is an illusion that we cling to. We are all actually part (even our minds and thoughts) of a single larger mind that is internally and externally linked to our own. We're not the individuals we think we are, but part of a collective that makes up the universe.

The idea of a collective unconscious sounds as believable as astrology. And Jung's definition reminds me of an attempt to create religion out of metaphysics.

Yes.

That doesn't mean there's always a definite right or wrong, though.

No.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

That's not very polite, CR. How about posting insightful and intelligent opinions rather than taking a jab at everyone before you in the thread. Tsk Tsk. I can say Tsk Tsk now because I've realised what a petulant little sht I was until I took a good hard look in the mirror.



I prefer the emojis on my android. Just thought I would lob that in for fun.

You've misinterpreted my post. I was NOT taking a jab at everyone. I was complaining about those who posted silly off topic post without answering the question that Captain had asked. Especially this post by ashdoc, which proceeded my post:
I was NOT referring to you or anyone who tried to answer the original question that Captain asked...so there's no need for you to call me names.

I was not calling you names . I was answering the original question. The liberal lobby controls most of the centers of expression---the media tv newspapers, the television and film industry etc . All major publishers also kowtow before the liberal lobby and give prominence to books expounding the liberal view . Reviewers also give good reviews to books and films expounding the liberal view . There is enormous pressure on everyone to confirm......So whatever the liberal lobby wants to be expressed as the truth, it can manipulate and present as the truth.

What names did anyone call you? I didnt notice so I'll go back and have a look. BRB.