What if the only truly objective truth in reality is that there exists no objective truth?
That the only thing everything has in common is that it's all different.
If this is true, it means the universe is both ∞ and finite.
It means that both religion and science are both objectively true and Inherently flawed.
Right?
Other urls found in this thread:
It also means we exist in both a first, second, third, fourth and fifth dimension simultaneously.
Am I wrong???
Someone please help me here.
If I'm right it means I'm somehow going completely insane and yet perfectly understand everything I'm talking about at the same time.
Why am I begging people to help me understand something I already get?
It's an inherent contradiction. There's no way to verify the truth of a system you're part of. This doesn't mean much though. At any point, aliens could show up and confirm or refute our understanding of reality. Then we may or may not have to question this new system the same way.
Yes, that's my point. There's no way to verify it.
The only verification we have is that we cannot verify any of it.
You can't get any insight from that though. A self referential statement like that has holes. Godel proved this is unavoidable. It's not that we can't verify or not, it's just that our system has built in contradictions.
You can and you can't.
That binary is exactly what I'm trying to get to. Only thing is, it's impossible to get to.
But look at the word "impossible." It in itself is a binary. Something can either be possible or impossible. Not both. That's an absolute binary. You can't go any further than that.
The progress of science is trying to make rational sense of "impossible" as it applies to the real world. But we can never get to that point, because it doesn't exist.
That's where time comes from. As we come closer and closer to understanding it, time moves forward. But time can never end.
A statement ideally is either true or false.
Example:
The next statement is true.
The previous statement is false.
Whether or you not you know the truth of either statement is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that they cannot both be true in our system of logic.
Exactly.
But where does this exist in reality? Is there a smallest subatomic particle that has that absolute binary characteristic?
Conversly, does it exist the other way around? If we try to study things bigger and more complex, will we eventually reach a point where we cannot go up any further?
I'm saying we can't. Because the former will become the latter, this creating an infinite loop.
Oh my god these fucking threads I can't take it anymore man I can't fucking take it you aren't deep this isn't interesting please fuck off back to /x/ where you belong you goddamn brainlet PARASITES OFF MY FUCKING BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>What if the only truly objective truth in reality is that there exists no objective truth?
Where did your teachers err to have you believe that a contradictory statement could serve as a possible ontology for the world? Your question is as ridiculous as the following.
>What if green grass actually wasn't green?
>What if a pen was larger than itself?
>What if OP wasn't a massive faggot?
THIS
H
I
S
Fuck off OP you fucking highschooler.
Truth and falsity are built into your cognition. It is an integral part of the semantics of natural language, and to assume that you can reason without them is to forget that the information you perceive is modulated by layers of cognitive systems. Looking for a foundation for truth and falsity in some subatomic particle is very misguided. Rather, you should understand that these concepts are a prerequisite for us to even develop any kind of knowledge. Science is not to be naively conceived as inquiry into objective reality. Science relies on epistemological capacities which are rooted in our cognitive faculties, and to discard the primitives which make it possible for us to even have knowledge is ridiculous.
Not that user, but it seems like you're conflating our lexical descriptions of the world with the ideal existence of the world. Just because humans use binary terms does not necessitate that reality functions in binary terms.
>"It is objectively true that nothing is objectively true"
[math] P\rightarrow \neg P [/math]
>wasn't
>was
>wasn't
weren't
were
weren't
also something about your english teachers failing blah blah blah
Nice pipe theory, but no. The universe is measurable and can be calculated.
I read the entire thread up to this inevitable post and thank you for saying what I was going to
lsd was a mistake lmao
no.
non-sequitur
Besides, its objectively true that i exist.
its objectively true that you cant know that with the present level of technology avaliable to us.
>He dosen't realize there is no separation between subjective thought and objective reasoning
Lol brainlet
>people are unironically saying "u can't kno nuffin" now
Guys, it's okay. OP is just someone who intuitively grasps Godel'so Incompleteness Theorem, but is unable to formally define it, accept it as part of their worldview or coherently communicate it, hence the schinoperative ramblings.
OP, you're not going completely crazy. Look up "Godel's Incompleteness Theorem Proof" on youtube. The one by Number pile is nice. It might help you reconcile your worldview.
No he isn't and that's not what the incompleteness theorem means.
>Besides, its objectively true that i exist.
en.wikipedia.org
While i think that statement is true, there's a limit to how much we can know for certain, in fact that is that the only think we can know(in the truest meaning of the word), not our physical body but our consciousness existing in somewhere and somewhen.
Idiot
The subjunctive tense is obsolete. Using it is much like using the accusative 'whom'.
>t. linguist
You don't understand Godel.
>it's a fact , therefore it is automatically interesting