Uncovering objective truths

[QED]

There exist many objective truths that form the fabric of our universe. This is why we can see exactly the same outcomes from the action of certain laws at work irrespective of whereabouts in the universe they are operating. Consider therefore these truths to be things awaiting discovery. Things that may furnish an explanation of phenomena having a bearing on our existence.

I would say that science is the only discipline with the potential to access all such truths given the application of sufficient critical thinking.

This is because the scientifc approach is framed in such a way as to be subject to falsification. It can never know when it is right, only when wrong. So while not necessarily knowing that it has ever reached the truth, it may indeed have already arrived. No harm is done by such over-reaching, what counts is that the conclusions will remain the same in the absence of contradictory data (which by definition will never emerge once an objective truth has actually been arrived at).

It is as though a systematic 'sweep' for a conclusion has been made through the enormous space of 'possibilities' - a sweep that automatically stops at the proper conclusion upon encountering an objective truth even though we may errantly continue to consider more possibilities.

Contrast this with the use of faith (in all its forms) to furnish such fundamental truths - while faith might stumble across the odd truth by accident now and then, it has no feedback mechanism to tell it when it is wrong (as if it would listen anyway!) Thus many a false conclusion will inevitably be arrived at - given the vast number of possibilities to choose from.

Given enough time then, science is capable of gradually revealing a coherrent and accurate interpretation of all the unerlying objective truths that embody our universe. Whereas revelations arising through the channel of faith alone will beome more and more incoherrent with the passage of time.

Supporting evidence for this analysis can already be found in the consistency of information contained in students textbooks world-wide. I leave it to your imagination to consider the subjects I might be referring to.

[Vladd44]

So your telling me enlightenment is a futile and pointless attempt to achieve a goal that may or may not even exist?

[BeHereNow]

Vladd44: So your telling me enlightenment is a futile and pointless attempt to achieve a goal that may or may not even exist?

NO.
You seem to have problems reading for content.
I’m saying enlightenment is a state of being where one realizes objective truth.
Convincing you of that appears to be a futile and pointless attempt to achieve a goal that may or may not be possible.

[BeHereNow]

If there is a way to understand objective truth, then it must come from the philosophical. The philosophical belief systems of religion, mysticism, shamanism, spiritual experiences, would be possibilities. None of these are guaranteed to have bragging rights to objective truth, but if there is objective truth, then it will come from philosophy.

From each discipline of human endeavor there comes a certain subjective truth.
These subjective truths can be thought of as parts of the objective truth.

There is only one area of human endeavor which attempts to unite these subjective truths, and add to it, into an objective truth with meaning.
This is philosophy, in one of its many forms.

Enlightenment goes beyond the sum total of known subjective truths and understands objective truth. Understanding is beyond knowledge. Knowledge is simple description. Understanding is application.
Science gives us description. Philosophy gives us application.

[Vladd44]

NO.
You seem to have problems reading for content.
I’m saying enlightenment is a state of being where one realizes objective truth.
Convincing you of that appears to be a futile and pointless attempt to achieve a goal that may or may not be possible.

LOL, Well, I wont imply the reason we don't see eye to eye is because of some inability to interpret content. However, I do think its quite absurd to discuss enlightenment unless @ least one of us has a frame of reference. I hope your not trying to imply that you are enlightened. However if you are, I do have some more serious questions.

I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else that "objective truth" doesn't exist. But I do find the idea of humanity being capable of such a task hilarious. To think that finite humans are capable of even assimilating all the information required to have a frame of reference is implausible. Much less sort it out, and quantify it in such a short lifespan.

Convince me? I doubt it. Without empirical evidence I could only adhere to such a belief with faith. Of which I have none.

[Vladd44]

If there is a way to understand objective truth, then it must come from the philosophical. The philosophical belief systems of religion, mysticism, shamanism, spiritual experiences, would be possibilities. None of these are guaranteed to have bragging rights to objective truth, but if there is objective truth, then it will come from philosophy.

Sounds like more superstition of the past recycled.

From each discipline of human endeavor there comes a certain subjective truth.
These subjective truths can be thought of as parts of the objective truth.

Subjective truth may or may not be part of the whole. You have discounted the effect of relativism.

There is only one area of human endeavor which attempts to unite these subjective truths, and add to it, into an objective truth with meaning.
This is philosophy, in one of its many forms.

I would place science far ahead in any effort to coordinate observable data with "subjective truth".

Enlightenment goes beyond the sum total of known subjective truths and understands objective truth. Understanding is beyond knowledge. Knowledge is simple description. Understanding is application.
Science gives us description. Philosophy gives us application.

I still fail to see how one can go beyond the sum without having the data. I agree that understanding is beyond knowledge. But just as knowledge is needed as the basis for understanding. One would have to have all the information available as a basis to be able apply it as "objective truth".

[BeHereNow]

Vladd44: I do think its quite absurd to discuss enlightenment unless @ least one of us has a frame of reference. I hope your not trying to imply that you are enlightened. However if you are, I do have some more serious questions.

I do not have to be a lion to have a frame of reference about lions. I do not even have to have touched one.
I have many frames of reference about enlightenment. Some first hand, some not.
It appears you have no frame of reference for enlightenment, which would make it difficult to ask meaningful questions. I will the best I can to address your concerns.

Subjective truth may or may not be part of the whole. You have discounted the effect of relativism.

I have not discounted it. We have not defined subjective truth or objective truth.

I would place science far ahead in any effort to coordinate observable data with "subjective truth".

Perhaps so, with subjective truth. Our goal is objective truth.
You are the one who first brought up that if one could perceive objective truth, one would have to be god. God is not a sphere of science. You are presenting conflicting ideas. Or it may be that I take your statement “one would have to be a god” as having meaning, and you attach no meaning to it. Meaningless statements add to the confusion.

I still fail to see how one can go beyond the sum without having the data. I agree that understanding is beyond knowledge. But just as knowledge is needed as the basis for understanding. One would have to have all the information available as a basis to be able apply it as "objective truth".

Yes, this is at the heart of the matter.

The traditional method of acquiring knowledge (which should lead to understanding) involves preparation such as studying, observing, learning.
Intuitiveness jumps over knowledge and goes directly to understanding. You’ve probably heard of “women’s intuition” which is the pop version of intuitiveness.

How did Newton come upon the theory of gravity?
I would say he intuited the objective reality of gravity.
Did he have all of the facts concerning gravity which he assembled into a theory, or did he have an intuitive understanding of gravity which he was able to substantiate by collecting the facts after the theory was formulated (in a rudimentary way).
Intuition has a decidedly unscientific tone to it. I would hope you can go beyond this prejudice.
Intuitiveness is the spark which has lead to many scientific discoveries.
Understanding objective truth does not require minute detail. Knowledge of objective truth would require minute detail.
In Zen and science normally there is groundwork before intuitive understanding. I do believe occasionally humans receive an insight out of the blue, only vaguely related to efforts in other directions.

[QED]

I have to mention that Intuition is potentially the result of our brains being quantum computing devices! Don't laugh, computers with qbits have already been built and are capable of solving problems by maintaining information in a superposition of multiple states. Given that the nano-engineering that makes us tick is operating at a quantum level - the idea that quantum effects may be being used directly is now given serious consideration.

God is not a sphere of science.

Unless that is, one day it turns out that the cranks were right - and our universe was created in a lab somewhere. Our science might be able find that out if tell-tale signs were left.

[Vladd44]

Well BeHereNow,

I never said if someone had a handle on the truth they would be god. I said they would be A god. Personally I see a significant difference between those statements. I am not a theist. It was simply an observation of what it would require to be able to grasp truth in objectivity. It would be no different than me saying that to if you lifted an elephant by yourself you would need to be 2 tons in mass and arms the size of a compact car. Its a prerequisite that will never happen.

This intuition promoted by yourself and QED is a suprise. And as far as your example, NO, I do NOT think that it was intuition that led Newton to his awareness of the fundamentals of gravity. Intuition by definition defies rational proccess. And I think it WAS rational thought that allowed Newton to observe, hypothesize, test and come to his conclusions.

Intuitiveness jumps over knowledge and goes directly to understanding.

So am I to believe that understanding without knowledge is a realistic approach?To believe there can be understanding without knowledge runs counter to almost everything I accept. So in the interest of agreeing to disagree, Be well, and take care on you journey. I wish you the best, but I think I will stick to a more rational method.

[BeHereNow]

I never said if someone had a handle on the truth they would be god. I said they would be A god. Personally I see a significant difference between those statements.

Yes, I misquoted.
My apologies.

So am I to believe that understanding without knowledge is a realistic approach?To believe there can be understanding without knowledge runs counter to almost everything I accept. So in the interest of agreeing to disagree, Be well, and take care on you journey. I wish you the best, but I think I will stick to a more rational method.

I would not say it is a “realistic approach” either.
It is an exceptional approach. I do not mean to advocate intuition as a substitute for scientific enquiry. The scientific method is an exceptional source of subjective truth.
I’m saying philosophy, by way of intuitiveness, is the way to arrive at objective truth. More importantly, I’m saying that if objective truth is possible, then it will come from philosophy and an intuitive understanding.
QED compares and contrasts religion with science, and certainly religion, as most know it, is no source of objective truth. Zen is not religion, some might say it is a philosophy. There are choices other than religion and science.
Belief systems cannot be proven. I guess that’s why we call them belief systems. I might be willing to admit that my belief system could be wrong about objective truth being attainable, but I am not willing to admit that science is a superior route to objectivity. If it is attainable, it is philosophy that gets us there.

My example of Newton may have been lacking (or maybe not).

You might find this article interesting. It is not about the general intuition I discuss, but a specific intuition (scientific intuition).

"Scientific intuition," as I conceive it, is an intuitive judgment based
upon knowledge and experience in a particular field as to WHERE THE DATA IS POINTING. Specialists are much better at this than non-specialists.
Many people have some degree of scientific intuition, but the only
significant means of learning and improving it is by professional
experience. "Scientific intuition" helps the scientist decide which
theoretical problem to tackle next, which experiment to try next, and
which piece of her experimental equipment isn't working properly.
Scientific intuition, combined with data and logic, helps the scientist
guess where the new breakthroughs are likely to be found, and helps direct research goals. Scientific intuition allows a scientist say, "I don't
have the data to prove this hypothesis, but I'm pretty confident (based
upon my knowledge and experience) that this is the right direction to
look." (I believe that 90% of "philosophy of science" is an attempt to
describe (or proscribe) how this "scientific intuition" actually works!)
It's very real, and very important.

Also:

Carver Mead claims to have never had an original idea. Others call him a prophet, a genius and one of the founding fathers of information technology
Colleagues and former students stress his infectious enthusiasm, his notion of work as a shared quest, and his keen scientific intuition. They call him a free spirit, even a wild man. “What I've done for most of my life,” he says, “was to give people a framework for thinking about things, which made it easier for them to do what they needed to do.” It also makes it hard to pin a label on him, though he has not gone without recognition. In 1999, he received the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT prize, the world's largest single prize for invention and innovation.

I appreciate your well wishes, and wish the same for you.