I thank you to give something to open with. I wonder whether 'knowledge' or 'life' can be uttered by a single statement.

It is my opinion that there is an algorithm lurking here that looks like this: Data becomes knowledge, which can then become understanding, which with time and experience can become wisdom.

#H1-528. Happy new year 2012.

@ AM: Yes.

@ WJ: Yes.

@ RD: Yes.

Can somebody say if what AM has written can have some analogy to "incomleteness", "uncertainty", or "disorder" theorem(?)s?

2. Then there is no "knowledge" without life?

3. That also appears plausible. Algorithms shouldt finally explain without any gaps. Then what happens to the apparant ever fresh generation of interior and interior (or expanding and expanding) understanding. Are algorithms comfortable with open (AND explanatory) results?

Certainly Gödel's incompleteness theorems show us that in mathematics, at least, there is no ultimate truth.

I think it depends upon the context, and how we define "whole truth". I agree with WJ here. At our level of consciousness, would we recognize the "whole truth" if we saw it? Is it a matter of biting off small pieces, one at a time?

Einstein vs Poincare discussion:

P: I left Physics for Maths because Physics has no proof

E: I left Maths for Physics because Maths has no truth

this also suggests "Knowledge how it is known"

It is an interesting that there are countably many propositions with which we describe a world which appears to be essentially uncountable.

BO"...there are countably many propositions...a world which appears to be essentially uncountable..."

this is a nice clue for Gordon's theory of correlation between limited and unlimited...

Does the path to whole truth need Fractals?!

WJ" There will always be a gap"

Can our consciousness fill this gap?

...seems not because our beliefs are not,in general, based on conscious tools...

WJ: "There will always be a gap, between what is (Actuality) and what is believed (a reality.)

Actuality and reality are, of course, the same. What is believed is opinion.

WJ: "Is 'a reality' (what is believed) identical in every way and from every perspective to 'Actuality'?"

The crux of the problem is knowing what is real. Belief can fail to correspond to reality. In that case it is wrong belief.

i think it is impossible to define truth.socrates used to ask people to define truth and they couldn't.

pilate did ask also the same question to christ and he wasn't given any answer.

The reason why pilate was given no answer may have been that truth isn't objective.

Niz NL mentioned an important aspect of truth: einstein vs poincaré,theory vs practice,maths vs physics...etc.

Truth isn't a proof .

may be we should start by defining truth itself!

WJ: "'Fail to correspond to reality' - in whose opinion?"

In actuality.

WJ: "'Knowing what is real' - how?"

That is a problem.

"We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

~ Charles S. Peirce; "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities;" ***Journal of Speculative Philosophy*** (1868) 2, 140-157.

William, isn't reality founded upon perception, which forms belief? If our perceptions aren't accurate, don't our misperceptions lead us into unfounded belief?

WJ: "There you have it - the need to distinguish between 'reality' and 'Actuality.'"

How so?

WJ: "The concept of 'Actuality' becomes necessary, called by whatever name you prefer."

I prefer to call it reality... which I oppose to opinion, or belief.

I also think that 'reality' and 'actuality' can be used interchangeably.

I am having the feeling that the lack of the power of a single statement to spell the whole truth out is one essential natural quality (virtue) of one single statement.

In the name of Allah

Hello

philosophy is my hobby.

If I'm not making a mistake, you define reality based on beliefs.

But beliefs are achieved on what basis?

I have asked a question about this:

http://www.researchgate.net/topic/Philosophy/post/If_some_philosopher_says_something_about_correctness_of_an_statement_or_goodness_or_badness_of_something_what_is_the_basis_of_his_or_her_statement_f

And about the physics of today, I think one of it's most important problems is selection of a physical interpretation, if you select one, you are bounding what really is.

as a model it is acceptable inside it's limits.

I think this way they go on, they will not achieve unification. the worst thing is that some of the physicists say that the model is the nature. and they forget about philosophy. they always make the same mistake!

Mevlevi says:

"three people were in a dark room trying to find out what is an elephant.

one of them took its feet and said is a column;

the other took its ears and said its a fan;

the third took its snout and said its a tube(I think.)"

the difference now is that they say that the column has some special engravings!

any way, our knowledge of nature (or better to say world of creation), I think, grows like this:

(If we only take advantage of empiricism)

suppose you are looking at a comprehensive symmetric sketch. then when you look more precisely, you suddenly see an asymmetry, then if you look more precisely you see the new symmetry. and again... .

I think, in case you find an answer to the above question, you may find a new way of understanding of the world.

Gomnam, I am asking whether that base can be wholly uttered by any one of the philosophers.

Thanks, Gomnam. So, we come to know that the occurance of 'fitrat' as you said, attests the presence of some truth in one statement. One statement must pass through our innate feeling of righteousness to become applicable. My heart pains when administrative descions in the form of statements are blindly generalised and applied to everyone without them being passed through our innate sense of righteousness. That is how law become blind.

Especially in my country the administration is of this type. I always have the feeling that they blindly incarcerate my potentialities in their blind laws and leaves me unheard.

WJ: "concluding: it is 'as if' some 'thing' exists."

I conclude that such thing do exist. There is nothing hypothetical in that. I do not doubt that the things I observe actually exist. We may argue about how they exist, but their existence is clear.

"We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

~ Charles S. Peirce; "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities;" ***Journal of Speculative Philosophy*** (1868) 2, 140-157.

Reality has more dimensions than actuality.this requires a lot of funny mathematics though.

Every actual object is real.every real object need not be actual.

The main question is whether truth is subjective or objective.

JCK: "The main question is whether truth is subjective or objective."

Clearly truth is objective.

W J, I think that revelations and science are not at loggerheads, but, they have complementarity between them.

BO, can you show your love for something (let others feel the intensity of love) in an objective manner? Does it mean that your intense love is false if you can not do so?

Is love objective? Suppose I see that my friend is hungry and I turn my back on him and do not share my food, do I love him?

How that show of lack of love makes one feel the feeling of the lack of the same without there being one subjective counterpart or complementarity of the very thing?

AM: "How that show of lack of love makes one feel the feeling of the lack of the same without there being one subjective counterpart or complementarity of the very thing?"

I did not deny that there may be subjective aspects of love.

In the name of Allah

Hello Dr. Anirban Mukhopadhyay

I think I know the source of problem.

As a human the more we know ourselves, the more we can go further to know the world outside.

When we find and define a common basic understanding, many problems would be resolved.

I'm going to write a comprehensive comment explaining an abstract of the way I think. But it may take more than a week.

The complete and consistent theory of the Universe not only grasps the Truth, it is the Truth.

The complete theory proves that I am the theoretician and theory in One.

Peace on Earth, Erik

Has there been any complete and consistent theory of the universe still?

Yes.

Here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233865314_Complete_and_Consistent_Theory_of_the_Universe?ev=prf_pub

Conference Paper Complete and Consistent Theory of the Universe

This was Hegel's goal. He attempted a unification of philosophies: Biological, social, physical, psychological, political etc... into one. His whole motto was that the truth isn't in parts. The truth is the whole truth, unified and seamless.

Thanks Eric. But, I am a busy person. It will take time to read. I will do that and then again come to discussion.

@Stephen: Right on, many have attempted unification, including Hegel. The only way to unify is to *be* the theory and theoretician in one.

@Anirban: Sure, Brother. It is hard for the reader to understand, harder for the understander to know, and hardest for the knower to apply.

There is one such verse in our sacred revealed book. (Hinduism)