04-27-2020, 12:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2020, 12:52 PM by Eric the Green.)
I see some dangers of deviance from truth and reality, if any version of the truth is claimed to be absolute. That does not mean we can't discern truth, and that there aren't fools. But there is some basic ambiguity and mystery about our existence. So mathematics applies with certainty, but only within a certain range of inquiry and application, according to the Godel theorem and other analyses. Within the rules of the game, mathematics works. But measurements are only relative, because no exact measurement can be made. The universe makes some sense. But mathematical and physical laws do not describe how the universe operates, outside of a certain frame of reference or set of assumptions, because the universe is not physical nor an operation. God is that aspect of the universe that is also spiritual. Life is spontaneous, and thus not subject in any absolute sense to calculation or mechanical cause and effect.
Although I would not make an absolute out of science and mathematics, they do have very useful applications, within the range of the uncertainty principle and the basic mystery of life. We need to apply these tools of knowledge, rather than depend on fantasy and speculation. But is there a definite, absolute difference between fantasy and reality that can be applied to define the difference? I expect so, with the proviso that they depend on the frame of reference. It may take some careful consideration to develop such a definition.
For one thing, if someone makes a claim that something is happening, and claim that this is "objective truth that can be verified by any observer," then science and mathematics should be able to verify that claim better than partisan bias or speculative fantasy about a conspiracy. Despite the basic mystery of life, there seems to be something called good sense. Lawyers and judges can discern whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, and juries can decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a person is guilty. Mistakes are made, but we need to do the best we can.
Although I would not make an absolute out of science and mathematics, they do have very useful applications, within the range of the uncertainty principle and the basic mystery of life. We need to apply these tools of knowledge, rather than depend on fantasy and speculation. But is there a definite, absolute difference between fantasy and reality that can be applied to define the difference? I expect so, with the proviso that they depend on the frame of reference. It may take some careful consideration to develop such a definition.
For one thing, if someone makes a claim that something is happening, and claim that this is "objective truth that can be verified by any observer," then science and mathematics should be able to verify that claim better than partisan bias or speculative fantasy about a conspiracy. Despite the basic mystery of life, there seems to be something called good sense. Lawyers and judges can discern whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, and juries can decide beyond a reasonable doubt if a person is guilty. Mistakes are made, but we need to do the best we can.