If DMT has taught me something...

[SpartanII]

If this thread has taught me anything...

...it is that the OP believes that there are "answers".

I take issue with that mentality, actually. Before I started working in neuroscience, I studied mathematics, and I think there is a level of absolute certainty you get in something like number theory that should satisfy anyone. You can take issue with the fundamental axioms, but, within the system, absolute truths are knowable. The question: are there infinitely many primes is answerable.

Blessings
~ND

Sure, in this reality maybe...

Did you catch the part about needing to accept the base set of axioms? You're restricted to the system you're working in (which is in turn restricted to one reality), but within the system, there is absolute truth.

Blessings
~ND

Hey! My axiom is just fine, thank you.:!:

(I didn't know all your big words and stuff, sorry). I think I get it now though.):lol:

But the thing is, if there is absolute truth, but only relative to the system you're working in, then it's not really absolute though is it?

Semantics are funny...

This gets into some kind of Godelian logic stuff, but given that you're always within a logical system (and that all systems are incomplete), I feel like it's best to make do with what you have.

Blessings
~ND

Hmmm. That's a lot of givens. I just prefer to give in. But hey, it's your reality!:twisted:

 

[Doc Buxin]

If this thread has taught me anything...

...it is that the OP believes that there are "answers".

I take issue with that mentality, actually. Before I started working in neuroscience, I studied mathematics, and I think there is a level of absolute certainty you get in something like number theory that should satisfy anyone. You can take issue with the fundamental axioms, but, within the system, absolute truths are knowable. The question: are there infinitely many primes is answerable.

Blessings
~ND

Sure, in this reality maybe...

Did you catch the part about needing to accept the base set of axioms? You're restricted to the system you're working in (which is in turn restricted to one reality), but within the system, there is absolute truth.

Blessings
~ND

Hey! My axiom is just fine, thank you.:!:

(I didn't know all your big words and stuff, sorry). I think I get it now though.):lol:

But the thing is, if there is absolute truth, but only relative to the system you're working in, then it's not really absolute though is it?

Semantics are funny...

This gets into some kind of Godelian logic stuff, but given that you're always within a logical system (and that all systems are incomplete), I feel like it's best to make do with what you have.

Blessings
~ND

Hmmm. That's a lot of givens. I just prefer to give in. But hey, it's your reality!:twisted:

Precisely my take on it also Spartan!

Peace.

 

[Pixar]

If this thread has taught me anything...

...it is that the OP believes that there are "answers".

I take issue with that mentality, actually. Before I started working in neuroscience, I studied mathematics, and I think there is a level of absolute certainty you get in something like number theory that should satisfy anyone. You can take issue with the fundamental axioms, but, within the system, absolute truths are knowable. The question: are there infinitely many primes is answerable.

Blessings
~ND

Sure, in this reality maybe...

Did you catch the part about needing to accept the base set of axioms? You're restricted to the system you're working in (which is in turn restricted to one reality), but within the system, there is absolute truth.

Blessings
~ND

If a truth is limited to a system you cannot call it "absolute" since absolute is free from all relations, independent-of.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

I don't buy that definition of absolute. In mathematics or formalized logic (which is what I've been talking about), you would say that a truth is absolute if it has been proved to be true. It has been proved several times that there are an infinite number of primes (the earliest was Euclid's proof, but there have been others). Once the proof has been completed, you know with total certainty that, in your system, there are infinite primes. It could not possibly be otherwise.

If you want to play the philosophy/"maybe other universes" game, I'd challenge you to find some of those other universes, or explain to me what I can do with the philosophy before you expect me to take it at all seriously.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Pixar]

I don't buy that definition of absolute. In mathematics or formalized logic (which is what I've been talking about), you would say that a truth is absolute if it has been proved to be true. It has been proved several times that there are an infinite number of primes (the earliest was Euclid's proof, but there have been others). Once the proof has been completed, you know with total certainty that, in your system, there are infinite primes. It could not possibly be otherwise.

If you want to play the philosophy/"maybe other universes" game, I'd challenge you to find some of those other universes, or explain to me what I can do with the philosophy before you expect me to take it at all seriously.

Blessings
~ND

We don't need other universes to know this is false. As soon as you make a statement about the totality of all things you are in the false, and the word absolute is one of those words that do this. Don't we just say it is "true" and not an "absolute truth". I think your are thinking of "necessarily true", but there is a big difference between "necessarily" and "absolute".

absolute

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of absolute by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

Have you read The tractatus logico-philosophicus ? In short, the word "absolute" is one of those parts of our language which is void of any meaning : an imperfection of our language.

I quote : "What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

Hence, we cannot talk about other universes, but neither can we about ours has a totality.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

I know we try to avoid profanity here on The Nexus but:

F_ck Wittgenstein (and by extension, most 20th century philosophy). There's no interesting argument there: he just dropped a bunch of conclusions down and said: "these should all be obvious, this is it, I've solved philosophy." I don't feel like there's anything there, pragmatically or emotionally.

For the question of absolute in particular, this is a great example of why I find his early philosophy frustrating: I feel like you and I are using different definitions of 'absolute,' (based on the link you posted, I'm using adj. 3 and you're using n. 2b ), which gets at one of the fundamental problems with his philosophical declarations on the nature of language: language is a social construct, and a lossy form of information transmission.

I can absolutely say 'absolute' and it can mean whatever we interpret it to mean. It might mean a different thing when I say it than when you hear it (decoding problems are rough), but to arbitrarily claim that "this is what the word means and why it is useless independent of any context" is grandiose and thoughtless.

When I said 'absolute' in the context of logic, I explained what I meant: I gave it a definition and contextualized it, in this case "total certainty."

I'd also like to point out that Wittgenstein was a philosopher and logician, not a linguist, so all of this stuff should come with a grain of salt
We can also definitely talk about our universe in totality: the set of all things.
I'm kind of surprised to hear you say we can't actually: The opening lines of the Tractacus does just that: "the world is everything that is the case" and all that jazz/

Blessings
~ND

 

[Doc Buxin]

I would like to hear from the OP at this point since they did not express exactly what kind of answers were being referred to...

Like Gilbran's post stated just below the OP's, it really all depends upon the question.

Like Nathaniel stated, very eloquently I might add, if you're dealing with a numbers system there are absolutely answers (this is why I always loved math & related subjects in school; you either had the correct answer or you didn't; no two ways about it).

However, I was simply pointing out that when it comes to answers regarding our existence or the universes' existence or what any of it means, there are no absolute answers & anyone who says there are is full of more than just stinky hot air.

So, ymer, just what were your questions that you decided were not answered by DMT? That's what I'd like to know because knowing what your original questions were will help us all be much more clear about this thread's subject matter.

Peace.

 

[Pixar]

Aa I see what you meant, but "total certainty" and "absolute truth" are two different things, regardless of context. Like I said "total certainty" is the same has "necessarily true", but not "absolutely true". But then again this may only be true in relation to my system of representation.

I'd also like to point out that Wittgenstein was a philosopher and logician, not a linguist, so all of this stuff should come with a grain of salt

I don't think we can dismiss, even only partly, the credibility of what someone says only because he his talking outside of his specialty.

We can also definitely talk about our universe in totality: the set of all things.
I'm kind of surprised to hear you say we can't actually: The opening lines of the Tractacus does just that: "the world is everything that is the case" and all that jazz/

Yes, but you can't just read the first line and draw conclusions, it is much more complex. This is aborted from a sort of phenomenological perspective : everything that is, the world, is in the mind and we are restricted, to begging with, to this representation of the world . You see how this is subtle ? Like you said the problem of decoding. He talks about the totality of things, yes, like I mentioned earlier, but not in absolute terms. This is pretty explicit after getting to his second point. Don't get me wrong, the word "absolute" carries a variety of different meanings that are dependent on context, but as soon as the baggage carried is used in the wrong way it is devoid of any meaning in relation to the meaning it is trying to define/represent.

 

[DesykaLamgeenie]

I assume that the OP simply means that DMT is not the fix. It's not the answer to your problems/issues/challenges - whatever they may be. Finding yourself. Figuring out life, and/or whatever parts of it have you in a rut. Figuring out how to get out of your own way so that you can be the strongest version of yourself that you'd feel comfortable and satisfied with.

I interpreted it this way because I went through a phase in which I thought that DMT and other psychedelics were the answer to these issues for me, and my experiences with DMT often led to me realizing, or feeling, that it wasn't the answer. Although, at the same time it has led me to many realizations that led to new behaviors and actions - and those are part of the answer to my questions/issues/challenges/etc - which for me, all relate to deprogramming myself of years of conditioning (brought on by myself) that inhibits true expression of myself - thus leaving me feeling dissatisfied and disconnected with who I am and my life.

So even though DMT is not the answer, it helps me find the little answers within that take me step by step closer and closer to relief, surrender, acceptance, etc - all of which are part of the one big answer - at least to my issues: flow.

 

[TGO]

I would like to hear from the OP at this point since they did not express exactly what kind of answers were being referred to...

Like Gilbran's post stated just below the OP's, it really all depends upon the question.

Like Nathaniel stated, very eloquently I might add, if you're dealing with a numbers system there are absolutely answers (this is why I always loved math & related subjects in school; you either had the correct answer or you didn't; no two ways about it).

However, I was simply pointing out that when it comes to answers regarding our existence or the universes' existence or what any of it means, there are no absolute answers & anyone who says there are is full of more than just stinky hot air.

So, ymer, just what were your questions that you decided were not answered by DMT? That's what I'd like to know because knowing what your original questions were will help us all be much more clear about this thread's subject matter.

Peace.

I would like to second this! ymer, where are you!?