Chris, Thanks for your motivating replay, Which I think fits into the topic, real truth comes with change. Fred searching for truth

Does it require absolute truth though? Even at the very top level it is constantly changing. At one point in time the absolute truth might be one thing, the next another, and so on and so on.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

As far as Big Truth goes, there needs to be some kind of basic value with which to compare truth. I find this hard to put into words. Let's just say, you can't have yin without yang, or absolute wrong without absolute right.

So we are left with the question of, what is the basic value with which we can determine absolute truth? AUM perhaps, but we must remember that there is so much we don't know about AUM. As mentioned earlier, AUM has its own little lense of experience through which it views truth. Besides, we know that AUM is not actually infinite... what if there are an infinite number of other AUMs, each with their own subjective interpretation of the truth? Perhaps the fractals go on forever.

As far as PMR is concerned, I feel we just need to concern ourselves with becoming love and reducing our personal entropy.

Having read MBT, and as I work though the process of developing my own TOE, and based on my own personal experiences, I can state 3 things as truth -- "fundamentally we are consciousness; we evolve; the best means of evolution is through decreasing entropy, becoming love"..... I think before reading MBT, I would have found it much easier to articulate Big Truth (probably somewhat arrogantly and certainly inaccurately), but now beyond this understanding, and given everything appears to be influenced by one's personal interpretation of the data, it makes gaining an understanding of a "share reality" difficult (if not impossible? still working on this). Now, I am assuming that as I evolve, my understanding will also evolve, and with that, my understanding of truth will expand and grow...but for now, this is as far as I have gotten.... :-)

Ted or MojiDoji,

could you elaborate more on this? I feel, that I am somewhere close to become aware or able to comprehend what two of you are saying, but it slips my mind as soon, as I think - aha! I don't remember Tom saying, that LCS is a closed system. This is my problem, I think. I don't remember about its interaction with any other system, but it seems to me, that he is saying somewhere, that LCS could be just a part of a bigger system, but it is impossible to us to know, because we are LCS.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Tom commented that AUM could well be part of a herd of 'AUMosauruses' for all we know or can know. We are within the LCS and as part of it, cannot get 'out' of it to see if there is anything out there. That is the basic type of image he employed as I remember. There was separately a discussion of finite as real and the LCS being a real thing while infinite was a strictly mathematical concept and the LCS being unbounded in the sense of being constricted from growth and continually growing into whatever unknown is out there (undefined) to grow into. So I remember.

Ted

Thank you Ted.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Lena,

A closed system "IS" all there is. It is self-defining, self-contained, and self-referential; a tautology. There is nothing else, conceptually, to define it or its interactions with itself.

Lumpy,

Absolute truth is a requirement, in thus context. Also, it doesn't change - the possibility of change is related to the limitation of our perspective. Reality, as a concept, is truth - they are they same thing - if it can change, it can only do so in relation to something else, which would imply that it isn't actually truth.

Keep in mind that I am describing an abstract concept of Truth as Reality, with reality defined as the set of everything that is real.

MojiDoji,

You lost me on that last one.

Is evolution then a matter of perspective, or is it absolute?

Can't reality change with respect to itself?

Edit: or are you saying the existence of evolution at the root is part of absolute truth (evolution is part of the definition of the system). The fact that the system evolves is apart from the fact that it can evolve.

_________________
Mike

It would be truth, just not absolute. That is what I was thinking this whole time anyways. I don't see the need for the word "absolute" when speaking about truth because of the fact that it is always changing. To my knowledge "absolute truth" is a false concept.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Lumpy,

Which definition of absolute are you using? This may just be a matter of semantics.

Edit: Are we talking about an independent absolute or a static absolute? Or something else?

_________________
Mike

Probably the one that everyone else isn't using :D

I was using it relating to physics. I think you are correct, I hadn't even thought of that.

Edit*** Actually, I don't see any definition of absolute that goes against how I am using it after looking into the definitions further. I think you and I are on the same page, but I am still a little fuzzy on what Moji Doji is saying about absolute truth.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

From what I've interpreted Tom to have said which I think I am using in context is anything "absolute" is usually a case of Ego and Truth is not fragile whatever it is.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Mike,

The system containing the fundamental process of evolution and AUM (to use the MBT concepts) IS Truth. It defines everything about reality. Reality (the big, whole thing) as a singular entity, beyond which nothing is relevant. I'm not sure that I can get more concrete than that since this is such an abstract concept, and I only meant to use it to illustrate that the fundamental basis for reality defines reality and is synonymous with Truth because It is the top level rule-set and would be, by definition, Truth, whether or not it theoretically changes because whatever it is IS reality.

I am not using absolute truth as in "a fact that never changes", but more as in the Cartesian sense.

MojiDoji,

Right, ok, that's what I thought you were getting at when I wrote in my edit after the fact. :)

Would you call anything that is less abstract an absolute truth? For example, consciousness and evolution (if you subscribe to the MBT model), time, the void, something else?

Or is it more of a "reality exists" absolute and everything else is subjective?

I apologize if I am being pedantic, I just find this interesting.

_________________
Mike