The Validity of Truth and Survival: Are We Just Fooling Ourselves?

[tony134340]

Riddle me this...if the universe is perceived as being entirely logical, then all within it should be logical. Kind of analogous to how within a mathematical problem, if it at that point is logical, all within it would have to be logical. So even if I said you're wrong, would I be right? That you're illogical, would I be right?

I've seem to hit a bad spot in life where I think everyone has their own valid, true reality and it's no more right or wrong than my own. Please, can someone knock some sense into me and make me more confrontational with people? Everyone's arguing about who's right all the time and I feel so left out without being able to say if one party's right. I've just become indifferent. I really need help so I can tell someone the reality they see is wrong and what I see is the right, valid, and true reality or experience. Even if that may be true, it's very boring in the human scheme of things so I don't need truth. I need some excitement. And it leads me to feel the real universal truth is always obscured by human emotion and experience.

Also, I feel I'm on unsure foundation. We don't know the beginning nor the culmination of all of our reality we live in, or universe/multiverse, whatever you choose to call it. So do we really have the validity to say a certain view is "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong" without knowing the total significance of that decision when time or the universe arrives at where it's supposed to so we can judge if it was done correctly? I guess I'm saying that we don't/won't know and why all the arguing of who's right or who's wrong so much? We barely understand the reality in which we live, let alone, if there is such a culmination of our actions.

I don't feel much like continuing my education if I feel others' views are just as valid as my own. And it seems the more I learn, the more bland and generic my views get. At what point do you keep learning about a system until you, in essence, become that system? Like a computer which learns how to emulate humans. Is it essentially a human and then some? What then is the point of the human if another can do the human's job? What then is the point of the system if I learn of the system and essentially be it? How about we learn of the system, the system that made that system, ad infinitum? What then? Why do we learn? To overcome or digest information? We keep digesting more information and more information. And for what? No one knows. So how can we be sure we are so correct and we are moving in the right direction? Because you "feel" like it? At what point do we realize that human emotion only has so much use and realize we need to think more about why we feel that way? And if you say because human emotion or intuition makes you feel that, there's lots of people who have the same experience who you may call wrong.

Is the point to all this is to do all this work so in the end, we can seek happiness on a universal or personal scale? If happiness is the point to finding out about our world, were people no more happy when we knew less? I just miss being more naive and ignorant so anymore, I can't fault someone for ignorance. If they're fine with it, I'd say let them be. But to wrap this up, in the end, we just don't know. It's a bland and boring view so why can't we just all accept the plain boring truth that their point is just as valid as my own? Is the search for truth merely a distraction to fulfill our need to conflict with others? I see conflict happening all over in the universe. Energy colliding and mixing with other energy, seems to be the basic description of it to me. And I guess humans wouldn't be happy either if we weren't colliding with someone or something else intellectually or physically. It seems the more truth I learn, the more boring the universe gets. Someone help me out here and tell me I'm wrong. Perhaps all this spurs from my depression or perhaps this view is spurring my depression, I'm not sure.

 

[CompuChip]

Riddle me this...if the universe is perceived as being entirely logical, then all within it should be logical. Kind of analogous to how within a mathematical problem, if it at that point is logical, all within it would have to be logical. So even if I said you're wrong, would I be right? That you're illogical, would I be right?

I think you should be more clear what you mean by "logical". I'm not a philosopher, so I can't go into any deep discussion with you, but you seem to use "logical" as synonyms for mathematical validity and truth value (if you want, assigned validity).
If a statement is (mathematically) valid then it means that the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. For example
"Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal"
and
"An egg is a brick. All brick are mortal. Therefore an egg is mortal"
are equally valid statements, because their logical form is identical and the premises can be explicitly shown to lead to the conclusion. Still, most people would say I were "right" in the first statement but the second statement is complete nonsense.

Moreover it is a mathematical (and probably universal) truth that two opposite statements cannot be true at the same time. So "you are logical" and its negation "you are illogical" cannot have the same "assigned" truth value at the same time: if one is true the other must be false.

Apart from that, I think one could argue about what "being right" means in this context.

 

[tony134340]

Moreover it is a mathematical (and probably universal) truth that two opposite statements cannot be true at the same time. So "you are logical" and its negation "you are illogical" cannot have the same "assigned" truth value at the same time: if one is true the other must be false.

In the realm of quantum physics, that would all seem arguable. I hold the belief that there can be more than one truth. If someone got fired and I was next in line to be manager of the company, then that would be good news, right? Well, good for me, bad for them perhaps. If you see the vase is green and I see it as blue, what is it? Perhaps you're right if you're colorblind but then I'm right also. In this universe, there's always two different opposing sides, correct? Energy conflicting with energy, at it's most macroscopic and microscopic, it seems. Each side seems just as valid to me as the other.

Apart from that, I think one could argue about what "being right" means in this context.

Exactly. We can argue forever and come to no real conclusion. 100% of us could not be 100% in sync with the way we see things. From every point of observation, the truth slightly differs the more the initial observation points differ. We spend so much time seeking truths in the educational world, which I have put a lot of faith in, but are there any thinkers out there that go outside the ring, so to speak, and question the validity of the reality in which we live? Or does everyone just play by the rules and just not go there because it could seem to invalidate their own views and perhaps their foundation of universal observation? It just may invalidate our views but I think it's important to step outside the human experience and try to see things whether it is compatible or not with the human experience. As long as it is the truth, I have no problems going there at the risk of my own discomfort.

I can probably see where this thread is going. We will probably argue semantics and no one will unlikely say that someone else's view is just as valid as their own. If a clinically insane man seems to have an illogical reality, how can it be illogical in a logical system? Or let's just forget logic, how about valid? Or worthy? You may say it is worthy when deemed compatible with my own survival strategies. If he is witty enough to observe conditions in a survival situation, or survive a few years at Harvard, and so on then you would likely critically review his ideas. You see, it all boils down to what it can do for man. If the idea or view can help the being survive, it is deemed palpable. If you've read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", you can kind of see what I'm saying. Truth will always be tainted by humanistic needs. The whole universal truth couldn't survive and would probably seem incompatible or irrelevant to us.

We put such faith in learning here but we fail to realize the point of it all and just how much of what there is out there we don't really care to see because it's irrelevant to our survival. And in the end, it's survival that wins, not truth. So those that do what they do to survive, whether it's cheat or steal and whether it seems logical to do or not, to me their views and experiences are just as valid as my own. We probably couldn't fathom the views of soldiers raping women, pillaging villages, and enjoying their spoils. We may view it as illogical or incomprehensible but in the end, it doesn't matter. Most of the people there may be descendants of rapists but the universe doesn't care how it was all done, the point is, it got done and now history is forgotten and the people couldn't care because they are part of the ones who raped. This is all in the name of survival. Whether brute force manipulation or gentle manipulation by means of friendship to get what you want, it doesn't matter, survival is survival and it's not what is right or seems true in the end that necessarily survives, it's what's accepted by the masses or strongest party.

We all here think we know the truth when we really should just keep our mouths shut because we don't know as much as we think we do sometimes.