Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[watson.shane]

However, I personally tend to lean more towards an ethical understanding of "nothing is true", meaning that nothing anyone says about how we should be or should act is true and that everything we could ever think of doing within the realm of actual possibility in this physical reality is permitted to happen, and so it does.

[Uncle Walt]

Don't believe it means you can rape and murder, accept it as a way to be free of any sort of boundary of yourself.

But by not believing it means you can rape/murder ... you are putting a boundary on yourself.

Actually, by believing in not putting boundaries on yourself - you are putting a boundary on yourself.  As anything that would put a boundary on you, is "out of bounds" with your belief in no boundaries.   

[greap]

Its a shame more porcs are not gamers The phrase has been recently popularised by the extremely good Assassins Creed series.

It was supposedly spoken by Hassan-i Sabbah, who was the master of the Nizari Isma'ilis (believed to be a group of Muslim assassins active nearly a millennia ago), on his deathbed. There is lots to learn from many different cultures but I think we can do without the wisdom of the leader of a band of murderous thugs

[Polemic]

I would suggest not using quantum mechanics to support any epistemological, ontological, or other philosophical position.

Referring to probability, randomness, observers, etc in the context of quantum theory all pertain to the models propagated by physicists to explain observed phenomenon in terms of a causal universe. However, because such models assume causality, an inherently unprovable concept, further extrapolations are untenable.

When lay people discuss this topic, it seems that everyone confuses the map with the territory and, because the uncertainty principle describes a map of nothing or a map of one attribute at a time, we arrogantly conclude that there is no territory, or that the territory is violable, or that it is our consciousness, etc.

While some of these conclusions are problematic, at best, they are hardly 'true' in any rational sense of the word.
So to use any part of quantum theory as a premise for a philosophical argument is to build a castle on shifting sands.

Donating my $ .02

[rossby]

So to use any part of quantum theory as a premise for a philosophical argument is to build a castle on shifting sands.

There's an inherent acceptance in there that such arguments can be concluded with absolute certainty. Referring back to the scientific method, a castle built on shifting sand isn't necessarily undesirable: it's far simpler to move the castle if you later find out that patch of sand is very bad real estate. In many cases, sand may be the best we have.

[Polemic]

There's an inherent acceptance in there that such arguments can be concluded with absolute certainty. Referring back to the scientific method, a castle built on shifting sand isn't necessarily undesirable: it's far simpler to move the castle if you later find out that patch of sand is very bad real estate. In many cases, sand may be the best we have.

Absolutely! And since real estate is all about location, it's prudent to point out that some areas are shiftier than others.

[rossby]

There's an inherent acceptance in there that such arguments can be concluded with absolute certainty. Referring back to the scientific method, a castle built on shifting sand isn't necessarily undesirable: it's far simpler to move the castle if you later find out that patch of sand is very bad real estate. In many cases, sand may be the best we have.

Absolutely! And since real estate is all about location, it's prudent to point out that some areas are shiftier than others.

Why, some can disappear and reappear altogether. Fascinating...

[Sam A. Robrin]

For me the statement says, "Don't hold on to your beliefs and we are all absolutely free."

Any statement about which you can say, "For me the statement says," isn't much of a statement.

[WindsOfPlague]

Who are we to say what is and what is not truth?

[s man]

in my opinion the statment talks about mind over matter, as in if you belive you can do it, you can do it
nothing to it
ps yes, i just signed up to say this, wat a noob

[MBFT]

I'm going to borrow incite and add my two cents.

This statement can be manipulated to mean a number of things so, I'd choose to look at the language or words chosen.

"Nothing is true," - I agree, though not normally used in American English, true can easily mean pure in it's purpose or completeness. This is especially accurate if you consider the effect human perception has on actual pure forces or objects. True becomes at least slightly lost once something is perceived and even further deranged in memory over time.

"everything is permitted." - This is very interesting. The word that needs to be focused on is permitted. If something is permitted then there is a party, law, norm, or force of nature that is giving permission. This implies that everything is first approved or subject to something else which allows it to happen.

Nothing is pure by way of human perception, everything can be done only within the confines of what one is either allowed to do or able to do.

Rewording it this way implies there may be some things one can not do, yet other things can be done by way of determining what something is or how it acts in a pure state. If we can not ascertain the pure state of said force or object we can only attempt to come as close as possible. Given the human condition the most perfect state attained is in the moment, all other states are only subjective perceptions recalled as memory. So again I reword it one last time.

Nothing is what it seems, pay attention to the now, your perception is one of many forces known or unknown that confine you as human. (deal with it, not in a colloquial sarcastic way but rather take the deck and deal, for a great part of your reality is really only yours)

[FreedomFred]

If "Nothing is true" is true, then that statement would be in contradiction with itself.
Therefore, the statement "Nothing is true" is false, Q.E.D.

[MBFT]

If "Nothing is true" is true, then that statement would be in contradiction with itself.
Therefore, the statement "Nothing is true" is false, Q.E.D.

This is absolutely correct, thus one assumes that if the party that created this statement understood the logical flaw they would have intended for the word "true" to mean pure or wholly complete. It is an assumption, for if the party was not aware of this, the entire statement can be seen as rubbish. Also, even if interpreted as I did, I'm not sure these two premises alone would constitute a complete argument.

[FreedomFred]

It would seem that little things like "logic" and "rationality" are lost on most people. 

[MBFT]

It would seem that little things like "logic" and "rationality" are lost on most people. 

Ah this is an assumption just as I made, yet I think we might be able to prove yours quite easily as accurate. This is what should be discussed, especially given the current state of things and the forum we are in.