But to say that there is complete understanding of anything assumes a finiteness, so I guess it depends on whether or not you believe in infinity. I personally cannot imagine understanding anything completely, not with my human consciousness anyway.
I would agree to our Earthly limitations.
Unless the consciousness is infinite, in which case it would have infinite knowledge/understanding.
Well, it may seem like your screen isn't wobbling like jelly, but maybe it is and you are just compensating for it in your mind.
Hmm wonder if I can eat it then...
I have to admit that when it comes to physical laws, I have often pondered, but not come to an understanding as to how they work. I have read personal accounts of people that have defied gravity, walked through walls, biolocated, existed for 40 years without food and water, etc. I theorize it is a collective believe system, but I am not sure. This is an area I am still exploring, pondering when the urge takes me. If exceptions exist to supposed hard-fast rules, then all is definitely not known.
They provide structure. A physical law does not mean the 'end of the road'. Often when knowledge is furthered including with technology, so called laws are often rendered incorrect or simply incomplete.
Ah, but you aren't talking about scientific objectivity, you say. Okay, what do you mean by this, or what is an example of this, please.
An example of scientific objectivity might be the measuring of length with a rule. One object is measured to be 3.5cm, whilst another is measured to be 4.2cm. The reason why this works is because a reference point has been set. In this case the set of marks on the rule which correspond to measurement. Since the same rule, or a rule matched to be the same is used, an objective measurement is obtained. However one flaw is that the measurement is only as valid as far as one takes the measurement. In this case the rule works to one decimal place or in units of 0.1cm. If we had a more precise rule, we might be able to measure the two objects - now at 3.586cm, the other at 4.204cm. But again, this is only to the degree the rule may measure. If we kept going, we would approach infinity with the decimal places, going smaller and smaller. If we got to the atoms, then we would still be doing the same thing.
Hence the result is actually subjective. On a side note, a mm, cm, or meter for example is a made up reference. So is a second - it is based on an isotope measurement.
But there is still objectivity. The ability to take the measurement would not be possible if the numbers themselves (mathematics) were not objective in themselves. So in other words the means that
perform the measurement, including pattern (a mathematical form) is that which is objective. The result of the measurement, the object and the rest is all subjective.
And from all of the above, there can be universal truth, or
philosophy.
I was trying to be polite. I did not want to seem aggressively argumentative. But you probably didn't take me that way. So cool!
You can let go of all those thoughts when talking with me...
By this you mean that belief is a "given", correct?
Not the conventional definition for belief.
But I gather you may have reverted back to a concept closer to faith as we have previously discussed? Seems to be a slight distortion in communication. As said previously - as I understand what you have explained - the faith in oneself is fine I say. So that belief - to cross the words again - in the self, or more accurately all that the self has learnt, experienced, observed, intuited etc we might indeed say is a "given".
