Scatter Plot on the meaning of TRUTH
Well, ghosts remind us of our intrinsic wish to live forever in the webs of universe.
To annihilate the world of every purpose is like simply expressing virtually the decaying stage of a living thing.
It's a mystery that we're dealing with dead tools.
From not too long I proposed that we tackle our existence "technically" and that "being" is "mental". It's not idealism, as we're the product, the outcome, but we always influence parts of the other products. We are in between both ends of the world, we can want by the means that are always giving us our evolved sense of "being".
Yes, being is mental, it's not linear, not static, but we have the lenses means that concentrate energy to a very small spot to make the linear effect appear.
Judgement is the concept of technically driven action that we initiate naturally.
Judgement is the culmination of action visualization itching to be born on our hands.
Simplicity is the answer of work minimization.
Elegance is the marriage between simplicity and reserved efficiency.
Knowledge is the constant potential to visualize facts technically.
Truth is a product of simplicity and a tool that evolves to reach elegance.
Truth has not always been elegant with us, but it needs generalization to reach the rank of being elegant.
So, what's the generalization of truth?
Is it the minimal range of values that can properly decide the direction of an efficient judgement?
The paradox is that truth was rebuilt to act as an inclusive concept that works as a single entity when it's initialized.
.................
Life seems technically of no intrinsic ethical purpose, this is expressed loudly with existential expressions that swing between nihilism and their opposite original positive expressions that dictate that there's solid existence of this intrinsic ethical purpose.
However, we said before that judgement is the urge of pressing us to visualize and/or create actions, so, we're naturally imposed to take actions.
Life seems to embrace modular layers of limited resources, employing simplicity to handle its underlying complexity of the smaller levels, to limit us with a limited set of trials to reach elegance risking the vanishing of given resources.
.................
So, the utter result here is the inter-winding circular communication between truth and judgement.
Truth (as we know it) should be marketed through a medium of judgmental expressions, and judgments should be based on a certain degree of truth. [[smelling circularity here]]
Judgement is result driven, its like the node at the end of the line, and so as consistency.
.................
Consistency refers to any closed system of judgmental expressions.
For example, assume a tuple that consists of a predefined set of objective axioms "Ao" and a predefined set of functional axioms "Af" (Ao,Af)
the circular rule of thumb states that if you feed a subset of "Af" with a subset of "Ao", the result should be a subset of "Ao", and the linear additive rule of thumb states that the result should not belong to "Ao".
Consistency refers to the articulation of the circular rule of thumb, and linear evolution refers to the linear additive rule of thumb.
..................
Hence, a consistent visualization is generally more economic, and more likely to be logically accepted among people, and on the other hand evolving axioms are the products of truth generalization step.
But now we have the issue of the contradiction between the mere definition of "axiom" and what we've mentioned as ((evolving axioms)).
Can axioms be synthesized ?!
I'll leave the answer to you.
To annihilate the world of every purpose is like simply expressing virtually the decaying stage of a living thing.
It's a mystery that we're dealing with dead tools.
From not too long I proposed that we tackle our existence "technically" and that "being" is "mental". It's not idealism, as we're the product, the outcome, but we always influence parts of the other products. We are in between both ends of the world, we can want by the means that are always giving us our evolved sense of "being".
Yes, being is mental, it's not linear, not static, but we have the lenses means that concentrate energy to a very small spot to make the linear effect appear.
Judgement is the concept of technically driven action that we initiate naturally.
Judgement is the culmination of action visualization itching to be born on our hands.
Simplicity is the answer of work minimization.
Elegance is the marriage between simplicity and reserved efficiency.
Knowledge is the constant potential to visualize facts technically.
Truth is a product of simplicity and a tool that evolves to reach elegance.
Truth has not always been elegant with us, but it needs generalization to reach the rank of being elegant.
So, what's the generalization of truth?
Is it the minimal range of values that can properly decide the direction of an efficient judgement?
The paradox is that truth was rebuilt to act as an inclusive concept that works as a single entity when it's initialized.
.................
Life seems technically of no intrinsic ethical purpose, this is expressed loudly with existential expressions that swing between nihilism and their opposite original positive expressions that dictate that there's solid existence of this intrinsic ethical purpose.
However, we said before that judgement is the urge of pressing us to visualize and/or create actions, so, we're naturally imposed to take actions.
Life seems to embrace modular layers of limited resources, employing simplicity to handle its underlying complexity of the smaller levels, to limit us with a limited set of trials to reach elegance risking the vanishing of given resources.
.................
So, the utter result here is the inter-winding circular communication between truth and judgement.
Truth (as we know it) should be marketed through a medium of judgmental expressions, and judgments should be based on a certain degree of truth. [[smelling circularity here]]
Judgement is result driven, its like the node at the end of the line, and so as consistency.
.................
Consistency refers to any closed system of judgmental expressions.
For example, assume a tuple that consists of a predefined set of objective axioms "Ao" and a predefined set of functional axioms "Af" (Ao,Af)
the circular rule of thumb states that if you feed a subset of "Af" with a subset of "Ao", the result should be a subset of "Ao", and the linear additive rule of thumb states that the result should not belong to "Ao".
..................
Hence, a consistent visualization is generally more economic, and more likely to be logically accepted among people, and on the other hand evolving axioms are the products of truth generalization step.
But now we have the issue of the contradiction between the mere definition of "axiom" and what we've mentioned as ((evolving axioms)).
Can axioms be synthesized ?!
I'll leave the answer to you.
Comments
Post a Comment