# Basic Philosophy **URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382 **Category:** Philosophy **Created:** [May 10, 2026, 10:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382 "2026-05-10T22:54:31Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 71
### Author: ![Destiny](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/user_avatar/www.ilovephilosophy.com/destiny/32/1219_2.png) [@Destiny](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Destiny) #### Post date: [May 15, 2026, 12:34pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382/71 "2026-05-15T12:34:25Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#): > > > [@Destiny](#): > > > > To me your position is superstition, for lack of a better word > > How is the simple fact that you do not know everything a question of “superstition”? > Superstition implies lack of logic and irrationality. Pure belief. Let’s keep it exact. I say it’s a superstition for you to presume two things at once: a) what we know, _our_ truth, is subjective b) there exists a ‘the’ (not-subjective) truth. So Im pointing out that it is you who presumes to know more than you can actually know. It is me/(I?) who sticks with what follows directly from what I do know certainly. > [@](#): > > What i told you was the opposite. Purely logical and rational. > You do not know everything → You assume that what you know is true → Your idea of reality is an assumption due to any number of factors yet unknown to you No. The logic breaks by your attempt to infer an objective reality. As for my idea of reality – well first of all, are you now conflating truth and reality? I cant work with that, the terms have distinct meanings. What I said about truth does not totally apply to reality. Truth is a function of judgment (thats just implicit in the word, there can exist untruths after all - for example either what I say or what you say - but there can not _be_ un-reality. Just an idea of it, which is an untruth, which is part of reality. So do you mean truth or reality here? If you mean reality instead of truth, I think we can finish this, as that was never the object of the OP’s questions. What is true? Means: what can be validly said about reality? I said that if there is to be a _the_ truth, it has to satisfy such and such conditions (such as being self-coherent) and it is not given by what I do know for certain that such a the truth can be both universally valid as well as comprehensive. This is why in philosophy as well as in science, and in military strategy as well as in most consequential disciplines of the mind, principles count higher than collections of facts. > [@](#): > > > [@Destiny](#): > > > > In a world absent subjectivity I do not believe there would be a distinction between truth and untruth; there would just be chaos, the absence of relation. As relation is per definition reliant on subjectivity, on Relativity. > > Your conclusion is running completely counter to your deduction. > Lack of unknown → lack of subjectivity → lack of chaos, falsehoods, lies, misunderstandings, mistakes, etc. Which lack of unknown? I did not posit that. Lack of subjectivity means actually, lack of known. As knowing is a subjective activity. You are really making a big mess!! Oh oh oh. Chaos is not the same falsehood. Chaos is the total absence of relation, thus also of truth, which I think we previously agreed on can not constitute a lie, or a falsehood. You are throwing around terms way too loosely! Terms have quite discrete meanings! ‘Truth’ does not equal ‘reality’. Though that is difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend, there is a profound difference. They do not contradict, they just refer to a different… ‘layer’, if you will. Lack of unknown _definitely_ does not equal lack of subjectivity. In many ways not-equals it! Try to conceive of knowledge without someone knowing it! Knowing requires a knower, a knower is a subject. Not just an object. Even if we hypothesize an omniscient knower, this knower must be a subject by the virtue of knowing. So absent subjectivity, there can not be knowledge. If the omniscient knower is simply an object, and not a subject, can he really be a knower? I like precision. I think the most comprehensive we can hypothesize based on actual knowledge, is pan-subjective truth. > [@](#): > > In simpler terms: you stated that not knowing whats in your bag means its in perfect order, I might as well stare that you said that the moon is purple and you had it for breakfast. If you paraphrase please, don’t go too wild. > [@](#): > > and knowing whats in your bag means its in utter disarray and chaos. > Are you playing schrödinger’s “i have to organize my bag”? > Your bag is not a complete mess until you have taken a look and you realized that it is in fact a mess? Oh no God you are making such a messy mess. Oh god. How can we even discern the first bit of truth in what you say here? No. Chaos is the absence of relation, as any relation is an order. knowing requires order. Knowing is subjective activity as it requires a knower. So knowing precludes a state of chaos and a state of chaos precludes knowing. Okay. I managed to clean up a part of it. Lets get to the next mess! I feel like Im working at Mac Donalds. > [@](#): > > > [@Destiny](#): > > > > So I do not even believe that there _can_ be facts, absent subjectivity(\*), and I do not believe that we are free to posit a non-subjective totality, which simply exists, if all we know is subjectivity and Relativity. > > Absent subjectivity (assuming omniscience was achieved), Omniscience is knowing. So subjectivity must still apply. It must be pan-subjective, and it begs the question if that can apply to an actual singular knower. If everything is known, it is still known by a subject. So it is still all being known from one perspective. If all is known by all perspectives at once, given what we actually know from physics, we can not know is this knowledge is self-coherent, i.e. if it satisfies the requirements of truth. > [@](#): > > there are only facts. > Im not entirely sure where you understanding of the concept breaks down, but “knowing all there is” or “omniscience” means that you know everything for a fact. As is. The complete truth. Just as ‘reality’ does not equal ‘truth’, so ‘fact’ does not equal ‘truth’. Neither of these do equal each other. > [@](#): > > Your interpretation is that “because i know the truth its no longer true” > I fail to see your reasoning. Now that is an absolute untruth. Which means that what you referred to is not a fact, but an imagination. That imagination is part of reality, but it is not a truth. Its existence is factual, and it is true that it exists, but its content does not correspond with facts, or with truth. > [@](#): > > > [@Destiny](#): > > > > Consider here that an electron generates, from its perspective on the protonic mass, a magnetic field that is not perceptible from an outside reference frame - ‘objectively’ it does not exist - and yet this field has an objective, consequential influence on the structure of the atom the electron is part of. We see here, as in the example of the muon, an indication that perspective dominates totality in it’s ontological weight. > > You imply that something gets erased by knowing and understanding, and that is absolutely not the case even in this scenario. I imply nothing of the sort. How can you manage to imagine that I have implied this? I think you are actually working down from the hypothesis of an omniscience, thereby messing up the argument which can only be based on what you know, and not based om what you imagine a God might know. When I say that one truth may cancel out another truth, it does not follow that one truth cancels out itself, or cancels out truth itself. > [@](#): > > Knowing all just means the observer understands the complete geometric truth of the universe. > Its to know both the outside and the inside perspective. Now you invoke understanding, which brings truth to a higher level from knowledge, to the level of principle. One can understand a thing without knowing it fully. This is the level I was referring to early on, with the seed and the tree. Still here too, a knower is by definition a subject. So is an understander. But an understander can fully understand himself without fully knowing every detail about himself. As many details will fit into understood patterns. Knowing what we know of kowledge and ot stepping outside of that ,_knowing_ the entire geometry of spacetime would place you outside of that spacetime and create a new, larger whole of which you are then part - a fifth dimension for all I care - and which you have yet then to know, by placing yourself outside of it again, creating yet another larger whole. And so on. Thats just the nature of knowing. But understanding the entire geometry does not necessarily place you outside of it - as understanding is a deeper level of abstraction. > [@](#): > > Or in a nutshell: > When applying an omniscient observer to this effect, the effect does not ceases to exist. Neither the observer nor the subjectivity of the concept is required for it to exist. So by now you know we do not agree that we can just simply hypothesize an omniscient knower, if we respect reality as we factually know it, that is to say, if we are staying connected to the truths that we as humans have established intersubjectively, aspiring to pan-subjectivity. > [@](#): > > > [@Destiny](#): > > > > What this in turn indicates is that ‘from the perspective of a totality’ (which is an absurdity), there can not be a ‘the’ truth about everything, as perspectives within the totality generate contradictory assessments about each other. If there were anything like a ‘the’ truth in the accumulative sense, it might be something that cancels itself out. > > The fact that you can describe the perceived contradiction is the very thing that debunks this issue. What you say applies if we are talking about reality rather than about truth. But truth is not equal to reality, but a valid assessment of (a) reality, a conceptual representation. At once part of it and above it. Why you get the infinite regress when you try to totalize it. It is not given that there can be a coherent conceptually valid representation of all of reality that includes everything inside of it. It seems logical that there should be but it doesn’t logically follow from what we know. I care about that. > [@](#): > > You know that perspective exists. If i sit in a car going with 100mph the box in the seat next to me is stationary. My friend looking at the box from the side of the road, sees the box moving at 100mph. > > The fact that you can accurately describe this effect without creating a contradiction in the process shows that relativity does not destroy absolute truth, nor does it create contradictions. > An omniscient observer would see a single, unchanging, objective reality. That objective reality is made of relationships, not static things You did not include mathematical Relativity, where reference frames do not compute. Here is a thread by a departed poster who tried very hard to arrive at the conclusion that, given two reference frames, there must be a third, objective one in which they can be unified in one frame that holds true for both of them. An immense struggle ensued. > [@Stopped Clock Paradox - Analysis](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/stopped-clock-paradox-analysis/37079): > > The Stopped Clock Paradox establishes a scenario wherein a train with a special stop-clock is passing a station that has an identical stop-clock. The train’s stop-clock is mounted exactly in the center of a car and at the instant the two stop-clocks are aligned, flashers mounted fore and aft on that car are triggered by special sidetrack arms that touch the flashers as they pass by. The stop-clocks are of a type that will only stop when they experience simultaneous photon strikes from both sides… What we deal with is that the mathematics (principle, understanding) are valid for both reference frames but the concrete facts (information, knowledge) differ in each frame, do not compute from frame to frame. That’s ‘normal physics’ for you. --- _[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382)._