TRUTH (Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei.)

 

  Truth is the correspondence of the mind and reality.

We are true and we live in the truth not because we never err or never fail into falsehood, but because we already are and always have been within the manifestation of reality. We are in the truth because, even when erring, "we are" a relationship with reality. And reality "awaits expectantly," if we may so express it, for our openness so that it can manifest itself in its true sense.

The mature thinker would probably compare the question--'Is there really such a thing as truth?'--to a young man's first hesitant conversation with a girl, from which he came away convinced 'she loves me!' Now it would be a strange lover indeed who would be content with the mere ascertainment that this is in fact the case. No, this fact, like a door springing open, becomes the starting point of a newly beginning life of love. In this life, the eternal question of lovers--'Does he or she love me?'--the question of whether they love one another, is revived every day; love can never be questioned enough, because love never has enough of hearing the reassuring affirmative reply. Behind every answer there is a new question, and behind every reassuring certainty there is an expansive new horizon.

Truth is never actually an absolute to possess. Rather, and surprisingly, it is an event to be touched by.

The following from Fides et  Ratio from Jean Paul II

    Freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which exalts our self-realization?

Every truth present itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true then it must be true for all people and at all times.

Beyond this universality, however, people seek an absolute which might give to all their searching a meaning and an answer--something ultimate, which might serve as the ground of all things. In other words, they seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and which puts an end to all questioning.

 

”SHADOWS OF THE MIND” Sir Roger Penrose

     From the Wikipedia: Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contributi- on to our understanding of the universe.  He is renowned for his

work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

    I am a great admirer of Penrose. As a scientist he pushes boundaries, I find him fascinating. However my admiration
of him as a philosopher went down a few notches after reading “Shadows of the Mind”. After all he is a ‘materialist" and materialism goes so far and no further. It’s interesting to see him trying to wiggle his way out, trying to explain the non-material in a material way.

THE METAPHYSICS OF THE WILL

 Click here to listen to Prof Edward Feser

Dr Feser argues that metaphysical errors about the nature of the will have caused significant damage to moral theory and practice. The best way to clear up such errors is to take things back to first principles and work them forward again. In this Quarantine Lecture, Dr. Feser considers what a substance is in general and what the power of a substance is. The technical Aristotelian-Thomistic way of capturing the difference between a true physical substance and a mere aggregate or artefact, is to say that a physical substance has qua substance a substantial form, whereas an aggregate or an artefact has qua aggregate or artefact a merely accidental form

A power is a capacity to act or operate in a certain way. A power is a kind of attribute and exists only in a substance rather than in a free stranding way. Because powers have a kind of teleology, for an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysician, the notion of a causal power is closely related to the notions of formal and final causality. Aquinas tells us that every form has some inclination following upon it and every agent acts for the sake of an end.

A rational substance is a substance with an intellect; an intellect is precisely to have the capacity to conceptualize what one knows. We have then a hierarchy of degrees to which the source of a thing's behavior is within it. A rational substance such as a human being or an angel (as opposed to an inanimate, vegetative or non-human animal substance) has a perfect knowledge of the ends toward which its powers are directed insofar as the very essences of those ends are within it. It possesses a kind of causal power which we can classify as rational appetite.

To have a will is, for Aquinas, precisely to have a rational appetite, to have in the most perfect way possible the source of one's activity within. Having a will also entails immateriality and possessing forms abstracted from matter.

Dr Feser concludes by touching on Aquinas's treatment of the reality of free choice and the lack of changeability of the human will after death.

Dr. Feser argues that metaphysical errors about the nature of the will angeability of the hu

EXPERTS,

 What should be my attitude in regard to EXPERTS?

 

1.   Do I believe the experts?

a)   No matter which expert on which subject, I never suspend my judgment which means analyzing the facts at hand and see if they make sense so that the action(s) I am going to take based on those facts will be reasonable.

Ex.: I need surgery. Question of life and death.

        My judgment in every case with any expert will be limited due to my limited knowledge, but I owe to myself to go as far as I can. There is no question of questioning his technique, how could I; but I can check to see if he has a good reputation for example.

In this case, if possible I inquire if his previous patients were satisfied.

How long as he been practicing?

Does he inspire confidence when I talk to him? Etc. etc.

Then I make a decision after I’ve done the best I could.

 

Ex.: I listened to an expert on nuclear energy.

         How much will it affect me personally? Not immediately, I suppose but maybe in the long run, if not me, my descendants.

However if it is an interest of mine, I will find out the pros and cons of many experts to compare and at least have a general idea before I could give my opinion on the subject one way or the other.

The immediate consequences of me not “being right” would be negligible, so I will not worry about knowing so little about the subject.

After all, I’m only satisfying my curiosity as perhaps I’ll have to make a political decision in a voting boot, later on.

 

Ex.: What the expert says can be applied in my personal life.

        Like: which way to set a ceiling fan in the winter.

Does the info comes from a ‘reliable’ source or is it simply something repeated so many times by journalists or others?

Does it make sense when I think about it in details?

If it does not make sense, I have to know why it does not and be able to demonstrate that it does not.

a)   Ceiling fan clock wise in winter I did not agree with.

See attached diagrams.

                  

                    b)another one is when pressure washing the side of                     a house one should start from the bottom and finish at the                 top.

                             Common sense told me right away that it could not         be right.

                             Experimenting I quickly discovered that the expert         was wrong and that I was right.

        Measurements would probably show very little difference either way, I'm guessing. But if I have to choose, I definitely think CCW is better in Winter for the reasons shown in diagram.

Critique of my logic or of my diagram is very welcome indeed.            

 c)This last one. I heard from the weather person on tv             that one should save water by taking baths instead of showers.

I remember my father-in-law saying that he had experimented, a very simple thing to do, and that one uses much less water by having a shower.

So, I did my own experiment to make sure and found out that he was right.

 Scientism: America's State Religion

By Edward Feser.

Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) was the enfant terrible of late 20th-century philosophy of science. He delighted in mischief, juxtaposing vast knowledge of science and its history with antics like egging on creationists, playing devil’s advocate for astrology, and calling for the “separation of science and state.”

He has nevertheless secured a place in the canon, because he is brilliant, extremely well-read, and funny—and his views, when correctly understood, are important and challenging. No doubt it helps that he is a man of the Left, despite saying things that were often criticized for giving aid and comfort to the religious Right.

Feyerabend was once labeled “the worst enemy of science” by the prestigious journal Nature. But even a casual reader can see that what Feyerabend actually opposed was scientism, the transformation of science into an ideology and of its practitioners into a secular priesthood.

Read the full article here

[Well worth reading. I found this article very appropriate for our time.

Here are the last two paragraphs which might give you an incentive to read the whole thing.]

These developments illustrate the ways in which the practice of science can sometimes be arbitrary, dogmatic, authoritarian, politicized, blinkered, highly fallible, and destructive of other social values—just as Feyerabend warned. That does not entail that COVID-19 is not a serious problem (it is) or that the lockdown was not initially justifiable (it was). But expertise that does not acknowledge its own limitations takes from us as much as it gives, and irrationalism is never more dangerous than when clothed in rationalist drag.

Feyerabend’s last word on the subject should be our own: “The hardest task needs the lightest hand or else its completion will not lead to freedom but to a tyranny much worse than the one it replaces.”

Arguments for Immateriality

 

 

If truth (ontological truth) is the apprehension of the real…what is reality?
If we cannot agree on that, how could we ever agree on the kind of analysis (logical truth) we make of it.
If our logical truth differs from our behavior( the living the way we think, moral truth) it would be very difficult to derive any common sense.
Realizing full well that one is not convinced by logical argument alone; here is some arguments for the existence of non materiality.

From Benedict M. Ashley's "The Way Toward Wisdom" 2009

page 97

Argument #1

The argument from effects to cause for the existence of a First Cause of the universe and of its non materiality can be formulated as follows.

1. With our natural senses we observe changeable substances A,B, C…in the process of change, and first of all in motion. Thus, by rational analysis, we know A exists, and we can define it with a real and essential definition by finding a certain unity among its observed categorical properties.

2. Since, by the principle of causality (that nothing that is moved moves itself). A’s observed motion must be caused either by some other material or nonmaterial agent B as its efficient cause.

3. The efficient action of B is either essentially identical with B, in which case it is Z, the prime unmoved mover of the motion, or it is only some mover C whose action also depends on the action of Z.

4. The number of movers that, like C, act to move others only when they are themselves moved, cannot be infinite, since in an infinite series of such moved movers there would be no prime mover Z, and hence none of the intermediate agents would be in act but only in potency to act, and hence not actually causing motion.

5. Therefore, Z, a prime mover that requires no other mover to act exists, but it cannot be a material mover, since no material thing either moves itself or is in motion without being moved by another.

In this demonstration no term or principle is used that has not already been directly observed by the senses, or that is not evident directly from an intellectual analysis of the data of the senses, or demonstrated logically from premises formulated on the basis of such data. Thus, this theorem pertains to the foundational generic subject of natural science, not properly to any other science. 

Hence it is pre-supposed to all the more specific conclusions of natural science, that is, to all of modern science that refers to the fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak
and strong nuclear forces, and perhaps a counter gravitational force called “dark energy” that explains cosmic expansion.

WOMEN IN SCIENCE

 E = MC² C comes from Celeritas, latin for swift, speedy . 

Speedy indeed, 670 616 629 mph.

It started with Lavoisier, Faraday had the idea that light was electromagnetic, Maxwell had the math to prove him right.

Emilie, Marquise Du Chatelet 1706-1749 . an extremely curious and intelligent woman who would not suffer or accept the gender discrimination of her time. She translated ‘Principia Mathematica’ of Isaac Newton and disagreed with him about E = M X V. She was very bold indeed. She turned out to be right by siding with Gotfried Leibniz that it was E = M X V² , which was at the basis of Einstein squaring the speed of light in his well known formula. Einstein was obsessed with the idea of finding out the nature of light. After he advanced his theory, he was lucky to find the great Max Planck on his side. That E =M was an amazing discovery and E = MC² implied a tremendous amount of E in a very small amount of matter. (In the sun four million tons of matter a second is turned into energy, light)

     Another amazing woman who was not given her due during her life time was Lise Meitner who worked many years with Otto Hahn. She discovered that bombarding the nucleus of the Uranium atom with neutron, split the nucleus. A theory she explained to Otto Hahn over the phone, because she had to leave Germany due to her being Jewish. Otto Hahn who was finishing the experiment they had both worked on, told everybody that the explanation of the experiment’s result was his, when in fact it was entirely Lise Witner’s. History was corrected, but much, much later. 

[ An aside ] Which reminds me that we would not think of blaming science for the discrimination due to the cultural milieu at that particular time and place. So why are we so quick to blame religion for war caused by the cultural milieu at a particular time and place.]

     Then there is Lisa Randall , a leading theoretical physicist and expert on particle physics, string theory and cosmology. After reading “Warped Passages”, Unraveling The Mysteries Of The Universe’s Hidden Dimensions. I became a fervent admirer. Her theories that lead to the fact that our 3D universe might be a boundary of a much bigger multi-dimension universe,. will be tested in coming experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. Her work has attracted enormous interest and was the most quoted (cited) in all of science a few years ago.