The epistemic problem of "deriving truth from scratch "

[LastThursday]

@zurew as I said we're arguing from different paradigms, so you're not going to agree with me, and that's fine by me. For example:

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

There are facts of the matter about the laws of physics independent from your knowledge of it. It might be the case, that you dont know anything about the laws of physics , but thats just a statement about  knowledge, but that doesnt change anything about the laws of physics.

I say the laws of physics are a construction of human thought. We observe nature, make up hypotheses (propositions) about our observations, and then validate those hypotheses to get at their truth value. The very concept of "law" is a construct. There's nothing instrinsic at all about "the laws of physics". The laws of physics don't hold if you have no notion of laws or physics. In any case the laws are constantly revised and added to, a Victorian's laws of physics is not a 21st century person's laws of physics.

Equally, propositions are constructions of human thought, not separate from them. A proposition only "exists" as human thought, nothing else. And, as such propositions must be shared into other minds, and so suffer from relativity. Epistemology is not prior to human thought.

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont know what it means for a proposition to exist

Because you paradigm doesn't allow it.

Edited 8 hours ago by LastThursday

[zurew]

23 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I say the laws of physics are a construction of human thought.

Lets clear up what you actually mean by that and what that entails. There is an interpretation of that statement that is sensible to me , but there is another that isn't sensible at all.

Given how you intended to mean that statement - does that mean that if I think I can fly, then that actually makes it so that I can fly?

I also think there might be an equivocation and misinterpretation on the sentence "laws of physics" - I meant the behavior of nature and I didnt mean our modelling of nature.

23 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Because you paradigm doesn't allow it.

It has nothing to do with what my paradigm allows or doesnt allow and it has everything to do with that sentence not being intelligible to me.

It might be a sensible and coherent statement and view, I just dont understand what 'propositions existing' mean.

Edited 7 hours ago by zurew

[LastThursday]

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

does that mean that if I think I can fly, then that actually makes it so that I can fly?

Believing you can fly doesn’t make you able to fly. But understanding the structure of reality well enough that we can build aeroplanes, does make human flight possible. My point is that physical laws are descriptions of structures in reality, not things created by belief.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

I meant the behavior of nature and I didnt mean our modelling of nature.

What's the difference? Both are interpretations of "things we notice" in nature. The two are exactly the same. Scientific laws are just a more formal system of modelling. Interpretation is constrained by cognition and what we're wired to perceive.

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

I just dont understand what 'propositions existing' mean.

A proposition is simply a verbal statement in thought, to put it in a simple way. As such, as soon as it arises in thought, then it exists. That's it. Before it arises, it doesn't exist. I mean nothing more than that.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

What's the difference?

The difference between a thing and a description of a thing.

The difference between a thing that is interpreted and an interpretation of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is modelled and your model of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is propositionalized and a proposition of said thing.

--

Whatever you meant in your earlier statement by the structure of reality is what I meant by behavior of nature.

All im saying is that prior to modelling or interpreting or propositionalizing or making a description of the structure of reality , there is the structure of reality.

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[Eskilon]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

All im saying is that prior to modelling or interpreting or propositionalizing or making a description of the structure of reality , there is the structure of reality.

Does a tree fall in the forest if you're not there to listen?

Does prior and after exist?

[LastThursday]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

The difference between a thing and a description of a thing.

The difference between a thing that is interpreted and an interpretation of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is modelled and your model of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is propositionalized and a proposition of said thing.

That's a fair and a common sense way of understanding it, the observer and the observed. Or you could say we're in Plato's cave looking at shadows, and inferring that there's an actuality beyond. It's construction, models and interpretation all the way down. The structures in reality are in fact shadows, they are the "things we notice" about reality.

[Breakingthewall]

On 10/3/2026 at 3:54 PM, Someone here said:

I've been contemplating this recently and I wish to share this with you guys .

Anything I come to know from the external world is prone to error and falsehood . It can never be trusted as an absolute truth.. Because of the very fact that it is derived from the outside world ..which automatically means it has been known by others and now delivered to you..but if it is not derived by you personally..how can you trust it ? Even if Leo or your Guru tells you something.. you should never trust it but you should validate it in your own direct experience..including this very advice from me right now..and this just goes on in a circle and becomes obsessive and meaningless. Like "this statement is false".

 I think it's a very nasty epistemic problem. This entanglement of everything . just the fact that obviously everything everywhere across all places..and in all dimensions or times or whatever ..everything is interconnected. Like for example you cannot separate the observer from the observed..Or this moment from the next moment . Etc .

If you ask AI or Google about any question or information then you have to be skeptical ..because what the hell is the very origin of that information and how was it known at all ? Likewise you can't trust other people. Truth has to be derived personally. But aren't I creating a false duality here which is just circular and absurd?  Because there cannot be a personal experience without an other experience..and the two are tied Togther. And if you push this inquiry further to the ultimate end you arrive at the conclusion that since self =other or at least interrelated then it doesn't matter whether you go through the work of discovering truth or whether your Guru spoon-fed you it . It's tricky. 

Very good reasoning which would lead you to the inevitable conclusion that any realization, knowledge, or understanding is relative, and therefore true or false depending on how you look at it, depending on a given context.

Then, the only absolute truth appears when there is no grade, when relativity doesn't exist, when everything is equalized and there is no definition, differentiation, or comparison. Therefore, absolute truth is neither expressible nor conceivable, it's just what you are.