The Two Realities
There are two realities, only one is logical.
There are two realities, one is absolute, analytical and composed of logical information. The other reality is presumptive, phenomenological and known only by means of synthetic propositions, circular reasoning and experiments that engage in confirmation bias. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem relates to the second reality. The Incompleteness Theorem postulates a transcendent truth or independent reality if it exists cannot be fully known or proved. This theorem is true for secularists. If the world is real in a physical sense, we cannot know it.
Truth, according to the relativist view, is mankind’s best guess at what exists. Liberalism understands truth as synthetic statements made about a universe that can only be known indirectly. Synthetic truths are founded on multiple observations, sometimes made in a controlled way, using a process called empiricism. The multiple observations are compiled into truth claims or statements about a contingent reality. This process of acquiring knowledge about a phenomenological reality is called induction. Many observations lead to predictions on what we are likely to observe regarding a defined event. There is ultimately no way to confirm any of this. All we can do is confirm what we assume to be the case. Empirical experiments cannot prove empiricism produces false positives, yet it does.
All interpretations about what is real are provisionally true. In a phenomenological universe there are no absolute truths. Provisional truths are partial truths. Inductive reasoning abandons absolute truth. Inductive truth is contingent, relativistic, and probabilistic. Observations will be interpreted in different ways, like blind men feeling parts of an elephant. The differences in interpretation are not considered important. Liberals believe what is important is that causing the different viewpoints is something unknowable but real.
Liberals believe there are numerous ways of seeing the truth. No perspective is more valid than the other. The relativist view of reality creates a serious dilemma or paradox. There is not an infinite number of ways to share a pie. There is only one way this can be done. A pie shared is a pie that no longer exists. This is the problem of temporality. The existence of time precludes the reality of relativists from gaining traction. Time demonstrates inductive reality is a myth.
The author challenges anyone to prove there are different ways for reality to exist by dividing a pie up in more than one way. This is the Temporal Pie Challenge. No matter what you do; at the end of the challenge, when you submit your proof, the pie will have been divided in one way and one way only. This truth is absolute. Once divided the division is finished. The division is as you define it. Your definition of the division is the logic that defines the truth of the division. Time guarantees this will be the case. Once the pie is divided, and it is you who will decide when this is done, the pie will be divided, and it will have a certain number of pieces and this number can be counted. If there are no pieces to be counted it is not divided and you have not fulfilled the terms of the proof. It is always your definition of what you are doing and your definition of when you are done with the task, that defines the reality you have created. But this reality is absolute in the definition of the task.
If there is only one reality, there is only one absolute truth. There may be different interpretations of what is true and what we think reality is, but they are either all wrong or all wrong but one. One reality is absolutely true but there is an infinite number of false opinions and mistaken assumptions. There is a reality composed of logic and a reality composed of all possible lies, partial lies and figments of the imagination. There is only one definition of truth or none.
Truth is not a separate reality. We cannot go to a conceptual drawer and pull truth out to validate our theorems. The truth is reality and reality is truth. Truth says I AM. Truth does not validate anything other than itself. Truth is not referential but substantial. Truth is the substance of what is real not a constituent quality of something. There are no objective measuring sticks, there are just rulers with arbitrary marks on them that some men have given significance to. But it is these arbitrary lines defined as a measure that give us the truth about distance, weight and so on.
A foot is a measure defined by a rod marked in inches. We know what a foot is because we can take a foot ruler and lay it out twice along the line. But there is no similar ruler for truth. There is no object in the Smithsonian Institute that gives us the standard truth unit.
2+2 does not equal four because truth tells us so. There is no external Truth Tester akin to Snopes that will give us a percentage probability of the truthfulness of the claim that 2+2=4.
The equation forms a tautology and is true by definition. Another way of seeing the truth is as a synonym. 2+2 is the same set as 4.
Where does this leave us when we come upon Axioms such as God Exists? Atheists will claim the axiom is invalid because it cannot be proven. What atheists mean is that God cannot be demonstrated to be part of the class of things called physical. Nothing can be proven to have physicality so why has the objection any weight when applied to God? God truly cannot be demonstrated to be a partial truth, a contingent, relativistic truth. God Exists is an absolute proposition that will not fit into a relativistic conception of reality.
If God exists this would end the reality of relativistic truth. It is not God that is the problem, it is the axiom itself. Absolute truths cannot be embedded in a reality composed of inductive propositions.
The claim all truth is relative and probabilistic refutes itself and fails on the grounds of incoherency.
Where does the inability to validate its own claims, leave cultural relativists?
If all truth is relative, then there is no truth for even the statement that all truth is relative is false. Liberals cannot escape the paradox they are in. If there is no truth liberal claims cannot be true therefore liberal truth claims are defined ipso de facto as part of a false belief system.
If truth exists it must be absolute. The only absolute truth is the truth of logic. Logic is true by definition. Logic does not look to man to measure its value. Logic measures its own value. But the existence of Absolute truth is not compatible with the propositions of liberalism.
If there is no truth one is left with power. This is the natural order. Physical reality is energy and energy is power. The power to work is the energy to impact or impose one’s energy needs onto other sources of energy. Power is the ability to exploit other sources of power.
Liberals may try to administrate this exploitation, which gives us law but in the end it is the power to access and dominate other sources of power that makes law work. The power of the English is their power to one way or another access the energy represented by other peoples and institutions. But this rule of law though more orderly and regulated than the law of the jungle manifested as a survival of the fittest, still retains the features of the more primitive competition.
The law creating authority has to be paid. This creates costs for the subjects of the state. The cost is artificial created by the system. Power is meaningless unless if gains control of assets. Assets are forms of energy that the establishment needs to retain power. Assets are like the fuel a combustion engine needs to operate.
However, the control ethical systems have is tied to the control they have over assets. The state cannot govern what it cannot control and it cannot control what it cannot have access to. All subjects are subjected to the state because through its control of the identity of its subjects the state controls access to the assets tacitly owned by the subjects. The state exists as a liability of the subject, a liability that it manifested as taxation and expropriation when needed not to mention its legal authority over the actions of the subject and his or her assets.
It is reasonable then to see sin as an excess. If interpreted in monetary terms sin would be a love of money or a grasping after things of this world, i.e., assets. In contradistinction, the alternative is ascetism. Logic takes things down to their fundamentals. Logic is true because it corresponds with Occam’s Razor and the elimination of all superfluity.
As truth seekers we have to reduce waste. We are hypocrites if we claim to believe truth exists and live a life of indulgence and waste. In short, we must live logically.
There is only one way of living, only one culture and perspective that can be verified and legitimized. But how do we weed out all the pretenders and false beliefs? There is only one way. It is called The Golden Rule and it gives us the foundation for equality and truth. We must each do for others what we need and want others to do for us. The Golden Rule is a positive injunction, it presents a positive right, a thing we ought to do for others. The Golden Rule is an absolute, a Categorical injunction or 1st Order Principle. The Golden Rule begins with the ‘Do’ injunction. We must each reduce our footprint in a way that creates value for the other, not costs. We do not get to dictate our value or the value we create to others.
We own only what we create. That is, we can claim the value only of the portion we produced, we cannot claim what was created by others.
We cannot claim value created by others is the negative expression of The Golden Rule. Accountability has a positive and negative version. We must create value and we cannot create costs or claim value created by others. These injunctions create equality and eliminate freeloading. If no one can claim what we produced, and we cannot claim what they produced, we are equal. This is called Equality of Accountability. We are all equally accountable for the costs we create, and no one has a right to externalize costs onto society and future generations.
If we implement The Golden Rule we will eliminate inequality, war, taxation, sjw’s, debt, inflation, pollution, unemployment, social agendas, Progressivism, parasitism, freeloading, liberalism, capitalism, communism, socialism, the state, globalism, injustice, public and private ownership, and the false reality of the culture relativists.