COMPASS OF TRUTH
Facts That Converge
We will see how far we are able to reach certainty.
We will also measure the degree of probability.
So that we don’t become obsessed with seeking certainty for a lifetime, yet our steps go in circles - trapped in branches rather than toward the root truth.
ROOT TRUTH & BRANCH TRUTH
There are cause-and-effect truths that are relative with many branches. Like choosing food that is tasty and nutritious. Or determining what is suitable, which is subjective. These are so numerous because they represent branch truths that are diverse.
Not to mention other mysteries throughout the world where not all of them can have their direction of truth determined, because there are so many of them.
So we limit ourselves to basic truths. Sufficient truth to form belief, so that the rest is taken on faith.
For example, someone tests a restaurant with standardized eligibility criteria, then after obtaining a certificate, this certificate can be used to ensure the restaurant’s eligibility without us having to check what we’re going to eat in a laboratory first.
The certificate is like root truth, and our trust is like root truth.
Or rationally speaking, root truth is like argumentative truth, then the reality is lived based on trust.
Or like involving truths that are certain or truths whose probability consistency has been tested, then the rest of the probability value is merely acknowledged without further testing.
THIS IS FOR TIME EFFICIENCY
DEGREE OF TRUSTWORTHINESS
So how do we measure the degree of trustworthiness when there is no rational argumentation except limited probability evidence?
If a truth has been consistent beyond a general human lifetime (for example, exceeding 100 years), then it is worth considering.
Some object that research results can change in the future, so how can it be trusted? This is absurd because the measure of trust is not in the unrealistic future, but rather how far it has been tested over time that is relevant to human lifespan or its multiples. Unless your age is 1000 years.
As long as it’s consistent throughout a human lifetime, that’s sufficient to be acknowledged. Especially if the consistency of its truth endures twice the average human lifespan (2 x 100 years or more).
SCOPE OF CERTAINTY
If we are truly obsessed with ensuring truth comprehensively and totally, then consider how reasonable it is that this can happen / cannot happen.
DEFINITION
To understand something, we can understand it from the side of definition.
Suppose to seek the truth about “what is a book”? Then the definition of “book” must involve the meaning of other words.
💠 In simple language, to explain something must involve other meanings.
👉 You cannot explain “chair” is “chair”, that explains nothing at all.
➡️ Except it must involve other things like “chair” is a place (this is another object) used for “our body to sit” (this is another object).
PERFECT DEFINITION
MORE COMPLETELY, IF WE REALLY WANT TO ENSURE SIMPLE TRUTH, THEN It Must Be Compared With Everything That Exists.
📌 The definition of “lion is a carnivorous animal” or “lion is a wild animal” is still not enough.
➡️ It should become “lion is not a duck”, “lion is not a bicycle”, “lion is not a snake”
THE PERFECT DEFINITION IS, “SOMETHING IS NOT THIS & THAT AND NOT EVERYTHING IN DETAIL” That is the perfect definition.
FROM THIS IT CONFIRMS THAT TO ENSURE PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF SOMETHING, IT IS NECESSARY TO COMPARE IT AGAINST ALL OTHER THINGS THAT EXIST, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OBJECTS TO COMPARE.
🔥 So we can never ascertain all mysteries or even one small thing, because perfectly, it needs to be understood from various trillions of perspectives.
THAT’S WHY WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO GATHERING SUFFICIENT CERTAINTY. HOW SUFFICIENT❓
Those many branches are diverse relativities. The diversity of reality that is relatively numerous. To determine the direction is not by confirming all the branches, but by checking its sub-categories.
It’s like if there are many branches, then check the sub-categories then the earlier branches.
In simple language, we look at which direction it converges toward.
Example: we choose from millions of restaurants, by filtering only restaurants, and not involving vehicle repair shops which are different contexts.
Or if one category has thousands/millions of choices, then select from the top 10.
📌 The point is, look for which direction it converges toward. SO IF IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, THEN AT LEAST THE DIRECTION CONVERGES TOWARD A CERTAIN DIRECTION.
It’s like, we don’t know precisely where the exact location is, but with a compass, at least the direction converges toward a certain region.
THEN HOW DO WE CONVERGE THE SEARCH LIKE USING A COMPASS❓ Involve universal absolute truths, so that the extent of relative boundaries is limited by absolute fences that do not exceed limits that guide (converge) toward a certain direction.
SO UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY DOES INDEED EXIST, LIMITING THE RELATIVE, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN ALL MYSTERIES MUST BE ASCERTAINED.
SO THE BEST CAN BE ASCERTAINED, BUT IF IT’S DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN, AT LEAST ASCERTAIN WHICH DIRECTION IT CONVERGES TOWARD.
IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE, IF IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED THEN AT LEAST THE DIRECTION (CONVERGENCE) OF POSSIBILITY IS ASCERTAINED.