The concept that is viewed as truth is sometimes missing the ingredient of reason.

Source
Source

A fifth dimension is one of light; it must be visible during the negative cycle of light particles.

There is nothing that says what is true “now” will remain “true” indefinitely although all truths are relative to prior knowledge, no one can truthfully say that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted. So because of that we can say what is “true” today can only be validated by our current interpretation of prior knowledge. Had it been possible that all of our prior knowledge were rightfully interpreted than we would not have had to worry about errors that are not solvable?

Descartes famous quote is “I think therefore I am” Moore on the other hand suggested that what is wrong with philosophical skepticism is that it is inevitably trapped in a self - refuting paradox. He argued that the fact that some philosophers have called into question the existence of the earth proved that the existence of the earth cannot be denied.

If it can be proven that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted than Descartes would have been right about his observation as it relate to the existence of the earth. But the fact that it's not possible to prove that all prior knowledge have been rightfully interpreted leaves plenty room for errors.

This planet we call earth has many dimensions and so far human intelligence have only been able to access three. And from that aspect without knowing the “truth” about all the eleven dimensions how can we be sure without any reasonable doubt that Descartes proposition is without fault.

As long as a reason to doubt an answer exist, the answer cannot yet be considered the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thus, if scientists are able to prove that there are eleven dimensions than Descartes proposition may only be valid because we do not yet understand everything to know about the eleven dimensions that scientist prove to have discovered.

To accept a complete understanding of earth is to know everything that there is to know about the planet earth which would have included all the eleven dimensions we do not yet know anything about. It is only when we comprehend fully what goes on in those dimensions can we accept Descartes proposition as the whole truth nothing but the truth. By accepting Descartes proposition, this proves that we accept the answer to a question as the whole truth even when that question itself is base on pretenses that has no reflection of the truth.

Scientist argued that there could be as much as eleven dimensions among which may be six we know nothing about. And we have the nerve to say the fact that we question the existence of the earth proved that it cannot be denied. Well, this was said long before our times, and I'm sure if Descartes had live to witness the technologies we've developed for experimental purposes he would not have said what he said, because even if he did it would not have been an absolute truth.

As Tom stated, a writer on both hub pages and helium indicated that "There are probably eleven dimensions, but people tend to think of the world in only three."

In addition, it is a fact that many scientist have agreed that there are more than three dimensions. And it is because of that fact that Tom examples are as follow; “the fourth dimension that is within the grasp of common people is the dimension of time. For us to see something, it must have height, width, and depth, and it must exist presently".

"The trees that once stood where your house now stands have three of the dimensions, but lack the dimension of time. Likewise, the trees that will one day stand where your house now stands also lack the dimension of time".

"A fifth dimension is one of light; it must be visible during the negative cycle of light particles. If something has height, width, and depth, but those measurements are less than zero, we will not be able to see it. Eyes filter reality, as do all our senses."

I think we should have every reason to question the existence of the earth. For the simple fact that there is too much that we do not yet know about it. And the reason for not knowing these things is related to our misinterpretation of prior knowledge.

Some of our mathematical theories may not be that accurate our periodic table may be missing some important elements. E= mc2 may have fault in it because of the misinterpretation of prior knowledge. After all, if we were all that smart why it is then we haven't been able to figure out how the pyramid was built?

This article was published 17 months ago under the title - All truths are relative to prior knowledge.

More by this Author


Comments 6 comments

Mr. Happy profile image

Mr. Happy 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada

Very nice. I like your thinking. Or better say, I like that you're thinking. Not many people attempt that endeavour.

In respect to the different dimensions ... I don't think it is extremely relevant in our day to day life at the moment. Understanding depends on our perception ("Doors of Perception" is an interesting read). Therefore, we are limited in our understanding because our perception is limited. An ant perceives the world different than we do. I am not concerned in seeing the world from an ant's point of view though.

Therefore, I react to the world around me in relation to my perception of this world. If I was able to understand eleven dimension someone would put me in a mental institution anyway so, no point for now anyway to even battle with such thoughts.

Cheers!


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 5 years ago from New York, New York Author

Very nice -

I can't disagree with you on that. You can't accept what you do not yet understand but this is not to say the eleven dimensions is an idea that goes beyond the mind capability.

You should also remember that we only use a small fraction of the brain. IT could be that the reason for it has to do with the fact that we do not yet understand the eleven dimension phenomenon.

When graphic artist became expose to 3rd dimensional effects it also opens their mind to a whole new perspective. They started thinking how to design their pattern from a three dimensional point of view. AS you can see if you bring the technology to life the mind will master it.


conradofontanilla profile image

conradofontanilla 4 years ago from Philippines

Nice to have some fellows ruminating on such things as truth.

Kant, a philosopher, said there is a priori knowledge based on reasoning alone, and there is a posteriori knowledge which is based on experience.

The eleven dimensions that you mention appear to belong to a priori knowledge. If our knowledge were hinged on eleven dimensions that we still did not know about then we would not have any knowledge at all. Those eleven dimensions are doubtful.

Validity is not a test of truth but a test of mathematics.

Truth does not depend on what a philosopher or scientist say. A statement of fact is true if it is verifiable. Truth does not depend on whether it encompasses a whole but on the verifier of a statement. How is a fellow who looks like a man but does not have an arm and a leg to be considered? Is he a man? Truth is an affair between a statement or sentence or proposition or sentence and its verifier. A true statement is part of knowledge whether it had been discovered in the past (prior) or present. Newton's physical theory deals with three Euclidian dimensions; Einstein's general theory of relativity deals with four dimensions, three Euclidean and one Riemannian which is time.

Mathematics is different from science. Validity is the test of mathematics; truth is the test of science. Einstein's general theory of relativity was only couched in mathematics but his formulas represented physical concepts and relationships. His mathematical calculations were valid. But were they true? To answer this question, Einstein issued statements of fact derived from his mathematical calculations. For example, he said, the universe is expanding, that was verified by Edwin Hubble. He also said, light bends when it passes at the vicinity of a big body of mass, that was verified by Sir Arthur Eddington. Such verifications proved Einstein's theory couched in mathematical language.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 4 years ago from New York, New York Author

I'll settle for Conrad,

You've outlined a few concepts which I agree with totally in terms of what the truth is, but at the same time you through me a cuve ball with that statement below.

"Validity is not a test of truth, but a test of mathematics." If mathematics is the truth than can mathematic be validated? if mathematic must be validated to acquire trustfulness than validity is a test of truth.

"Mathematics is different from science. Validity is the test of mathematics; truth is the test of science." Without mathematic there's no science. We evaluate the truth using mathematical formulas, we look for falsifiability criterion to justify our theories as being scientific. I can only see it that way, perhaps you can explain better. Thanks for your thoughts.


conradofontanilla profile image

conradofontanilla 4 years ago from Philippines

I can conduct a scientific research without using mathematics.

Results of research can be transformed into symbols or mathematics that are manipulated. But these symbols and mathematics must represent physical entities and relationships. In chess, the concepts (king, queen, etc.) do not represent physical realities. The rules on how they move (relationships) do not represent physical realities either. But the game is valid. Chess is like mathematics. Maxwell transformed Faraday's research results in electricity into mathematical symbols; substituted some symbols for others and came up with a prediction based on the new combination of symbols. His prediction: Electricity produced in one place can be transmitted to another place through space. Hertz verified this. The propagated physical realities are electromagnetic waves. I have a Hub "How mathematics helps science." You will find answers to your questions there.

I like your interest in this kind of topic. Just take care that your definitions do not overlap and stick to them, like mathematics. I also have several Hubs on theory-making.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 4 years ago from New York, New York Author

Conrad,

I will check your hub once I'm done with school work. It seems difficult to conduct a scientific research without using mathematics, but nevertheless its possible. However, if results of research can be transformed into symbols or a chemical reaction than we have to conclude that the mathematic is there we just haven't noticed it. Had we new that a certain reaction gives off a mathematical result than we might of consider adjusting our reaction to get the result we want. Mathematical results can always be manipulated if by adding, subtract or remove one component would produce either an amplified response or a refractory one. I think we learn that from the physic class right?

In the example of Faraday's research on electricity the mathematic was already there. All that Maxwell did was finding a way to communicate Faraday's finding using mathematical interpretation. The mathematic is the prior knowledge, the computation Maxwell developed by combining symbols was already based on mathematical formulas. Thus, the fact that Maxwell came up with a prediction based on the new combination of symbols does not imply that this combination of symbols were not based on computation.

For example let us take Albert Einstein Theory of Relativity E = mc2 where C= light is squared what if at a later time someone else discovered that C - light should have been to the fifth power could we say that the mathematical equation E= mc2 is incorrect, if when placing C to the fifth power we discover better result in our research or perhaps it doesn't matter.

I think it is safer to say that scientific discoveries from the beginning has from its cor principles mathematical interpretation which are not often noticeable. Thus, it is only when these mathematical interpretations are realized can we manipulate our results to produce different affects.

Thanks for your thoughts and I'll surly check your theories which I can be most certain has mathematical interpretations.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working