Put simply keep the objective view wich is evidential seperate from the fanatic unfalsifiable when playing the game in such a way that you do not come to the conclusion that you are in real danger based on unfalsifiable claims you created within your mind.
That is psychosis and depending on your reaction, may lead to you being hospitalised for your own safety and the safety of others. I'm not kidding.
Play this game rationally or you'll be forced to face consequences of loosing touch with reality and while it isn't difficult to reattain a sense of reality by basing it off objective principles of observance, unfalsifiable things are tricky and ever uncertain.
Thus if something does seem real, wait for actual evidence, coincedence is difficult to proove causally without direct visibility. Unfalsifiable claims while useful and potentially alternative in nature should not be considered evidential based solely on a missing link without direct suggestion.
Thus it's important to distinguish the objects in play and their kinds and cases. I am aware of this natural problem simply because during my experiments figuring out how to make this game,I lost touch with reality and presumed a contradictory state of anything. Initially without reason, then with reason that was still unfalsifiable and finally with the addition of objectivity but continued certainty of all unfalsifiability.
These three versions are dangerous for the same reason, they presume all things absolute without question and create an absurd circumstance. That any reality is true and formed a disorganized mess. Therefore, do not presume any reality true unless you want a total loss of reality without cohesive structure.
my previous blogs ( which can be accessed through my account name ) are what happens when a person is at loss with reality and unable to simplify the ideas to one falsifiability and a reality of unfasifiability. That mess was equivalent to exploring virtually anything, when it's wiser to live somewhere in the moderation of it.
Play it rationally first, rather then unfalsifiably first.
The question is how to distinguish the two as sometimes the lines between them seemed blurred due to unfalsifiable claims permitting objective things. For example a soccer ball game is objective but the proposed ruleset of the game is completely unfalsifiable, theirs no way to conclusively proove that a soccer ball into a net is worth one point or two ( I don't even know, because it really depends on the rules of the game )
The best way to understand objectivity is to consider only what has been observed directly to be objective and I sever the line at photos of small or large things with inclusion of electron microscopes due to them creating the semi accurate shape of an atom's orbitals across time and still but past time only images of macrocosmic outer space. What neither show is the shape of the atoms component parts ( the electron itself nor the protons, neutrons and any other subatomic particle. ) Whether this will be made possible at some point is outside the realm of this discussion. Therefore anything not observed directly is not objective and can only be called an unproven theory.
Anything unprooven is fana and both are at the core of this virtual reality like game of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment