The Final Truth

A Theory of Practice

The Thirteen Intentions of Creation

Theories play a very important role in our lives by helping us make sense of the world through accurate models of reality. A theory is primarily concerned with finding answers that can increase our knowledge about the universe, answers that do not necessarily have practical consequences. If scientific theories were elaborated just for immediate and practical purposes, a lot of them would not even exist today. Having knowledge is priceless, but doing something with it is just a matter of paying the right price.

Problems have to be completely understood before they can be solved efficiently. For this reason, a theoretical research can be carried out for a long time without achieving concrete results, since scientists cannot risk their reputation by submitting incomplete theories to million-dollar experiments. Anyway, no theory is beyond practical applications and thus should only be contemplated as a work of art. The problem is that making a theory yield practical results requires as much work as ellaborating the theory itself. A classical example regarding this dilemma is the stereotype of the mad university professor that daydreams about fantastic theories yet fails to impress the upper management due to lack of concrete results in his research. Well, suppose that the management decided to cut off research funds, but if only they had waited a few more days, the professor could have made a major breakthrough and changed the world.

There is a strong relationship between the possible applications of a theory and how valuable and effective that theory is. If a theory can be proven to be consistent with observations after rigorous testing and experimentation, it becomes a valuable tool for predicting master phenomena. The relevance and specificity of those predictions will determine how potentially useful the theory is. Such view / approach is known as instrumentalism. In this highly pragmatic view, theories are considered mere instruments that one can use to gain control over the processes of reality; it does not matter if the theory also satisfies philosophical aspirations of achieving the highest truth.

Any scientist with a philosophical inkling knows that although each new theory is better and may last longer than the last, the only thing that remains constant inside him is the primal instinct to find the truth. The search for the absolute truth has always been the motivation behind philosophical inquiry. Some of the greatest ancient philosophers had this ambition in abundance, and that is mainly why they are set apart from other less-known thinkers. But the active search for the ideal truth was halted with the advent of the pragmatic view, which sees practice itself as the truth. The pragmatist is only concerned with the difference that a theory will make in his world and reality; that is, it makes no sense for him to look for a truth that is completely independent of his reality. To put it simply, the pragmatist understands that that which is valid and true is that which is real (factual) or has the possibility of becoming real through action in the physical world. (Note: the physical world is really the practical world.)

What happened next is that the pragmatic conception together with religious dogmatism have played a strong role in discouraging people from seeking the truth by themselves. It turned out that pragmatism was not only an ideological movement defended by a few philosophers, but an entirely new way of thinking that grew to affect social philosophy as well. Also, in many ways pragmatism has helped to establish grounds for materialism. The result is that the truth has become something that people like to take for granted, because it is handed down to them by institutions. People are no longer supposed to look beyond the "facts" of life for answers, because the truth for them is that which is laid upon their eyes: the physical world -- they are entitled to take action upon it or shut up.

What pragmatists seem to ignore is that there is a reflexive relationship as well as a two-way communication between theory and practice. Theory is not supposed to feed practice eternally, because the inverse must happen sometimes. While practice already includes the act of elaborating a theory, a theory can change our outlook on reality and thus even determine what we consider practical. Theoretical knowledge can contribute to the efficiency of practical action, whereas practical action can bring to our awareness facts that complement and refine our knowledge.

Unfortunately, the supposition that theory and practice are essential to each other seems to be more true in theory than in practice, because that is not what has seeped into the public consciousness: The common view is that theory and practice are separate entities that do not go along with each other. While theoretical behavior relies on careful planning and attention to principles and details, practical behavior has been associated to action without thinking and with focus solely on "getting things done" at all costs. In other words, people reject thinking as too impractical and time-consuming even when a lack of it may very well prove disastrous.¹

________________________
¹ Take Note of Something Different. 23 April 2008 < http://www.take-note.com/session24.htm >.

1.2 Theory of practice

Practice, or praxis, usually refers to a life situation in which taking action is the only real challenge. An action can be said to be practical to the extent that it dispenses with the need for lengthy theoretical considerations, because the only motivation for it is the very necessity for deliberate and spontaneous action, such as when there is a need for immediate results.

Still, there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to the notion of practice, because any kind of behavior can be aimed at obtaining practical results. We must therefore make an important distinction: a practical approach is not the same as giving importance to any kind of activity, because it would be irrelevant to do so considering that there is no such thing as a complete state of inactivity in the universe. Physics, for example, predicts that all atoms are in a state of constant energetic fluctuation even when temperature drops infinitely toward reaching absolute zero.¹ Therefore, we must consider that some degree of activity is present even when there is an appearance of rest or inaction.

Without activity there is no circulation of energy, and thus there is not a circuit, a closed system in which energy is contained. Without a containment system there can be no energy present at all, because energy is not an entity in and of itself -- there is no such thing as formless energy. We know that energy (work) is required to bring things into reality, but there is much more to it: we will learn in this book how energy is an universal variable that brings the entire existence into reality. Consequently, without energy it would be no longer possible for a physical reality to exist, which means that existence would become insubstantial and probably very boring.

It is important that we establish a common denominator for reality as this term is quite relative. In other words, we need to be talking about a reality that everyone can agree and identify with. We may start from the principle that reality is better defined as the baseline for those sensations that feel more intense than others (i.e., that hook our perception better). Well, it is obvious that the only type of reality that feels sufficiently intense for most people is the physical one, which they all share to a certain degree. Therefore, physical reality is the perfect candidate to be the common denominator for the term reality.

Now, since there is no true state of inactivity that could characterize a lack of action, people become open to the values of their culture and society when it comes to deciding what activities and courses of action are valid (useful). Behind the "do something" provocation that people commonly throw at each other there is always a hint of "do as I do" and/or "do what is considered valid by our society." The only possible common-sense exception to this rule is that it really does not make sense to possess an instrument such as the human body and never use it. Anyway, whether it is in accordance to cultural values or ingrained common sense, practical action is really just action seen as useful.

Despite being neglected by most people, there is an important aspect of life that requires us to figure things out first before we get ourselves fully involved with them. Practice must be based on theory as much as theory must be realized in practice. But because of the external judgement imposed by society on the individual, people often walk into situations only for the sake of displaying action. This, of course, can be very dangerous, since no course of action is free of risks. To jump into a situation without a proper understanding and assessment of risks is tantamount to enter a war zone unarmed: remarkable, but stupid. Doing just for the sake of doing and not understanding why it is necessary to perform an action is what characterizes an ingenuous practical approach.

Practice may have degenerated into those activities composing one's social duty or role, but it is still a central aspect of life. In fact, practice focus on what is essential to human life: survival. By mastering practice, the art of survival, we can master reality. That is why it is necessary that we develop a theory of practice, which is a theory on which we can base our life's practice. Any theory that is not of practice is still not realized in what we do and how we live; it is still removed from our reality and will ultimately fail to provide us with real answers.

A theory of practice is in many ways a theory of Reality, the ultimate reality, and not a theory based on what we believe or expect reality to be. A theory of practice is really the unification of theory and practice in a wider frame of reference that provides us with an understanding of the true nature of reality. In addition, a theory of Reality is no ordinary theory if we expect it to always work: Reality is ruthless and never fails to work regardless whether people like It or not, and so should a theory about It. For this reason, a theory of practice must for a change provide us with some final answers if it has any business explaining Reality to us.

________________________
¹ Even when temperature approaches the hypothetical absolute zero until it is practically there, atomic motion (energy) is still expected to exist according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Like the mortals who develop them, theories do not have an infinite life. Scientists can only hope to learn as much from a theory for as long as possible. It is just a matter of time until circumstances change and a theory's ability to support new discoveries begins to fail. In other words, all theories lose their value sooner or later. But let us try to be more reasonable here: it is never only a matter of failure vs. success. Some theories are more persistent than others, and not all of them have to be rewritten from scratch every time that something goes wrong. The bottom line is simply that we can never be sure about the continued success of a theory without actually testing it for an eternity.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. (Stephen Hawking)

If we can never prove a theory to be the ultimate one, then looking for one that escapes this rule must be an act of faith. Science does not require faith from anyone, but it is just natural that a technological world, for example, will have high hopes on the physical sciences. The ironic thing is that having faith in science is actually the same as people having faith in themselves, because science is nothing more than the result of a collective effort to understand the universe rationally. Science works at the level of the collective consciousness, or consensus reality, a level where everyone can relate with without getting into conflict about how the reality of the universe works.

On the other hand, faith in the context of scientific inquiry is irrelevant because science seeks certainty, a state of mind that excludes the need for faith. Still, the degree of confidence that people have in a theory plays an important role in determining its success. As the confidence in a theory grows, the theory grows as well, because more people start using and supporting it. The difference is that having confidence is not unjustified or without basis like having pure belief or faith. The only problem with confidence, or any other positive attitude for that matter, is that nothing can replace scientific certainty. In science, to have certainty is to have the ability of being able to predict.

The fact that theories eventually fail is considered one of the greatest strengths of science, because there is no way to achieve more reliable conclusions without it. In other words, science sees its own limitations as the factor that promotes its constant development. However, scientific development is not cumulative (Kuhn 96). Instead, we see a succession of revolutions (paradigm shifts) where newer scientific models replace older models almost completely. Every time that a new paradigm arises, science has no other choice than to disregard a good part of its current work. Real and continuous progress is only found in the natural evolution of human consciousness, the same process that generates new paradigms that force science to readapt itself.

But let us assume that there is progress behind science after all. With this in mind, we can ask ourselves the following: how long until there is enough improvement? Do we even know exactly where we are going? That is, we cannot afford having no destiny in sight while certain problems continue to plague humanity. It is not prudent to stay in a slow path of evolution when we have a real possibility of getting the process over with at once. Instead of asking the same questions over and over again, we should ask ourselves about the reason why we keep making questions.

To resolve this uncertain fate and finally put science in a path of steady progress, we need a theory that does not have limitations, a theory that is not susceptible to failure. It is indeed counterintuitive to even conceive such theory as being scientific, and it is probably not even a good idea to call it a theory. Therefore, consider that we are not talking about any theory; we are talking about a final theory. The list below shows the requirements of a final theory should it ever arise.

• Must be able to adapt itself to any situation.
• Must predict and cover every possibility.
• Must explain everything.

Theories, as models, are not reality; models are built on top of reality. For this reason, no scientific / physical theory can be final because they are all superficial; they cannot give us deeper understanding. We either know how things really are or we hold tight to an elaborate hunch that we consider sufficiently accurate. Well, just as all scientific theories tend to fail, a gap in our understanding eventually becomes our downfall. A final theory, on the other hand, could provide us with an understanding so accurate that there would be almost no difference between theory and practice, knowledge and action, or model and reality. The "gap," if existent, would be too insignificant to ever force us to abandon the theory completely.

Realistically speaking, it is impossible for a theory to predict or explain everything directly, but a final theory could at least offer us a starting point for such task, with the rest becoming only a matter of derivation. In other words, a final theory is not the end of knowledge and the desire to learn, but instead it is the final excitement needed for the acquisition of all remaining knowledge. Why not learn the basics first and then have fun experimenting with your fundamental knowledge for the rest of eternity? It is possible to enjoy a continued learning process just as much as the fact that you have already learned the essential.

Whether a final theory explains everything or not is not even the most important requirement. Above all, a final theory should put an end to the most bugging philosophical, scientific and religious questions, so that there would be little left in people's minds besides a raw desire for action based on an understanding of how Reality works. In other words, with a final theory there would exist no more doubts to prevent people from assuming a fully powered practical approach to solve their problems. Instead of continuing to learn by mistakes, people would be able to skip the possibility for error completely and instead go directly to that which is guaranteed to work. Instead of contemplating or ignoring the Truth, people would put It into practice.

It is even more important that people can achieve peace of mind. As researcher Ian Xel Lungold put it, the stability of our peace of mind is directly related to our degree of certainty. With this in mind, a final theorhy is simply a theory that can provide us with the highest degree of certainty. In this manner a final theory serves as the ultimate scientific theory, the ultimate religion and also the ultimate philosophy. It's only a matter of how much it can be developed toward each of these three directions.

Anyway, it is true that theoretical knowledge will never replace direct experience of the Truth, and so even a final theory is still an interpretation, not an awareness. A person needs to internalize the experience of what is true, and not only contempate it from an external perspective. Therefore, we must be aware we never reach an end to our knowledge, but this does not mean that we can reach a virtual / theoretical end to our knowledge if wework to simplify your knowledge instead of accumulating more redundant information that do not fit together. The next section will show how this is possible.

Scientists know that laws that apply only to a limited range of phenomena are but minor expressions of fundamental laws that apply to the whole universe. Furthermore, when researchers are sorting information about a certain field of knowledge, they invariably notice a small number of root concepts, perhaps only one, from which all other concepts stem from. In Biology, for example, there are hierarchical models describing the various levels on which life is structured, such as those involving life forms and their evolution from common ancestors. In short, what these examples show us is that there is a fundamental hierarchy present in every organization found in the universe.

In face of the universal principle of hierarchy, what any field of knowledge really tries to do is integrate information around a point of reference. In this context, a point of reference is some kind of primary (central) knowledge that justifies the very existence of all secondary (peripheral) knowledge. If you can achieve a point of reference in your knowledge, achieving the rest will become just a matter of derivation. This means that only a very small subset of all knowledge is actually useful, while the rest only becomes useful when supported by that subset. Many times we fail to understand aspects of the world because we lack a point of reference acting as the support for our knowledge.

Let us make an analogy: Consider a tiny circle surrounded by several scattered fragments of bigger circles. The tiny circle represents our point of reference. Also, consider that there are many paths leading to the tiny circle, but none of them is free of the clutter caused by the fragments.

The fragments represent fragmented information and distorted knowledge, while the tiny circle represents complete information and perfect knowledge, although the latter is in a relatively small quantity. We can try to put all fragments back together to form perfect circles again, but such task is clearly out of hand: it is the same as using scrap metal parts to build a spaceship. Alternatively, we can just force our way through the fragments and reach directly for the tiny circle. Once in the center, we can project and expand the tiny circle outwards so that it will serve as a mold or support for the reconstruction of the bigger circles from their fragments.

Does this analogy mean that we should ignore all available information and just go directly after the most fundamental knowledge? No, but if you do not address the core of the problem first, all other information will remain peripheral and meaningless. Information needs context in order to make sense, and a context by definition carries a hierarchical structure. Therefore, if we can understand the root of the hierarchy, all information inside the context will fall into perspective. This is how it might be preferable to have a little fundamental knowledge instead of a lot of peripheral knowledge. To acquire knowledge based only on quantity is to have many pieces that do not fit together. One may not hold all the pieces, but at least he already possess the most important ones.

In order to have a point of reference, we need one or more concepts that are absolute. We cannot achieve unified understanding without absolutes. Absolutes simply are, everything else is an illusion. There is no real reason for the existence of an absolute. We do not question an absolute; we just accept it. Questioning an absolute is a sign of denial (non-acceptance) of our part, although we are not forbidden from trying to understand it. The theme of absolute concepts is going to be very important in this book. We will eventually define some of them, but they are mostly open to personal interpretation.

We have discussed in earlier sections how something like a final theory may be possible for us to achieve. In this section we will merely exercise one possible way of reaching such theory. Indeed, there are many ways, but only one theory may appear in the end, because a final theory should have no contestants if it really deserves to be called final.

It all begins with us addressing the logical part of the problem. The most logical conclusion that we have as rational beings is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of something beyond. Those who glorify nonexistence are still giving credit to something that lies beyond their immediate perception, which, by the way, is one of existence. In other words, faith in a higher concept of existence is present in all levels of intelligence.

No complex logic is necessary for us to conclude that everything that exists or will ever exist is part of a great whole. It does not matter: whatever you can imagine, or not imagine, will be part of this Whole. There is only the Whole. Even if there was something outside of or detached from everything, we can still rise our perspective even more and again see uncorrupted wholeness. Therefore, we can accept as inalienable truth that, for an infinite number of greater perspectives, the Whole is continuously reaffirmed as a recursive totality, an overall existence that keeps engulfing / encompassing everything. To this overall existence we give the name of Creation (All That Is).

Although Creation is all-inclusive, we still cannot say that Creation is everything. At the same time that Creation already is everything, It is also much more, going even beyond the mere notion of "isness" (i.e, what is and what is not). The main reason for this is because Creation is an absolute concept. We have already seen examples of absolute concepts: the Whole, Reality, etc. What the Whole and other absolute concepts have in common is that there is never really an objective limit for what they represent, and no amount of explanation can convey what it means for them to be absolute. That is why even giving Creation a name is ridiculous: whatever Creation really is, is beyond the name Creation. In reality, we are talking about a certain Absolute that transcends all denominations.

The Tao [absolute] that can be named, expressed or defined is not the eternal Tao [the Absolute]. Even the finest name is insufficient to define It. (Lao Tzu in Tao Te Ching ¹)

Nobody is really sure of how to define the Absolute properly, but we know due to an overwhelming intuitive force that it has an infinite, perfect and perpetual nature. Organized religions tap into this latent knowledge present in everyone and try to spin it along a certain line of interpretations. What religion does not realize is that any ideas about the unlimited will still be unbelievably limited. Generally, what is left after all belief systems have been demistified is acceptance of the transcendental nature of the Absolute. Surprisingly enough, however, it is through this act of acceptance that better interpretation of the Absolute may come.

The natural urge to understand the Absolute is present in everyone, but it is initially dealt with in a very primitive way. Most people expect to find their point of reference in the form of an universal principle that is above all others. At first, they never try to determine a fixed set of principles -- just one. They end learning the hard way: all their favorite principles fail to maintain their status as such, because it would be a great shame to the Absolute if It was restricted to a single interpretation. On the following paragraphs we will see examples of how these primitive conceptions arise and then turn out as dead ends.

As they look further for an universal truth, people become fascinated with certain life philosophies up to the point that they forget or ignore anything that may be discordant with their views. But philosophy is not the least bit concerned with finding answers that can put an end to the search for truth: an attitude consistent with reality, because in practice there are always new questions arising that force people to adopt new paradigms. Humans are naive by nature, and thus it is easy for them to consider every new paradigm as definitive. This process repeats itself for a long time until the person starts wondering if the final truth is of a complex nature and thus beyond a single answer. This is a major breakthrough, because suddenly it becomes important that the person increases her knowledge by getting to know as many points of view as possible.

A new kind of conclusion tends to arise when the person reaches an intellectual dead end after many failed attempts at trying to comprehend the Absolute. They are usually very relativistic and/or extremist conclusions, such as that the universe is infinitely complex, or that there is as many universal principles as people can come up with. The problem with these conclusions is that they hide a state of fascination with infinity. It is not far-fetched to think that there is an infinite number of ways to view the universe, but such "non-approach" defeats our purpose of trying to find universal principles (i.e., that are true regardless of what anyone thinks). It would be impossible for us to ever become acquainted with an infinite number of principles, and we would never fully move from theory to practice.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of infinity, but when worshiped in isolation it is mistakenly taken as a limit, a fixed ideal. Infinity cannot be taken as a limit because it is already defined as being greater than any limit. Infinity only gives the illusion that it can be sought as an ideal, because, in reality, it is always more than what it appears to be. Consequently, being infatuated with infinity alone is dangerous and can keep someone inside a path with no real destination in sight.

The Greeks saw the idea of infinity as being absurd and chaotic. Indeed, infinity is often employed as a supplementary word for uncertainty about certain quantities in the universe. There is, for example, an exact amount of particles in the universe just as there must be a certain amount of distance, a certain shape and size, and a certain amount of mass for everything. There is enough evidence for us to believe in Absolutea finite universe; otherwise, we are left with irrational conclusions such as infinity, conclusions that in reality provide us with no answers at all.

As we continue with our search for universal truth, we eventually come to the next obvious indication: the Absolute has no specific smell, color, form or name, and all attempts to define It are in vain. It seems that the Absolute is always beyond anything that can be said about It, perhaps because our fixation with trying to define It is what prevents us from understanding It. As usual, people often jump into the conclusion that the Absolute is completely void of definition, and they start to believe that the Absolute is tantamount to nothingness. Well, this is a major breakthrough in the understanding of the Absolute, because something that does not exist is certainly beyond any rational definition.

Zero, a concrete representation (symbol) for nothingness, is different from other numbers to the extent that it cannot be canceled as when we subtract a number from itself, because zero is already its own additive inverse: 0 = 0. Also, zero is always present before and after operands and signals in an equation, as well as before and after decimal places in a number (e.g., 001.000 = 01.0 = 1). All of this makes of zero an omnipresent abstract concept in mathematics, a concept that accurately reflects the absoluteness of the Absolute.

Zero could very well be the answer that we are looking for if it was not for a major flaw: by pointing a finger to zero and isolating it as a concept, we are still creating a duality composed of zero and its absence: non-zero. For instance, if we name an unknown object as "greel," then we automatically create an opposite composed of whatever is not greel by being outside / beyond greel. Therefore, the presence of non-zero makes of zero an unworthy definition for the Absolute, because nothing can have an exclusive existence outside something that is supposed to be all-inclusive.

Nonetheless, if our chosen principle was really nothingness (zero), it can only mean that we have not found a principle yet. Unlike in the real world where there is no such a thing as a perfect nothing (e.g., perfect vacuum in space), the word nothing in the strict sense really means absolute nonexistence. Therefore, an ideology based on nothingness / zero should also acknowledge that no universal principle can exist, and this creates a functional contradiction that renders zero unusable as something to be sustained ideologically. In one hand proponents of this ideology are following a principle after all, while in the other they believe no such principle should exist. Well, such contradiction is in fact just another dead end resulting from people's fascination with extremes.

Common sense naively defines nothing as the "absence of thing." Absence, however, is still a state, while nothingness is not supposed to be a state, nor a state that is not a state, nor a state that is not a state that is not a state, and so on ad infinitum. The fact that the word nothing exists is proof that we cannot address a "no-thing" if we do not treat it as "some-thing." In sum, there is no way to talk about nothing without falling in contradiction, and if we consider that we have been talking about it in the last few paragraphs, including this one, then we cannot even be sure of our own assertions! This leads us to conclude that thinking or talking about nothing is completely irrelevant and a distraction from more important (useful) issues.

Apart from being conceptual numbers, infinity and zero are also abstract concepts that ultimately equate to each other, because when exclusively sought as ideals they both lead nowhere. In many ways, going nowhere is the same as never leaving the place. People will be deceiving themselves by walking in circles exactly how a dog chases its own tail; they will be always looking for something, and yet never being able to find it. Seeking infinity is a task that never comes to fruition, and seeking zero is an absurd, because you cannot approach or avoid something that is simply not there. The only difference between infinity and zero is that those who seek infinity do not even know that they are walking in circles, because infinity is a masked zero.

It is obvious why infinity and zero have failed to give us a satisfactory understanding about the Absolute: they are irrational concepts, and what cannot be understood by reason alone cannot be properly defined. Therefore, we still cannot say anything about the Absolute except that it is not restricted to zero, infinity and any other singular and extreme notion for that matter. As we hinted before, people jump from principle to principle and never settle down for the possibility that a finite number of principles, perhaps even including zero and infinity, could be working together to embody the Absolute. Indeed, as we will see in the next chapter, a fixed number of principles, and not just one, is the best possible guess that someone can have about the Absolute.

________________________
¹ Adapted from translations by Western scholars who have interpreted this classical Chinese work. The second sentence is credited to Stan Rosenthal's translation. 8 Dec 2009 <http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/ttcstan1.html >.

Copyright © 2008-2010 Conspiracy Knowledge Base

You are free to reproduce parts of this work as long as you give credit to the author. When copying parts of this work, make sure to always include a notice identifying the original title and author. You may also distribute this work as a whole as long as you do not add or remove anything from the original content. You may not mutilate the content, or leave off contact, copyright and authorship information. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.