A rambling question of how you determine truth, information, etc?

Not sure if I worded that correctly, or if this is even the "correct" spot to ask. At some point, I began growing out of religion, and one day it just hit me like a ton of bricks (which I'd credit toward my hyperfixating on history, archeology, philosophy, science, and the like). I became more aware of how I'd clung on to parts of religion (a wildly easy thing to manipulate) that feed the very human desire for peace and love, same as I see the world do in different forms and flavors, but nonetheless...

Please excuse me for stating the obvious: the information we have, what we know, what we're told growing up, and all of the above, it's directly humans impacting humans. So, that for me draws a thick line in the sand: what we know is from people just as messed up as you and me, no matter what. I do not believe in some divine human.

To jump a bit, knowing of many religions and different sectors, I piece things together and only feel more lost. For example, a random example, in Numbers 2:9, if I recall correctly, it states the number of members in the tribe of light positioned toward the light is 186,400, which is close enough to the speed of light. I didn't think anyone else realized this, but I looked I view the bible symbolically, and feel it all paints a message of meditation, with death and resurrection in all religions symbolizing the winter solstice and fertility being a main cause of concern as well. So, knowing this, I wonder, as anyone would: how did they know this? Who wrote this? A website I enjoy gathering information from, "badnewsaboutchristianity", helps with uncovering answers to questions like that, but even then, I'm left wandering/wondering inside. Another helpful resource of mine is Bill Donahue's "lectures", if you will.

Is the consciousness we are aware of something attained through evolution, as impossible of a question that is? Do you meditate, and are you aware of how it affects the pineal? Is there anything to any of it? It feels like any knowledge is chasing my tail, as truth truly is subjective, and my mind is an echo chamber. I'd love to just hear what anyone has to say or what they gathered from this ramble, thank you.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

what we know is from people just as messed up as you and me

Information is anything that reduces uncertainty - anything else is noise e.g. I’m wearing green shoes today - but you weren’t wondering about my shoes, so that’s just noise.

The best way to reduce our uncertainty is to ask the universe questions - and the best way to do that is the scientific method.

Two advantages are that the method tells us how much confidence we can have in the answer, and that all other people can check how we arrived at the answer ( the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba (take nobody's word for it)

perlowkey · 22-25, FNew

@newjaninev2 i’ve never heard of that, thank you! very interesting. i suppose, if im being honest, i don’t feel i have a soul to talk to any of this about. there’s a childlike part of me that feels this way, at least, considering being in the bible belt. i’ve grasped at straws to find connecting dots, but then come to find i very well made the dots connect, as another commenter pointed.

SomeMichGuy · M

@perlowkey Aristotle came up with the outline of the scientific method long ago.

The real meat of it is that science is based upon measurements which are repeatable; to that end, real experiments typically discuss or refer to

• WHY a measurement is desirable (a theoretical basis for what is desired, and perhaps a review of other measurements to date);
• WHICH quantities were measured;
• HOW they were measured (procedure, equipment, etc.);
• WHAT the measured raw data is;
• HOW the raw data was processed to turn it into the desired measurements (if there is a need to do so; "data analysis");
• WHAT error is associated with the measurements / processed values ("error analysis");
• final RESULTS (final data + errors) and DISCUSSION of what they mean, including comparison with theoretical/predicted values, other measurements, how the error might be reduced (if applicable), etc.

That set of things is what one can find in a a journal article which tells the scientific community about an experimental result (as opposed to a theoretical article).