DEV Community: Seremonia

EARLY REGRET - End Of Year Reflection

Seremonia — Wed, 24 Dec 2025 12:26:39 +0000

https://youtu.be/1eSV-x2Kjqo?si=pUosBMOSuiXFZX5u

It's Time to Play Agilely (Synergistically) With Patience, Under the Control of Self-Reliance Without Blaming Anyone to Break Through Dualism & Realize That We Can Apply "Regret Comes First"

Is There Already Time for Us to Reflect on the Past & Future❓Or Does Your Regret Come Later❓

The question is, how is it possible to regret first rather than regret happening
later?

This is what's called realizing "out of the box"

When we are warned of the risk, but don't believe it, then after it's proven to happen and we face the consequences, we regret not following the advice from the beginning. A regret that comes too late.

So how can regret come first?

That is when we are not warned by anyone except ourselves who remind us of the risk through reflection, then become aware of the risk and prevent it from happening, then regret comes first and before the heavy incident because it was successfully prevented.

Regret that comes later is because there is sadness regretting the incident.

Whereas regret that comes first is from deep contemplative reflection that makes us sad.

In simpler terms... regret comes later after the problem occurs, whereas regret comes first after reflecting so intensely that we regret as if it had happened when it actually hasn't happened yet.

Like someone who dreams about a painful incident, then wakes up with sadness full of anxiety and regret, it turns out it was only in a dream, then it's used as reflection to be cautious in future behavior so that what was feared (regretted) at the beginning doesn't happen.

MYSTICISM & Intellectuality

Seremonia — Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:34:11 +0000

Some say ... the self is like a drop of water in the ocean. When it sees itself, it realizes, "I am a drop of water." But when it looks at the vast ocean, it realizes, "I am the ocean."

👉 But God is not the ocean because the ocean is within the reach of water, while God's Essence is beyond reach.

Some say ... when they see their small body, they realize, "I am human," and when they become aware that they are part of the universe, they say, "I am the universe."

👉 But God is not the universe because the universe is within the reach of the body, while God's Essence is beyond reach.

A person who embarks on a Sufi path, with an ego like ice shaped into a human, full of arrogance.

Then, as they engage in spiritual struggles (riya‌d‌ah), their ego diminishes (melts) to the extent that they see themselves as nothing but water everywhere. There is no longer ice (awareness of their ego), only water that stretches far beyond the reach of their melted ego. BUT THEY FORGET, THEY ARE NOT METICULOUS (cognitive bias - perception failure).

👉 But God is not water because water is within the reach of ice, while God's Essence is beyond reach.

This is what I repeatedly say here, that even mystics can misunderstand their own mystical experiences and then contextually convert their mystical experiences into intellectual language.

Logical Fallacy

AND PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF IT IS A PHILOSOPHER WHO EXPERIENCES A MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE. WHY?

Because, between any dimensions, be they hidden or whatever term is used, they are interconnected. One dimension has a broader perspective (encompassing) than a narrower one (not separate).

Therefore, there is no such thing as Shari'a contradicting Haqiqa (truth). Mysticism contradicting non-mysticism. Rather, it's just a different point of view.

Because of the different context (territory) that is broader, the perspective is also broader.

NOW THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TRANSLATE THEIR EXPERIENCES BECAUSE THE CONVERSION IS FROM A BROAD PERSPECTIVE TO AN INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE THAT HAS A NARROWER PERSPECTIVE, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE CONTEXTUAL CONVERSION.

Fallacy of Composition

If forced, it results in reducing their broad experience to narrow knowledge (logical error - fallacy of composition), which only causes more confusion.

Scale Reasoning

Those who experience mystical experiences have not yet been equipped with scale reasoning (understanding from a broad perspective - large scale, through a small perspective).

Reasoning about the universe or any dimension is understood through miniature examples - universal verses - small scale without reduction (without falling into logical fallacy). Atheists love to bring up the fallacy of composition against theists by saying, "You (theists) want to understand God, who is said to be INFINITELY GREAT AND BEYOND REACH, by studying His limited creation❓" This is called the fallacy of composition (reducing reality).

Atheists say, "It doesn't make sense to understand something on a large scale by understanding it on a small scale," it doesn't connect, it's not symmetrical, not congruent, not equivalent, wrong composition (wrongly making comparative compositions - fallacy of composition).

Quantum Physics

That was the past era❗️Classical physics.

In the contemporary era of physics - quantum physics, experts understand life, consciousness, or cosmic phenomena on a large scale by studying on a small scale (quantum scale) without falling into the fallacy of composition. Why do they accept this principle (scale reasoning - understanding the large scale through the small scale)❓

Because even though they reason using a small scale to understand the large scale, the small scale is CROSS-SCALE.

CROSS-SCALE

Cross-scale reasoning means that reasoning from any direction must involve absolute universal truth, so that even in the form of mathematical calculations and physics formulas, it can be used to understand the pattern of universal laws at work, even if it involves small dimensions (quantum).

THE DIFFICULTY OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING

It is challenging to find absolute universal truths (mathematical or non-mathematical axioms) because, as quantum physicists have begun to realize, there are obstacles such as cognitive biases.

An Overview of Cognitive Biases

This is not a logical error but a perceptual error that can also lead to logical errors. Philosophers who focus on logical errors tend to overlook perception, resulting in misperceptions that lead to conclusions that are illogical yet accepted. It's akin to watching a magic show, where logic is deceived by the illusion of a single glass of water becoming two, leading to incorrect conclusions.

FORMULATING TRUTH: The observer should learn the magician’s trick and then formulate it into an axiomatic statement:

After discovering that "a liquid was hidden," making it seem like "the small amount could multiply," there was actually an addition from a hidden source.
Then it's formulated as: "Something (a cup of water) cannot increase beyond itself (cannot become more than one cup) unless it receives an addition from outside itself (taken from a hidden place)."

"Something cannot increase beyond itself unless it receives an addition from outside itself."

This is the kind of formulation that can be used for cross-scale reasoning.

Here, we need to ensure that we do not fall into misperception by equipping ourselves with cross-scale knowledge.

What initially stems from observing something on a small scale (such as just a cup of tea) can then lead to the formulation of non-mathematical, cross-scale axiomatic truth.
APPLICATION OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING: This can then be applied on any scale… whether on the scale of particles, mathematics, or the large scale of the universe, where "cross-scale knowledge" remains valid, such as "there cannot be an effect on Earth that, after limited observation, is impossible to happen unless there is an additional influence from outside the cosmos," and so on.

Self-Awareness

That is why mystics who wish to explain their mystical experiences to the layperson, if they do not understand cross-scale reasoning (which involves absolute universal truths), should remain silent. They should not assume that they have objectively explained their mystical experience, only to resort to saying, "You don’t understand; this is high-level knowledge that is beyond explanation," when challenged by the layperson.

YES, THERE ARE INDEED LIMITATIONS IN UNDERSTANDING MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES. However, it's not because the layperson is incapable, but because the mystic themselves is unable to logically explain their experience in an objective intellectual language (because they do not understand cross-scale reasoning).

LIMITATIONS OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING

It must also be remembered that there needs to be synergy between understanding "logical fallacies" without undermining "cognitive biases" so that logic does not fall into the illusion that the universe is playing tricks (illusion), allowing the absolute universal truth to be revealed.

However, it must be acknowledged that there are limitations when "cross-scale reasoning" only reaches broad outlines (not details)—this depends on how much data can be obtained through closer (empirical) observation.

From Certainty to Probability

Even if mystical experiences cannot always be fully understood due to the limitation of not experiencing them firsthand, at the very least, the broad outlines, the common thread, can be found from the complexity. So, even if not everything is answered or experienced, it can still be concluded with absolute universality in certain aspects, thereby increasing the value of truth with higher probability.

Reasonable Probability Measures

After recognizing how far a probability value can be accepted by calculating how much certainty supports it, the critical question arises: How far can its consistency be accepted—given that it might change direction next year, or in 1000 years?

SIMPLE... Consider "Expectation" (Lifespan), "Fact" (Consistency) & "Belief" (Probability)

👉 Lifespan, Consistency & Belief (Probability)

Maximum Life Expectancy = Around 100 years
Belief = Probability + Certainty = 70%
Consistency (Belief) Lasts For = 300 years

If a truth maintains consistency for several times the length of a human lifespan, then the belief is reasonably strong to be considered.

NARROW DIFFERENCE

If there's a narrow difference or a dilemma, then decide to balance and synergize the pragmatic, realistic, and idealistic values, depending on where they are leading.

Even if there are 1000 subjective perspectives, decide quickly to make it objective, even if only on a personal level.

LIMITATIONS OF NON-REDUCTIVE CONVERSION

So, to contextually translate mystical experiences into the intellectual realm, cross-scale reasoning is required so that, even if the experience comes from a broad context, it can be scaled down to a smaller context where the perspectives of the large and small scales align within the same pattern.

This way, even though it might seem like narrowing down (reducing) the context of a broad experience into limited knowledge, the broad outline that connects to a larger (transcendent) dimension can still be obtained.

✅ Avoid falling into the fallacy of composition (reducing knowledge), but rather, recognize the difference between experiencing and knowing (where the knowledge remains intact according to the degree of the experience).

Atheists & Self-Introspection - Inconsistencies

Seremonia — Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:44:05 +0000

Where is the inconsistency of atheists?

1⃣ Setting standards they themselves violate ... (pretending to seek certainty, yet in daily life, they tend to rely on probabilities).

2⃣ In discussions, they force others to be straightforward and avoid going in circles:

〰 However, when not under pressure, they throw rapid-fire questions to confuse theists (which means they aren't genuinely seeking the truth >< but their actions seem to suggest they are).
〰 When cornered, they dodge, go in circles, and avoid accepting what should be acknowledged, rather than veering off-topic and giving the impression that there is much the theist does not know.
〰〰 Indeed, no one knows everything, and many mysteries in the world remain unsolved.

⭕️ Atheists are aware that NOT ALL MYSTERIES CAN BE SOLVED. NOT EVERYTHING MUST BE CERTAIN. THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS AND MAKE IT A PRINCIPLE OF THEIR LIFE. YET, THEY DEMAND PERFECTION FROM OTHERS (THEISTS).

👉 For themselves, they seek the truth according to their ability, but impose on others a demand for perfection.

〰 Worse yet, theists who are still beginners, still learning philosophy, get baited into thinking, "THIS MUST HAVE AN ANSWER," and then theists fall into the trap set by atheists.

3⃣ They demand proof, but cannot prove "something that cannot be proven."

〰 However, just because something cannot be proven does not mean it cannot serve as proof or that it lacks evidence.
〰 NOR DOES IT MEAN "IF ONE BELIEVES SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST, THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE IT" ❌

Rather, "something considered non-existent" can be proven (there is a burden to prove - burden of proof).

This is done by proving the ABSENCE OF ITS TRACE.
If someone says, "there is no apple on the table," they must prove the absence of any trace of an apple on the table.

... or even deeper ...

If someone says, "there is no €)#)?25%€]@#& on the table," they must prove the absence of any trace of €)#)?25%€]@#& on the table.

⭕️ If atheists refuse to prove the non-existence of something they consider non-existent❓ABSURD❗️AB-SURD. WHY?

It is the same as saying, "I believe it exists because there is no example"? What does that mean? In all forms of understanding, examples and models of reality are necessary. Whether one is trying to understand what is visible or what is perceived by the eye (particles), an example is still needed. Because we cannot fully grasp the shape of a particle, except to the extent that it can be tested to observe its TENDENCY, NOT ITS COMPLETE CERTAINTY. Why? Because all forms of empirical observation are LIMITED TO GETTING CLOSER, NOT TOUCHING (except for particle collisions).

So, in the end, the final result of empirical observation is merely to test the limits of consistency.

This means that because the object cannot be fully understood, a "model" is needed so that it can be recorded for analysis. This model is, of course, not taken from "x-=&-€€xcyv€&€€yy]f" (which is unclear) but from an "empirical model" that we know as an "example."

Then, when they refuse to prove "the non-existence of something" without proving the absence of its traces, it means that, consistently and consequently, they must also be able to accept the truth without an example that is visible in life.

The Benefits of Controlling the Ego

However, an atheist who can rid themselves of ego will see a reduction in arrogance, and their awareness will become like soft clay that easily takes on the impressions of incoming information. This results in the imprint of information being left on their softened awareness.

Thus, what initially could not be seen becomes visible—various imprints from empirical observations.

They can see the silhouette lines of imprints from information that has been stamped on their awareness, now unhidden by a thick layer of ego (their soul starts to become cleaner).

The spirit (awareness) can then recognize which imprint paths overlap.

Once aware of the direction of these imprint paths, empirical data becomes easily interpretable through a broader human perspective. From this limited empirical data scan, one can deduce the various contexts and perspectives, leading to an understanding of the Divine.

✅ Be a self-aware atheist, not a self-righteous one.

✅ Recognize that "existence or non-existence" of something can be proven through the observation of the presence or absence of experiential or knowledge traces.

Do not consider atheists intelligent merely because their thinking is critical if it is absurdly inconsistent. Even ordinary young people who have not studied logical thinking can be taught to debate critically, provided they are trained to "find faults (holes) as you see fit" (later, the ego will perceive this as a defensive instruction, and naturally, the ego will provide any data to counter it).

Except for sincere atheists, whose reasoning system is calm and clean, willing to be refined, making the thin imprints of information easily stimulate (open the inner eye) their pure nature, so they can see the imprints of experience/knowledge leading to the Divine.

Responding to the Opportunity - Pascal's Wager

What if atheists believe that everyone is destined for hell? Does that render Pascal's Wager irrelevant? ❌

In that case, it would be fair for both atheists and theists to ask whether this belief is a certainty or an assumption. If it is a certainty, but atheists cannot prove "the non-existence of something," then there is an inconsistency in reasoning, indicating an assumption. This returns us to the issue of the burden of proof discussed earlier.

👉 Does this mean theists can also assume the existence of heaven? Is it acceptable for theists to use Pascal's Wager?

Are there 1,000 religions? Even if there are trillions of religions, the fundamental point is to return to the core issue.

🎯 Should one accept God or not?

Regarding which God is the true one, it is essential to start with an initial step.

If the initial step is not taken, it is absurd to jump directly to which God is the true one.

👉 This is like searching for something considered better without confirming if what is sought actually exists—absurd.

📌 Next steps: Filter the thousands of religions down to 10 or 5 major ones.

〰 Study each one thoroughly. Whatever the result (if there is a God—Pascal's Wager again), it should be accountable for genuinely seeking.

📌 Why focus on the top 10 or 5 religions? Is there a correlation between the prominence of a religion and its truth?

👉 We must reason objectively, logically, and realistically. Our lifespan does not extend to 100 trillion years, so within a lifespan of 100 years, it is practical to limit the scope.

〰 Unless you have only half an hour left before buying food at a stall and need to take it to a lab to test if it’s safe to eat—just kidding!
〰 The top 10 or 5 major religions reflect significant influence. Since God is associated with POWER and INFLUENCE, it is reasonable to measure based on the rating of influence and the efficiency of our limited lifespan.

THINKING & CONTEMPLATING

Seremonia — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:03:49 +0000

Thinking involves tracing causal relationships to see their connections.

Contemplating involves observing to gain details

Someone who thinks without contemplating only understands a specific context, while someone who contemplates can understand multiple contexts. That’s why contemplating takes longer than thinking.

Mapping Understanding

Thinking is like someone tracing a map to find an address, so the accuracy of the route must be checked.

Contemplating is like stopping for a moment after passing a route to observe what is at a certain location.

Both are tracing routes, but thinking ensures the path is correct, while contemplating observes the situation along the way.

Contemplating observes the boundaries of causal relationships without determining a specific direction.

Contemplating is not about considering causal relationships, although it may also find causal relationships during observation.

Contemplating is merely about seeking to expand knowledge. On the other hand, thinking can consider what is gained from contemplation to find the best route.

Thinking can also find the best route, but by involving knowledge gained from contemplation, the route considered is not just the best from one narrow perspective but the best from various points of view.

THINKING INSIGHT

Contemplating observes the boundaries of causal relationships without determining a specific direction to be considered.

Contemplating is not about considering causal relationships, although it may also find causal relationships during observation.

Contemplating is merely about seeking to expand knowledge. On the other hand, thinking can consider what is gained from contemplation to find the best route.

Dominance

In contemplation, the dominance is in seeking knowledge, expanding understanding. In thinking, the dominance is in seeking connected routes.

The one contemplating does not think much about where the thought paths are connected, as that has already been done through "thinking," rather, "contemplating" focuses on observing the situation.

So, both utilize routes, but contemplating uses thought paths to jump into new observations.

Impasse

In a way, thinking encounters a mental block, while contemplating doesn’t experience a mental blockage but rather a creative blockage (lack of ideas, lack of concepts).

Although their dominant functions are different, both complement each other in broadening thinking insight.

TRANQUILITY

Seremonia — Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:41:45 +0000

Achieving calmness can be attained through various paths, fundamentally derived from sufficiency, maintaining health, or any other means, but the core idea is "OBTAINING WHAT IS EXPECTED TO AVOID ANXIETY." In any case, the goal is to eliminate or reduce anxiety.

However, we do not view calmness from that perspective, but from a more fundamental one. Even when the situation remains anxiety-inducing, one can still remain calm within that anxiety. How can one be calm in an anxious state without being contradictory?

Anxiety is necessary to stay alert to situations. If the absence of anxiety leads to decreased alertness, this poses a significant risk.

Achieving calmness in an anxious state means that the anxiety can be controlled so that it no longer resides at the emotional level but at the level of knowledge.

The Cycle of Balance

The control of anxiety cannot be complete, but it can be reduced and then redirected towards self-awareness (knowledge of the situation - being alert to the situation).

HOPE-ANXIETY. This is an effort to move anxiety to the level of knowledge, so that the degree of alertness remains intellectually intact, while on the emotional side, anxiety will shift to its natural paired condition, where as anxiety decreases, hope increases.

There are times when anxiety resurfaces beyond our control, which then makes us aware of the situation, and it is controlled again so that anxiety remains at the intellectual level, and anxiety turns into hope.

A cycle of "hope-anxiety-hope" that allows us to remain "vigilant, alert, and willing to fight without giving up, full of hope."

🧩 Anxiety is no longer seen as something entirely negative or to be avoided, but rather as part of the emotional dynamics that can be managed to maintain alertness and readiness. This emphasizes the importance of balance between emotion and intellect in navigating a challenging life, where hope and anxiety complement each other to sustain motivation and resilience in facing difficult situations.

TYPES OF ANXIETY

There are many forms of anxiety, ranging from those related to health disturbances to other anxiety-inducing disorders.

We only look at it fundamentally, to achieve the best self-control.

Anxiety exists so that we are willing to sacrifice to solve problems, thereby understanding the concept of satisfaction.

PRIDE. Initially, there is anxiety, which should be overcome by making sacrifices. The highest form of sacrifice is sacrificing the ego - one's pride. The question is, what is the highest form of pride, so that the sacrifice is also the greatest?

FEELING IMPORTANT. It is the pride that we feel important. Feeling somewhat important, important, or very important."

SELF-CONTROL

SUBMISSION. Simply put, the degree of importance is determined by how much one feels the need to be prioritized (how much one feels the need to be put first), and this is the highest form of anxiety because it stems from ego pride. Therefore, the highest form of sacrifice is submission.

TURMOIL. Since the highest anxiety is caused by the ego, and this anxious state is filled with turmoil, the highest turmoil is caused by the ego's pride demanding to be prioritized.

WORSHIP. So, what is the highest form of submission that overcomes the highest form of ego pride? It is to submit in worship to God. This represents the highest form of self-control, forcing oneself (submitting oneself) to worship Him. More specifically, it means being consistent in worshiping Him.

🔰 When we can worship Him without haste, it shows that we are not prioritizing ourselves, not putting ourselves first, and not feeling self-important. Instead, we submit, prioritizing worship without turmoil (without prioritizing ourselves).

This is the highest form of tranquility: being able to overcome the highest turmoil caused by ego pride.

❇️ The highest tranquility comes from overcoming the highest turmoil of ego pride, which is subdued through submission in the form of worship performed without haste.

📌 How can we practically train ourselves in this❓ Here, overcoming turmoil is not merely about refraining from haste but rather about not rushing with a sense of ease.

👉 During the process of worship, the ego's pride may arise, reminding us of the importance of quickly doing this or that, so the act of worship is also hastened.

〰 At this point, there is a feeling of rushing turmoil, and this is what we must subdue by lowering the feeling until tranquility (absence of turmoil) emerges, and then maintaining this state.

CONSISTENCY

After worship, take time to reflect on the experience of tranquility during the act of worship.

There are two ways this experience can bring tranquility outside of worship...

1⃣ HABIT. Being accustomed to maintaining tranquility by controlling the turmoil of ego pride during worship, this automatically leads to not rushing outside of worship as well, accepting that everything proceeds according to its proper sequence of importance.

👉 Patience in following the process.

2⃣ SELF-CONFIDENCE. Having successfully practiced tranquility through controlling the ego's turmoil during worship, this ability can be repeated outside of worship by recalling or repeating the process for other matters. We can reduce turmoil to the level experienced before, leading to tranquility.

👉 If this can be done, then the tranquility experienced during worship will affect one's attitude outside of worship.

This is what is meant by successful worship, not just because one automatically becomes submissive, reverent, and calm after worship, which does not necessarily happen automatically, but because one has gained a trained experience that can be repeated in activities outside of worship.

CONSISTENCY

⭕️ So, if the act of worship, performed with full devotion (without haste), cannot be used as an example to replicate in other activities, it indicates that the effort to calm oneself during worship has not been fully successful. The tranquility achieved is not sufficient if it was not maintained from the beginning to the end, but only for a few minutes, resulting in inconsistent tranquility that fails to leave a lasting impact, making it difficult to replicate in different situations outside of worship.

FUNDAMENTALLY... A good experience does not necessarily mean it will automatically lead to goodness. Rather, it is the ability to repeat the good actions that come from that good experience.

SPECIFICALLY. If the process of calming the turmoil of the ego's sense of importance fails from the beginning to the end of the worship process...

📌 Critical Question: Does this mean that the act of worship has no ability to transform one into a calm state? That's not the issue.

👉 The point is that we are actually given a method to train calmness at the highest level.

❇️ This is the advantage of understanding the benefit of worship for tranquility. Without understanding its benefits, it would be pointless to try other methods, especially if the basic principle is misdirected from the start.

❇️ Training calmness does not involve overcoming anxiety through various methods, except through the act of worship.

❇️ Therefore, knowing the most effective way to train the highest level of calmness is an essential advantage of this knowledge.

🎯 The advantage of knowing how to train the highest level of calmness through worship is crucial for achieving true tranquility.

👉 Without this understanding, efforts to achieve calmness through other means may not be effective or could even be misdirected from the beginning.

REASONING & Argumentation

Seremonia — Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:57:19 +0000

REASONING & ARGUING

Is there a difference between arguing and reasoning?

At first glance, the two might seem interchangeable.

An argument means revealing the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection, and reasoning is also an effort to uncover the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection.

The difference is that one is broader, and the other is more specific.

1⃣ Where there is a way to reveal the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection by analyzing the interconnections of the issue at hand.

〰 It could involve logical fallacies or errors in thought experiments.

2⃣ COGNITIVE BIAS. Uncovering the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection by analyzing the environmental conditions surrounding the issue.

〰 A lack of understanding of the conducive situation for the research object may lead to the assumption that there is no logical fallacy (it seems reasonable), while there is an oddity, a deception like watching a magic trick, or being unaware of being deceived—deluded by the situation.

The first investigates where there is an error in thinking, and the second examines the conditions under which point 1⃣ is applied.

IN GENERAL

Generally, arguing is just one specific way of reasoning, whereas reasoning goes beyond mere logical argumentation and can involve considering other approaches in making judgments.

IN A BROADER SENSE

If expanded further, reasoning is not just about making judgments limited to arguing, but also about preparing oneself to avoid cognitive biases as part of the broader consideration process.

LOGICAL QUESTIONS

Seremonia — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 13:28:22 +0000

Logical means there is a causal connection.

A statement is considered logical because there is a causal relationship between one meaning of a word and another.

So, are there logical questions? Does the idea that questions seek correct relationships mean that no questions are logical? Is it like being confused means something is clear? Or if you forget, does it mean you don't remember?

So, is there no such thing as remembering something you forgot? Or is there no such thing as understanding when you are confused? Or is there no such thing as a logical question if asking about the logic indicates searching for where the logic is, and why there is logic in a question that means it doesn’t need to be questioned?

It’s not that way, but because forgetting can mean remembering part of it and forgetting part of it. Also, there can be partial clarity and the rest confusing.

Similarly, there can be parts of a question that are logical but the rest unclear in direction.

So? When there is a question, it is composed of several meanings. And among different meanings in a question, they can come from different contexts. This is an illogical question.

Conversely, when a question is composed of several meanings involving one or many contexts with its main context, then it is a logical question.

So, it’s not that questioning something makes it unclear where the logic is, thus the question is considered illogical. Rather, the composition of several meanings that make up the question must...

Be consistent in context between one meaning and another within a question.
If the question is composed with different contexts, there must be a main context.

These two points are some of the characteristics of a logical question.

Examples of Illogical Questions:

〰 "Is it possible for a cat to become an airplane pilot after drinking coffee?"
〰 "Why do trees grow tall if cats enjoy playing with balls?"
〰 "Can music make ice cream melt faster than on Mondays?"

In simpler terms, IF A QUESTION HAS AN ANSWER, THEN THE QUESTION IS REASONABLE, even if the reasonableness is only partial in certain parts of the question, to question the remaining unclear part of the question.

Examples of Questions with Different Contexts but Logical (Because There is a Main Context):

How does exercising (context 1) affect performance (context 2) and sleep quality (context 3)?

〰 Even though different contexts, they are tied to one main context: "the impact of exercise on our well-being."

DIALECTICA DEFINITIVA - Praevenire Definitiones Non-Argumentativas

Seremonia — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 12:12:10 +0000

🔰 Definitive Dialectics - Anticipating Non-Argumentative Definitions

If you are familiar with Karl Popper's concept of "falsification" or the philosophy of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, you know this is a valuable philosophical heritage. However, it is not enough to address ambiguity in philosophy.

Philosophy Investigation

Wittgenstein, in "Philosophical Investigations," explains the issues in philosophy that trap us in understanding meaning. Specifically, it complicates defining because of the interconnections between word meanings.

There is discussion that forces others to distinguish between several words that are understood as one word, which risks misunderstandings. This should be avoided by broadening the dialectic.

It is indeed necessary to differentiate when needed. However, differentiation cannot involve words that tend to be interconnected.

Narrow Comparisons

It is natural to be required to define, even though definitions never reveal the full facts, given our limited perceptual abilities.

However, this does not mean we should force definitions, as narrow comparisons can trap us in ambiguity.

Yes, defining involves comparisons, but not in a narrow way that might cause overlapping misunderstandings.

Non-Argumentative Definitions

In philosophy, differences in word meanings sometimes lead to arguments about definitions. Each party insists, "What is your definition?" We first explain your definition before discussing it❗️Blah blah blah. We need to align perceptions first blah blah blah, what? The discussion often goes back and forth in attempts to define. Why?

📌 They force definitions word by word, while the words to be defined are interconnected.

👉 For example, distinguish between crying and sadness. Differentiate between anger and firmness. Distinguish between arguing and explaining. Differentiate between good and right, and so on.

🔰 This is what I call a non-argumentative definition because it attempts to define by comparing interrelated words.

〰 Definitions like this are non-argumentative because they are ambiguous, and using them in arguments leads to misunderstandings or becomes a futile debate, pulling words into different meanings, causing overlapping. This happens because they oppose interrelated words but force them to be separated as different definitions.

Non-Definitive Differences

When defining, differences should be evident. However, if the definition is done by comparing differences, it can sometimes lead to ambiguity.

For example, "bread" and "food" can be differentiated and thus defined. However, distinguishing between "cake" and "bolu" or differentiating "satay meat" to define "meat" and "satay" can create non-definitive differences. The interrelationship between words ("meat" and "satay") makes it challenging to define with strict boundaries.

⭕️ In this context, some words are often interrelated and cannot be defined separately without losing part of their overall meaning. For instance, trying to separate "angry" and "firm" or "sad" and "crying" strictly can overlook nuances in their meanings.

NON-ARGUMENTATIVE DEFINITIONS. Wittgenstein's philosophy has recognized similar to this confusion (non-argumentative definitions), but I have not yet seen a solution from his perspective

STUDYING WITHOUT PROBLEMS

As explained in "Philosophical Investigations" and "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein, the problems in philosophy revolve around language.

Wittgenstein highlights several issues related to philosophy:

1⃣ Unrealistic Premises. Between Facts and Meaning. The carelessness of premises not being connected to actual facts, which, if connected, can be broken down into atomic facts to clarify the relationship of meanings. Instead, they understand premises from the meanings of words.

〰 Wittgenstein carefully critiques the difference between addressing "meaning" and addressing "facts" in understanding premises.

2⃣ Similarity of Meanings. Where one meaning resembles another, making it difficult to include in definitions because one word can form different definitions.

I add one more issue from METAPhilosophy which I call:

3⃣ Non-Argumentative Definitions. This is my term for the problem in philosophy of carelessness in distinguishing between meanings of words that are interrelated.

👉 Example: Difficulty in distinguishing the meanings of "firm," "harsh," and "emotional," which are interrelated and also complicate separate definitions.

📌 There is an interrelationship between point 2⃣ and point 3⃣=

👉 In point 2⃣, one word has multiple meanings

〰 Making it hard to define because the word spans definitions. The word "game" can refer to "chess" or "soccer," which can differ in context.

👉 In point 3⃣, many meanings are considered to have one meaning, though there are differences not known how to distinguish

〰 Making it hard to define meanings, not because of different contexts like "chess" and "computer games," but because they are interrelated.

To simplify the distinction between Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance and METAPhilosophy's "Non -Argumentative Definition":

1 Family Resemblance: One word has similar meanings. ONE WORD WITH BRANCHED MEANINGS.
2 Non-Argumentative Definition: BRANCHES THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERCONNECTED.

In simple terms, "Family Resemblance" identifies variations in meaning, whereas "Non- Argumentative Definition" detects difficulties in correctly distinguishing and connecting those meanings.

✅ Non-Argumentative Definition focuses on distinguishing interrelationships, while "Family Resemblance" focuses on distinguishing similarities.

METAPhilosophy's Non-Argumentative Definition attempts to see the fine boundaries, whereas Wittgenstein's "Family Resemblance" aims to see the appropriate context.

📌 When combined, they form a synergy:

〰 After distinguishing where the dissimilarities lie, understanding the context, then testing the interrelationships to make the context more accurate.

Carelessness in Philosophy

Understanding classical philosophy is important, but it must be approached carefully. The goal of philosophy is to seek truth, but if classical philosophy is studied without proper solutions, one may become enlightened on one hand but encounter problems on the other. This is like learning and playing with fire.

There is a risk of carelessness in seeking and adding solutions, which is commonly known as:

1⃣ Blunder. When the attempt to find a solution actually adds to the problem, it is called a "blunder." Blunders result from a lack of proper consideration or calculation.
2⃣ Problem-Solving Paradox. Where attempts to solve a problem actually worsen the situation or create a new problem.
3⃣ Pyrrhic Victory (Victory At A Great Cost). This is a situation where solving one problem results in a new problem of equal or greater magnitude.
4⃣ Trade-off. The chosen solution requires certain sacrifices or consequences that might be undesirable.

👉 On one hand, it can be enlightening, but on the other hand, it can add to the controversy.

Philosophical Synergy

Thus, if you engage in philosophy merely to study and not to contribute solutions, you might find yourself stuck in philosophical problems. While you might gain some enlightenment, you may also become aware of new controversies, leading to an uncontrollable curiosity that results in confusion.

Wittgenstein suggests that it is better to remain silent about what is known rather than teaching something without solutions that only adds new problems—like "closing one hole and digging another." Assuming that philosophy solves problems might actually just bring more problems (Pyrrhic Victory) or even create bigger ones (Problem-Solving Paradox).

So, if you study philosophy and find solutions, but simultaneously encounter new problems, consider abandoning philosophy or join those who not only seek solutions in philosophy but also find solutions for philosophy itself. Thus, whether you engage in philosophy alone or with others, you avoid becoming like a group lost in the philosophical forest, confused and directionless, with solutions that may not fully address the existing problems.

Overcoming Non-Argumentative Definitions

Avoiding Ambiguity: Judging something based on a single word is risky, as it can be misleading. It’s not always straightforward to distinguish between meanings of words that are interconnected, such as "firm," "harsh," "egoism," "emotion," or "touched," "sad," and other related terms (not merely similar).

📌 This issue can only be addressed through Dialectics:

1⃣ Hegelian Dialectics. Differences are examined in terms of their interconnections, aiming to reconcile the oppositions.

✅ This is essentially an effort to find wisdom behind contradictions.

2⃣ Definitive Dialectics (METAFilsafat Solution). Multiple related meanings are defined dialectically to clarify their direction.

👉 For example, if forced to use "firm," "harsh," and "emotion," it could be expressed as:

〰 "Affirming the truth firmly (due to priority) without emotion (being forgiving)."

🔰 Although both Hegelian and Definitive Dialectics are naturally present in everyday life, they have only recently been formally highlighted in philosophy to make common wisdom clearer and more memorable amidst the many concepts available in society.

✅ Philosophy and METAFilsafat must observe and formulate concepts as concretely as science does. Thus, philosophy should not be seen as merely abstract but as realistic, objective, and possessing universal understanding of abstract concepts.

✅ This is a step towards ensuring philosophy not only complements science and mathematics but also leads in advancing them, despite their interrelated expertise.

EVIDENCE & CONSEQUENCES

Seremonia — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 18:17:00 +0000

Realistic & Objective

This is because empirical evidence is based on science, and its universality is proven through absolute logical consequences. Although it doesn't necessarily require concrete evidence, it is already empirical proof because the logical consequences are drawn from empirical evidence indirectly (from observations - not currently being observed).

Paradigm of Direct Evidence

Since there is no direct evidence unless it happens as closely as causing particle collisions.

Therefore, the closest direct empirical evidence is always just closer or closest.

Difference Between Empirical & Logical Consequences

This asserts that empirical evidence itself essentially concludes similarly to observing logical consequences.

The difference is that empirical evidence is a conclusion from the closest observations, while logical consequences are also a process of concluding that is not as close as observations in empirical activities.

Strength of Empirical & Logical Consequences

That even though both conclude through different observational distances, it does not mean differentiating their accuracy (consistency).

Although logical consequences do not involve observations as close as empirical activities, if the logical consequences are universal, then the proof is stronger than empirical evidence. This is because absolute logical consequences are the foundation of causality, which forms the structure of empirical proof.

Foundation of Causality

Why can logical consequences be stronger than empirical evidence because of their foundational basis for causality? This does not apply to relative logical consequences, which are conclusions at the level of causality itself.

However, absolute logical consequences are indeed the strongest conclusions because their realism, objectivity, and universality underpin empirical causality.

Basis of Causality

Why or is there indeed a basis for causality related to absolute logical consequences?

What are the characteristics of absolute logical consequences that form the basis of causality? Isn't causality already the foundation of reality, so since causality is the structure of empiricism, empirical evidence should be the strongest evidence (regardless of its potential to change)?

1⃣ Empirical evidence is not the strongest evidence, not because it can change over time, also...
2⃣ Empirical evidence is not weak evidence (empirical evidence is strong evidence), and its strength is not because its proof comes from the closest observations, or...
3⃣ Empirical evidence is the strongest because its foundation is causality, which is the foundation of reality❓

OBJECTIVITY

Rather, the strength of empirical evidence, despite its relative truth (causality is considered weak in consistency), lies in its objectivity. The advantage of empirical evidence is its easy observability and consistent patterns, making it easy to formulate practical, generally applicable rules (not just usable or acknowledged by certain people).

However, this does not mean that conclusions from absolute logical consequences are inferior to empirical evidence. Instead, since absolute logical consequences underpin causality, absolute logical consequences are stronger and even the strongest evidence compared to empirical evidence. Why❓

SIMULTANEITY

Because the dependency relationship in absolute (logical) consequences is no longer based on causality but rather on simultaneous continuity.

👉 EMPIRICAL. It is no longer "if this, then that," which can change between this and that depending on the situation and conditions (relative - not absolute), but rather...
👉 ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES. That "if this, then that must exist."

This is the strength of absolute consequences compared to empirical evidence, although without empirical evidence (without relative evidence), universal evidence would not be detected.

THUS, FINDING (CONCLUDING) ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES ALREADY INCLUDES EMPIRICAL (not contradictory to relativity) AND ALSO INCLUDES UNIVERSAL (with clear relative boundaries)

Of course, further discussion is needed on how from a narrow context (relative causality) can be concluded more broadly (universally), which will be discussed in the next writing.

At least here, the discussion of absolute consequences and causality (relative consequences) can strengthen the understanding of the main topic of "what is consciousness," although still very limited. This is because it does not yet reach the point of discussing the question "if cameras or computer systems can differentiate, then are cameras and computer systems also conscious like humans?"

At least, we can realize within the context of ourselves what "consciousness" is, so even if we cannot recognize consciousness elsewhere, at least we know the function of consciousness to not only recognize how conscious and how willing we are, which also needs to be scrutinized, but also to be aware of our own attitudes.

UNPOPULAR CONCEPT

This concept of absolute consequences (as I term it) is not (or not yet sufficiently) recognized among academic philosophers. The highest hope for philosophy that is considered capable of surpassing classical philosophy is analytical philosophy. However, even that (analytical philosophy) only reaches the level of analyzing causality. So, where is the depth if it doesn't converge on foundational aspects? This is because most of them are still unfamiliar with the concept of universal absolutes, believing everything to be subjective (not absolute), whereas subjectivity is a part of absoluteness. This confusion, plus the fact that there is something more fundamental than causality, certainly makes them feel more perplexed about the concept of absolute consequences and other related ideas.

Quantum Logic - Hilary Putnam

A philosopher who began to realize this and is widely known (although not as popular as recognized globally) is Hilary Putnam, with his emphasis on the need for axiomatic reasoning (reasoning in absolutes - quantum logic). I have not seen Putnam reach the understanding that there is truth beyond causality. Ultimately, after initially accepting the concept of quantum reasoning, Putnam rejected it and sought other reasoning that ultimately returned to classical reasoning.

Putnam's rejection of quantum logic is because he considered it merely a method of reasoning, not realizing that quantum reasoning had already entered the realm of absoluteness (reasoning in absolutes). Putnam thought quantum reasoning was just reasoning in puzzle blocks (breaking meaning into smaller meanings).

Vertical Causation - Wolfgang Smith

In contrast, Wolfgang Smith had indeed entered the realm of absoluteness, which is actually the quantum reasoning proposed by Putnam. This is because, on one hand, Putnam did not realize how to involve absoluteness in reasoning, except as a proposed solution to the quantum mystery with quantum reasoning. Thus, he encountered a dead end.

Wolfgang had indeed entered the dimension of absoluteness, so although he did not propose the concept of quantum reasoning, his reasoning traces had already entered the quantum level.

Vertical Causation

The Development of Reasoning

Thus, the development of reasoning so far increasingly involves absolute reasoning, which means also increasingly uncovering universal absolute truths and including them in the field of artificial intelligence technology.

CONSCIOUSNESS

Seremonia — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:24:58 +0000

What is consciousness? It is a function whose minimum limit indicates life. When endowed with a soul, it not only becomes aware but also wills.

The soul is the power of will, a force that makes consciousness willful.

The power of consciousness is "life." Life is what sustains awareness. The power of life generates consciousness.

What is life like? It grows and develops. The most minimal growth and development are dynamic changes. The most minimal dynamic change (activity-function) is the ability to discern differences. So, how does the power of life manifest consciousness? Through the ability to differentiate.

The most minimal activity of consciousness is differentiate.

However, the awareness of differences is due to the influence of "existence" that alters perception so that its "existence" is being awared because of a changing in consciousness. Thus, there are two aspects of consciousness:

Consciousness differentiates, making differences apparent, and thus differences are being awared.
〰 This is due to the influence of an initial push (soul).
Consciousness is altered by the influence of the "existence" of something (like light reflecting an object into the eyes), making the difference being awared.

So, consciousness recognizes changes because the soul's push alters it, enabling the recognition of differences, like a camera system detecting gradient differences or a camera altered by light, thus printing gradients (differences) that make something recognized (because it can be differentiated from others).

Consciousness is life that seeing the different. Without the ability (function) to differentiate, there is no "awareness," even if it is only aware of the "existence" because consciousness is altered from within by the soul or altered (imprinted) from outside.

Scientifically acceptable and philosophically, even though detached from science, it contains its universal truth.

A philosophical language providing a nuanced structure of meaning that can be programmed.

Thus, from a scientific perspective, it aligns with contemporary philosophy that is realistic and objective while also having the autonomy of universal truth that doesn't need to be confirmed by science first. Although it must be related to realistic evidence, which doesn't always come from science, but from tracing its absolute logical consequences.

The Foundation of Cause and Effect

Why can logical consequences be stronger than empirical evidence due to their foundational nature underlying cause and effect? This does not apply to relative logical consequences, which are actually conclusions at the level of cause and effect itself.

However, absolute logical consequences are truly the strongest conclusions because their realism, objectivity, and universality underpin the cause and effect of empiricism.

The Basis of Cause and Effect

Why or is there something that underpins cause and effect related to absolute logical consequences?

What are the characteristics of absolute logical consequences that become the basis of cause and effect? Isn’t cause and effect already the foundation of reality, so since cause and effect are the structure of the empirical, then empirical evidence is the strongest proof (even though it can change)?

Empirical evidence is not the strongest proof, not because empirical evidence can change at any time.
Empirical evidence is not weak evidence (empirical evidence is strong evidence), and its strength is not because the proof is through observation, which is considered closest.
Empirical evidence is not the strongest proof because its foundation is cause and effect, which is the foundation of reality❓

OBJECTIVITY.

The strength of the empirical lies in its objectivity, not just because its truth is relative (cause and effect are considered weak in consistency) but because its consistency is easy to observe, making the pattern of consistency easy to realize, and its practical utility value is general (not just certain people can use it or recognize its reality).

However, this does not mean that the conclusions from absolute logical consequences are below empirical evidence. Instead, because absolute logical consequences underpin cause and effect, absolute logical consequences are stronger and even the strongest as evidence compared to empirical evidence. Why❓

SIMULTANEITY.

Because the dependent relationship in absolute (logical) consequences is no longer based on cause and effect but rather simultaneous continuity.

👉 EMPIRICAL. It's no longer "if this, then that," which can change between this and that depending on the situation and conditions (relative - not absolute), but rather...
👉 ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES
That "if this, then that must exist."

Here lies the strength of absolute consequences compared to empirical evidence, although? Without empirical evidence (without relative evidence), universal evidence will not be detected.

THOSE WHO CAN DISCOVER (CONCLUDE) ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES INCLUDE EMPIRICAL (not conflicting with relativity) & ALSO INCLUDE UNIVERSAL (the boundaries of relativity are clearly known).

Of course, further discussion is needed on how from a narrow context (relative cause and effect) can be concluded more broadly (universally), which will be discussed in the next writing.

At least here the discussion of absolute consequences and cause and effect (relative consequences) can strengthen how conclusions can be drawn on the main topic of "what is consciousness" even though it is still very minimal, because it has not yet reached the point of discussing the question "if cameras or computer systems can differentiate, are cameras and computer systems also conscious like humans?"

But at least we recognize in our own context what "consciousness" is, so even though we cannot recognize consciousness elsewhere, at least the function of consciousness is known to recognize how conscious and willful we are, which also needs to be scrutinized, and we can be wary of our own attitudes.

Singing Heart

Seremonia — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 20:04:03 +0000

Relax for a while

The Trick of Atheism

Seremonia — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 02:22:15 +0000

@META Discuss
But here’s the thing, this can also lead to a thinking error. It can lead to it, or it might not, depending on how it’s conveyed.

Because we already know that there is imperfection, it’s then conveyed like that. In my opinion, first, show that there is imperfection in their way of thinking.

@META Discuss
But atheists do have ways to overcome their existential crisis, namely by manipulating chemical substances in the brain.

Current neuroscience research proves that what causes someone to have an existential crisis is more due to an imbalance of neurotransmitters in their brain (which affects their happiness hormones), not necessarily because they lack meaning in life.

People who lack meaning in life can still be happy as long as the chemical balance in their brain is not disturbed.

@META Discuss
Atheists and theists are both critical, the difference is theists criticize while worshipping 🤣

We can also empathize with atheists, by using their way of thinking. They are looking for evidence and they exhaust all their mental and physical energy to find evidence to falsify the existence of God.

But yes, the falsification must be there, it must be shown.

Theists should also do the same, they can look for evidence of existence.

@META Discuss
There is nothing wrong with the way theists and atheists think (because what theists and atheists "hope" for in the future has not been proven true yet).

If theists think atheists are more prone to existential crises due to their lack of ultimate purpose in life, then atheists can also think that theists are filled with anxiety because they are hoping for the fate of their heaven and hell that they do not know the end of.

Seremonia:
Consider, you can explain back...

Well, if it's balanced, what if it’s not? Which standard is used?

We just keep turning it back on them.

@META Discuss
It's the same, if the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain is disturbed, both theists and atheists are equally likely to be depressed.

Seremonia:
Does it take 100,000 years to accept a belief? Or is it enough with evidence for half a human life span or even shorter to eat food at a food stall?

It means that the value of goodness from neuro stability can fail because there is a possibility of instability.

@META Discuss
Yes, it can be.

One thing I’ve noticed is the "God of the gaps" argument that the more modern we get, the fewer gaps there are, and this shows the existence of God.

The weakness of theists is exploiting these gaps in events and filling them with the role of God.

In reality, these gaps will still exist in the future.

Seremonia:
They should be aware of the science of the gap when quantum physics also cannot answer the mystery.

@META Discuss
Just the existential question is different.

Atheists usually go more towards, "What’s the point of living, it has no meaning, might as well die, dying won’t feel any suffering at all, and it’s better not to feel any suffering at all than to live and feel both happiness and suffering."

And theists usually go more towards, "My fate is not certain yet, and besides, fate is already written before we were created, what if I’m destined to be a resident of hell?" (and this becomes the cause of their anxiety disorder).

Seremonia:
🔰 The point is, it’s not as simple as finding loopholes in a debate which both theists and atheists can do, but the tendency of atheists to impose a standard of perfection that they themselves do not adhere to, is absurd.

〰〰〰

THE CORE OF UNDERSTANDING

Don't get trapped by atheism which tends to strike repeatedly in a simplistic manner. If we want to, we can also criticize them using their own concepts.

Atheism, which claims to be smartly critical, can actually be taught to children to find loopholes, just like children find excuses against parental restrictions. The only difference is that this criticism is directed at religious matters.

⭕️ THEIR FINAL TRICK is to lead them to one main point (whether they are genuinely confused in their despair or just casually joining in for an easy way out), which is...

♦️ THEIR TRICK IS... THEY FORCE THEISTS TO THINK PERFECTLY, HAVE PERFECT BELIEFS, AND PROVIDE PERFECT ANSWERS, WHEN IN FACT❓
Our lives and theirs are not entirely based on 100% certain truths (there is probability involved).

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED CERTAINTY, but once there is certainty, don't let atheists lead you around as if your beliefs are not perfect or complete.

Yes, EXPLAIN BACK by showing how far they (atheists) are from perfection, and then REMIND them continuously about their imperfections.

CERTAINTY

After you understand this, or? You feel enlightened by other arguments, or? Through spiritual approaches or any other means.

Still, do not get caught up in the concept of total perfection.

Every argument has its weaknesses. And this argument cannot affirm the lacking aspects of the polemic on divinity. So does this mean the argument fails? No, but our demand for a perfect argument is what makes us feel failed.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT CAN 100% PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Even empirical evidence does not fully explain everything. This means that while its foundation may be universal absolutes, the total structure of truth is also built on elements of belief (not 100% detailed by universal absolutes).

FACTS & PROBABILITY

You cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery. But at least when the probability of facts has exceeded half or more of the average human lifespan, it can be relied upon. The issue of things changing after 1000 years is beyond the context unless your lifespan is eternal.

So, with the limitation of time, we indeed have to make decisions based on facts whose truth does not need to last for millions of years, but rather measured realistically over half or more of a human lifespan.

Again, you cannot even expect everything to be answered 100% without any mystery.