Just as logic proved that logic statements can't find all truths, logic should also be able to argue that observation can't uncover all truths. The odd thing would be is if it can be proved that logic and observation combined together also can't find all truths. What kind of truths would those be? Something that could never happen in either a physical reality or a logical structure. Truths that are cut off from ever being part of our experience, our universe.
It will probably be shown that these independent, unreachable truths are infinite to greater extent than our present system of infinities. Though many should be obtainable starting from a different truth space. It would also have to be expected that many of these unreachable truths can reach each other. This creates a separate self-sufficient reality. Such extralogic truths are only outside of our experience and logic. Such separate universes can not be accessed from our universe of logic and observation. Now one will probably be able to show and prove that we can't access such truths from our universe. But the question of whether such realities exists or not is back to the starting point of positivism. Positivism states that such a separate reality does not exist.
Lewis Carroll made a poem in Through the Looking Glass, part of which goes
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mame raths outgrabe.
..."
Imagine a universe where such sentences are the equivalent of stating 2+2 = 4, earthquakes and volcanoes are the effects of plate tectonics, and DNA is the means for passing genes from parent to child. There was a science fiction work based on such a concept.
What causes the universe with our set of logic and truths to be realized? The work of creation is, by definition, God's. So where some men wonder how many other planets support life, one can ask "How many possible separate truth universes exists? How many levels of universe's did God create?" For the mind of man, the universe can only exist in two entities, the universe as we see it during life and the one after life, the afterlife. There could be an infinite number of other truth universes, but the mind of man can't exist in them, not even for an observation. Only chaos would be seen if one tried. Attempts at communication with the equivalent of thinking being from such a universe would produce only static.
The infinities that exist already in our truth universes would challenge any mind like man's, no matter how great, for all of eternity. See Rudy Rucker's book titled "Infinity and the Mind". In the book, the author presents a number of examples in finding truths in the infinite. Whenever one tries to create a concept out of infinity, a paradox occurs, or an undecidable proposition is made. Like by defining a number to be the largest number, one can immediately add one to the number and give the counterexample, showing the proposed largest number to be not the largest. There is very much a similarity to trying to giving God a name, a definition of what God is. The attempt is sacrilegious, because it places limits on God. God is everything. Every concept man ever has created, or will create or could even potentially create. Love, truth, life, mind, inifinity... God is all that plus every concept that any other type of logic could ever create. Mape, pome, sueth, pledeica ...(These could be concepts in the Looking Glass universe, these may actually be words in some human language, even English words but are not intended to be so) God is all the previous plus the hierarchy or structure that ties all possible universes together. God is all that plus all the universes that can't be tied together by any structure. God is all that plus.... The attempt to list concepts, including the concept of listing an infinite number of concepts, is self defeating. There always is the equivalent of being able to add one more to make a larger number, a bigger concept. By definition, God can't be defined. Stating he is all knowing, omnipotent and ever present, or that he is love, truth and beauty is an attempt at defining God. These are not definitions of God. These are merely what the possible perceptions that man may have of God.
If an alternate truth system can not be reached from our reality universe, can such another universe see our universe? This is just a step back to a view that God and heaven and the afterlife exists on a higher plane of existence, which see's us although we can't see it. There are many logic statements where A implies B, but the existence of B does not imply A. If we assume we are on the B side of the logic, we can't prove A. This is then a search for the higher, more powerful truths of the A side of the logic equation. Can one ever bootstrap oneself out of our reality into a higher reality? I don't thinks so. The number of directions to go that are not logical in our universe is infinite. The correct direction to travel is an infinitesimal subset of that. One is more likely to go towards chaos rather than the higher reality. A guiding hand is needed. Or a system that recognizes a self consistent system of illogic is required. The second approach sound like Zen Buddhism, the first is the submitting oneself to God's will.
Last Updated on January 10, 2001 by Bob Rutkiewicz