>>But how we talk about the mathematics isn't quite as important as the mathematics themselves.
>
>And whenever we apply maths to something, we never really know whether the model is true to the reality or not.

Right.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science.

We never know which ideas are true.

We can only tell by experiment which ideas are false.

That's called the process of falsification.


>We can only say that if the model does so, then it will happen like this.

Wrong.

We can also say that the model (or hypothesis/theory) has not been falsified so far.

Falsification is like a type of Darwinistic selection, the one's that can't survive don't survive.

The other ones, though we don't know if they are "true" or not, are used as basis for evolving them farther.



>>Yes or no questions can be answered in an epistemological context such as a set of axioms.
>
>Which is why I allowed for "explain why question is wrong" - i.e. what's your set of axioms, and what's your logic, i.e. rules of inference.
>
>>Notice in figure a there is absolute reality and relative reality.
>>
>>Both have their own version of truth. There is absolute truth and there is relative truth.
>>
>>Your question asks about the relationship between two kinds of truth.
>>
>>So the question refers to an area of knowledge where our standard axioms aren't very applicable.
>
>Well bring yours forth. Never mind if they aren't sufficiently normalized, formalized and if your rules of inference can poke holes in your axioms. It can all be polished later.


Ok, you asked:

does this relative reality, once created, exist independently from what created it?

Basically my thoughts are this:

Concepts like "exist" and "true" are concepts in relative reality.

It could be possible to say that absolute reality exists and there is truth there;

but you have to acknowledge that "exist" and "true" in the same sentence as "absolute reality" actually refers to different concepts of "exist" and "true" than what we deal with normally and understand.


So, if we assume they both exist (but in their own separate modes of existing) they seem to be connected through the mind.

But what kind of connection is it?

All matter, space, and time is a invention of the mind, and contained to relative reality.

That being the case, any type of connection cannot be material, spatial, or temporal.

What does that leave?


The point here is we nearly always talk of and think about relative reality. It's where and how we can identify problems and find solutions.

We can speak of it rationally, a mode of thought the Greeks called "logos".

When we try to look beyond our own world to the ineffable absolute reality, we have to abandon "logos".

For example, in the above sentence I used the word "beyond."

"Beyond" is a spatial relation. We know that there is no spatial relation from relative reality to something else because space itself is an invention that keeps things separate in relative reality.

We have to talk in what the Greeks called "mythos".

It's not a perfectly rational mode of thought, but its necessary to compliment rational thought with it.

Using some sort of mythology, you could say that its separate, or connected somehow.

But in the end its not something to hang an argument on.

It's a mythological expression that speaks deeper truths than what fits nicely into language and logic.