The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations on the non-celestial scale (and the model based on them called "quantum field theory") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, logic, reason, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum field theory") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, logic, reason, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, logic, reason, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, logic, reason, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason as a "truth giver" that is the primary driver of The Matrix's hold on the Minds of Men. it is this false belief that holds all people in Controlled Opposition, each side "knowing the truth," all being given little pieces of it, all ignorant of the Larger scope, and indeed, that these methods of reason can't ever tell us the Truth at all.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters. Sometimes these methods lead us in the opposite direction from a larger understanding of What Is.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something far outside the scope of our ken. In other words, if we understood the Fundamental better, perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere. I'm not saying that's the case or that I think it is, I'm saying we have no fucking clue.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere?

Answer: you can't.

We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good our models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics") suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations.

All observations (and the model based on them called "quantum mechanics" suggests that what we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, it is in no way controversial to say that Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations. What we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both Einstein's and Newtons' "gravity" are nothing more than models of reality. They are logical extrapolations from observations, with the math based on premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations. What we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). He said (parphrasing) "Gravity doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone (sphere of influence). In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime."

Of course both are nothing more than models of reality. Logical extrapolations from premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations. What we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.

The Truth is whatever it is, but logic and reason cannot possibly tell us what it is. They are designed to lead us closer to the truth, but they don't always succeed. There is no way to know (logically prove) if any step forward towards the Truth is really a step forwards. It could be a step sideways or even backwards depending on how flawed the premises turn out to be.

Let me elaborate this by looking at some of your examples:

Gravity existed before Newton's discovery of it. The same applies to the Laws of Thermodynamics

Gravity is an idea. This idea may not have anything to do with Reality. Indeed, Newton's concept of gravity was that there existed an instantaneous force acting between two massive bodies at all times and in all places. Einstein came along and said, "not so fast" (literally). The force doesn't act instantaneously and it can only act within any objects lightcone. In fact, gravity isn't a force at all, but a consequence of the geometry of spacetime.

Of course both are nothing more than models of reality. Logical extrapolations from premises that are completely unproven. Indeed, Einstein's General Relativity is either incorrect or incomplete since it can't account for all observations. What we think of as "physical" is almost certainly an emergent property of something very different from our macroscopic concept of it. Even the concept of space and time may be emergent properties of the actual (fundamental) Universe, thus our models of the Universe may be so completely incorrect that it's laughable. Calling these ideas "the truth" may be correct, but physics doesn't suggest that they are.

Similar arguments can be made for the "Laws of Thermodynamics" ("physical law" is a ludicrous word all by itself). The Truth is, the Universe does whatever the fuck it wants, no matter what our ideas are about it, or how good are models are at prediction.

2 + 2 = 4

A mathematical (or logical) "truth" is not The Truth. Logic is a formal language, and math the broader language of logic. These languages and formats are consistent, but they are incapable of telling us "the truth.". There is a clear distinction between the Truth (which is whatever it is), and something that is logically true (self-consistent, but based on unproven and/or unprovable premises).

the Earth is a sphere

Prove, with absolute certainty that the Earth is a sphere. I don't mean convince me, I mean show it so completely that no one can ever possibly dispute it. Don't get me wrong. I can and have made numerous arguments, but if we don't even understand how the universe works in any meaningful way, and we don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dimension" in the Fundamental, how can you possibly prove that the Earth is a sphere? Answer, you can't. We don't know enough. What I can do is provide very compelling arguments that within the scope of our understanding, of our perspective of the universe, the Earth is spherical as opposed to flat. I.e. I can make a much better case that the Earth is a sphere than that the Earth is flat. But in truth, I don't know that the Fundamental even has such concepts. These ideas of geometry are likely emergent properties of something for stranger, thus, if we knew more perhaps a better case could be made for flat than sphere.

The point is, you can't know the Truth about these things by the methods you are espousing. Science, investigation, etc. aren't "Truth givers," what they are, are the best methods we have available to get closer and closer to the truth. They can never make statements of The Truth because that is completely outside their design parameters.

Once you "know the truth," you become incapable of seeing evidence to the contrary. I suggest we stop worrying about "what is true" and embrace our ignorance. In knowing that you know nothing there is the greatest wisdom. The eyes of a child can often see far more than any "expert."

Let go of the need to know the truth and you will become a truly great investigator. Hold on to that need, and you will always remain stuck in The Matrix. It is that need, and a false faith in reason that is the primary driver of it's hold on the Minds of Men.