I agree that a thought is true in the sense of its being/existing as a thought. However, this is very distinguishable from the content of the thought. If I thought that all elephants were pink, my having such a thought is true as, well, I had the thought. However, its content, that of elephants being pink, is not necessarily true.

As for the use of language, unfortunately language is all we have. Whether you take the story of the Tower of Babel literally or not, it holds an important message for all philosophers.
Mathematics? Well, that’s just another language isn’t it? Sure, it’s a very reliable and extremely practical language, yet its constructs are based on our thoughts and representations of the world around us. I can describe an equation in words (though I myself would find it pretty difficult seeing as I’m not amazingly fluent with mathematics) or via symbols. They represent the same ideas. To me, the ideas I express in this blog are logical.

I find it difficult describing the things I talk about in the blog as truths because, as I have said, they are obviously refutable….by themselves! It’s quite a humbling thought…that of truth and no truth. It agrees with my thoughts on existence being all encompassing such that is may as well be nothing. I imagine that some people won’t understand what I mean by that simply because that’s the best way I can describe my understanding of it. However, having led different lives and different representations of reality, they may never understand it in the same way as I do. This is what I mean when I say
“Yet I think the holding of this truth in one’s mind is dependent on one’s perception of its meaning. And this meaning will have varying importance to those who understand it.”
The truth to which I refer is not the truth of “the only natural law is that there are no natural laws” or any of the other examples. It is the deeper meta-quasi-I-have-no-idea-what-to-call-it being of truth-non-truth……..

“Afterall, one cannot know something that is not the truth.” Do you really believe this? For example, take someone who is falsely accused of murder and therefore sits on death row as a punishment. Those who ‘bought him to justice’ claimed they ‘knew’ he was guilty. This knowledge is something that exists inside their minds. They ‘know’ it to be true. However, truth is a different matter. In this case, both the knowledge of hi,m being guilty and the truth itself both exist. The former in the minds of the justice system and the latter in reality. Yet they both bear the quality of existence. Don’t they? Going by Descartes, we see this sentiment reflected in the earlier part of The Meditations. A thought, an idea, knowledge, they all exist in the universe despite their possibility of not being true.

I like the idea of some of your cyclical arguments, “The one natural law is that there are no natural laws”. But I can’t help but feel a later point of yours, namely the barrier of language, could reinforce the idea that these arguments may ONLY be constructed via language and not say logically or mathematically in the case of Godel’s incompleteness theorem (which is about 20 pages long).

Nice parallels with the Tao.

As for how quantum mechanics can play a roll, all I can say is: who knows what is going on behind the scenes of quantum uncertainty?! We may never know. Or maybe the theory is wrong and requires a different way of thinking.
This outlook is not a very helpful way of gong about things which is why I suggested the proposal for direction in the previous blog.

So if consciousness is an evolutionary emotion, and indeed, if we feel ourselves to be conscious, it must by definition be an emotion, perhaps the more fundamental question is, what is free will?

Or more importantly, do we have even have free will? Can we ever reach the answer of this question? Check out my post on Quantum Mechanics, Determinism and Free Will.