Direct Observation as the Foundation of Truth

Direct Observation as the Foundation of Truth

What This Document Argues

This document argues that when attempting to find truth, the most reliable place to start is with direct observation. Western scientific and mathematical traditions excel at this because they are built on observable, measurable, and cross-referencable phenomena. As inquiry moves further away from direct observation—into metaphysics, philosophy, and Eastern traditions like Taoism—truth becomes harder to formalise, not because it is false, but because it is less directly observable and therefore harder to framework.

This is not an argument against Eastern philosophy or metaphysics. It is an argument for ordering: starting with what can be clearly observed, tested, and agreed upon, and then carefully moving toward more abstract layers of reality, understanding that certainty decreases as abstraction increases.

Direct Observation and Western Science

What is most directly observable is the easiest to understand and place into a truth framework. Western science is fundamentally structured around this principle. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology rely on:

Because of this, they allow for a shared and relatively stable agreement about reality.

In my infinitism philosophy and timeline of emergence, I use this strength of Western studies as a foundation. We can clearly observe and verify that:

This sequence forms a coherent, evidence-based line of emergence. It is cross-referencable across physics, biology, and evolutionary anthropology. While details are refined over time, the overall structure is extremely stable. This is what makes it truth-based in a strong sense: it is grounded in what we can directly observe and test.

Emergence and the Limits of Observation

As complexity increases, observation becomes less direct. When we move from physics into biology, explanation becomes more probabilistic. When we move from biology into neuroscience, we can observe neural activity but not experience itself. When we move into psychology, sociology, and culture, we are no longer dealing with simple physical systems but with meaning, interpretation, and shared symbols.

This does not invalidate these domains. It simply changes the type of truth they can offer.

Science can tell us how systems behave and under what conditions they arise. It becomes less capable of explaining why experience exists at all or what meaning is. This is where philosophy, psychology, and cultural frameworks become necessary, even though they are less precise.

Eastern Philosophy and the Problem of Naming Unity

When we move into Eastern traditions—such as Taoism—the difficulty increases further. Concepts like the Tao, unity, or undifferentiated consciousness are not objects that can be isolated, measured, or directly observed. They are attempts to point at the totality of existence itself.

The closer inquiry gets to naming unity, the harder truth becomes to framework. This is not a failure of these traditions; it is a structural limitation. Any attempt to name the Tao already divides it. Any description of unity already introduces duality.

This is why Eastern philosophy often relies on paradox, metaphor, balance, and negation rather than definition. It is not operating in the same epistemological mode as science. It is not trying to measure reality; it is trying to orient human experience within it.

The Evolution of Consciousness and Truth Frameworks

If we look at truth through the lens of the evolution of consciousness, this progression makes sense. Early stages of inquiry deal with matter and energy—things that can be directly observed. Later stages deal with life, mind, culture, and meaning—things that must be interpreted rather than measured.

As consciousness evolves, the tools we use to understand reality must change. Mathematics and science are incredibly powerful at the lower and middle layers of complexity. Philosophy, psychology, and spirituality become necessary as we approach the upper layers, where direct observation is no longer possible in the same way.

Truth does not disappear at these levels—it simply becomes less rigid, less measurable, and more interpretive.

Conclusion

The best way to find truth is to start with what is most directly observable. This is where Western science and mathematics are strongest, and this is why they form the foundation of my framework. As inquiry moves toward consciousness, meaning, and unity, certainty decreases—not because truth vanishes, but because the object of inquiry becomes harder to isolate and define.

Western science gives us structure.
Eastern philosophy gives us orientation.

Confusion arises when we expect one to do the job of the other. Coherence emerges when we recognise that truth unfolds across layers, and that each layer requires its own methods, its own language, and its own limits.