"Which truth? Who's reality?"

Back to the ages-old epistemological question of what is real and how do we define truth,  first thing that comes to mind is Michael Polanyi's definition of logical statements. It goes down to the simple statement: "It snows". Seems fair enough - if it really snows. In Polanyi's view this is NOT just that - objectivity is something more personal: I BELIEVE it snows so I say it. Beliefs and truth are an insoluble compound bound together by our mind's and perception's interaction. 

So if one does a not too extensive research on the web there are two major fields of "exact" science which are cutting edge in our knowledge of our world: telescopic astronomy and the LHC experiment run by the CERN. 

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html; 
http://hubblesite.org/

The former looks deep in space or whatsoever appears for us to be deep space; the latter looks deep in the building blocks of matter or whatsoever we call matter. 

There is a point where the two converge: discovering an exoplanet in a distant star's gravity field and discovering some exotic particle in the depths of the LHC. 

Let's take some distance and think about it frankly: We see a trace, an "anomaly" we call ... planet, and we see a trace, an "anomaly" we call ... a "particle". But at our best we can only speculate on what it "is" and only detect things happening least "knowing" what's going on. Than, we think an exoplanet is there or a particle - because WE believe it. 

What caught my attention and this is why I am writing these the high similarity between the raw observational data  of a star's close neighborhood from this "distance" and some field representation of matter on atomic and sub-atomic scale.

So what the hell are we "observing" and who or what the fuck is staring back on us?!

And it will never be verified from "close range" alike religious truth - no one came back from death to relate and even if did come and tell the tale, we would still not believe. 

(következik: tolerancia)