Thread: Absolute Truth

Originally Posted by Set

...I for one believe its because of the many advantages relative truth gives...
[/b]

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. As soon as we start believing there is some subjectivity to reality, we can just make up our own. What would be better than making up one's own reality? This is the same nonsensical way of thinking that leads to ridiculous ideas like respecting beliefs.

wtf? First of all explain what you mean by respecting beliefs since there are many different possible interpretations then explain what the hell is wrong with it.

The world likes to have its opinions and if someone says that this is the absolute truth and they are right, the people that didnt believe that cant just be proven wrong without a fight

I don't think it's about despising the truth, it's that many people (including myself) find that when they try and find any sort of truth, it turns out that there is a conflicting truth somewhere... Also, poeple believing that they know the truth is at the core of many arguments. That is beside the point of whether there is actually a truth or not, i know. But still, don't you see a problem if two different people are both convinced that they know the truth, but they hold different truths? How is that reconciled? either one is wrong (and who's to judge), or they are both right (in which case no absolute, since they hold different views), or they;re both wrong (and still how do you know)...

there is a Big ball of Plasma high in the sky/space and it provides us (that is, the Earth) with Light.

That is True. There is nothing relitive about that.

Now, how can someone say that something is true for some and not others? The Ball in sky shines down, no matter what anyone says, so how can it be "relitive"?

Someone is right (or maby no-one), but there is a Truth.

I would say its not so much about despising the truth, but more about finding the truth. For me there are so many different angles to everything, and bad sides to everything. The truth may be uncomfortable for me, but if it doesn't agree with my natural morals and beliefs, then I won't follow it.

For example, a guy I went to college with told me that to be accepted into Heaven, you have to be born of the lineage of Adam, and to do that you have to accept Jesus Christ in your heart. Now for me, that's saying that if I don't worship Jesus Christ, I will burn in hell with rapist, murderers, and traitors. That doesn't seem like a fair game, or a benevolent God does it? I'll burn in hell thank you very much.

Having said that, I've heard numerous other theories on God (the christian one) and a whole lot of other religions, and I'm coming to form my own conclusions on what the truth is. Yes, some things may be uncomfortable, but I do them anyway because they stand up to my moral code. And if that is despising the truth, then count me in for the fiery pits of eternal doom.

I would say its not so much about despising the truth, but more about finding the truth. For me there are so many different angles to everything, and bad sides to everything. The truth may be uncomfortable for me, but if it doesn't agree with my natural morals and beliefs, then I won't follow it.

For example, a guy I went to college with told me that to be accepted into Heaven, you have to be born of the lineage of Adam, and to do that you have to accept Jesus Christ in your heart. Now for me, that's saying that if I don't worship Jesus Christ, I will burn in hell with rapist, murderers, and traitors. That doesn't seem like a fair game, or a benevolent God does it? I'll burn in hell thank you very much.

Having said that, I've heard numerous other theories on God (the christian one) and a whole lot of other religions, and I'm coming to form my own conclusions on what the truth is. Yes, some things may be uncomfortable, but I do them anyway because they stand up to my moral code. And if that is despising the truth, then count me in for the fiery pits of eternal doom.

Originally Posted by Quartz

wtf? First of all explain what you mean by respecting beliefs since there are many different possible interpretations then explain what the hell is wrong with it.
[/b]

When I say "respecting beliefs", I really mean just that; The idea that certain beliefs should somehow immune to being criticized, but specifically religious ideas. This is, of course nothing more than a mere shield to hide behind in the event of not being able to answer any questions logically (which is always). It's wide spread in modern society and is quite effective. Rather than having to explain why one believes such nonsense when put on the spot, you can simply dodge the questions altogether while simultaneously making the questioner appear offensive and rude.

Of course, the magic shield of 'respect my beliefs' is only applied to religion, considering that's all that it was designed to defend. For example, if I believed that my head contained gold and was about to cut it open to claim it, you'd point it out to me that I'm an insane idiot rather than saying "Yes, Mark. Seeing as how the truth is relative, that could well be the case in your world. I respect your belief. Here, borrow my pickaxe."

But why is that? Why should religious ideas be immune to being refuted and examined critically? Why is it so apparently taboo to call a fallacy when you see a fallacy? Is every religion right? Religions make claims about the state of the universe. Therefore, they inherently represent the truth or they do not. Why is it that some can claim that there is a magic man floating who rules the universe and expect not to provide support for that claim, yet if I were to say that the everything the colour yellow will turn into a portal to another dimension within the next 10,000 years I'm obviously going to be expected to support that. Where is the difference? Well, I'll tell you: religion is something that demands not being examined critically in order for its survival.

I don't respect your stupid beliefs and I hope you won't respect mine.

Originally Posted by Quartz

...I would say its not so much about despising the truth, but more about finding the truth. For me there are so many different angles to everything, and bad sides to everything. The truth may be uncomfortable for me, but if it doesn't agree with my natural morals and beliefs, then I won't follow it...
[/b]

It doesn't sound like you're talking about the truth at all. You're talking about what some guy told you was true. There's a huge difference in talking about the truth and what any one person believes to be true.

Unless I'm reading this wrong and you mean to say that you won't believe anything unless it conforms to your preconceived notions of how things should be.

Originally Posted by Mark75

It doesn't sound like you're talking about the truth at all. You're talking about what some guy told you was true. There's a huge difference in talking about the truth and what any one person believes to be true.

Unless I'm reading this wrong and you mean to say that you won't believe anything unless it conforms to your preconceived notions of how things should be.
[/b]

No not at all, I have no preconceived notions of how things should be (well at least as far as religion and belief goes), and in fact I agree with the above post completely.

If I weren't to believe in things that didn't fit my set of preconceived notions, then I wouldn't believe that Jacob Zuma and Manchester United existed, I wouldn't believe that Liverpool are not at the top of the premiership, I would not believe that Angelina Jolie is not my personal sex slave, because I think that's how things should be.

What I'm saying is that rather than take for granted what I was taught as a kid and what everyone (not everyone but you get my point) is saying is the truth, I'll keep looking until I find the truth, because I think when the truth comes we'll know.

Maybe I'm wrong, if I am, PM me tell me what you believe and how I'm wrong

Originally Posted by Keeper

there is a Big ball of Plasma high in the sky/space and it provides us (that is, the Earth) with Light.

That is True. There is nothing relitive about that.

Now, how can someone say that something is true for some and not others? The Ball in sky shines down, no matter what anyone says, so how can it be "relitive"?
[/b]

The relative part of this is when the Earth moves, so it causes day and night. The 'ball that shines down' is true to those experiencing it in day, and untrue to those in the night. It not relative when someone in space is watching the sun shine on the Earth, because it always is, unless we look away (or until the sun explodes). If we were alive for half a day (during the night), it would be true to us that the sun doesn't exist. That is relative truth. I think awareness is part of the absolute truth. But we are intelligent to accept that the sun is always there, and that the Earth orbits it, the Earth spins, and to apply science etc to the situation. That makes it our absolute truth.

I hope that made sense.

You clearly don't get it. Relative truth has nothing to do with not being accountable, or any advantages. Relative truth is just more logic, since absolutes don't really exist (only in abstract, manmade situations).

You can never say with 100% certainty (absolute truth) that X is Y because of Z. For instace: A chair is to sit on because everyone does that and that is what it is made for. In that case alot of people in the rainforest would seem a chair more like a hang-mat-hang-up then a chair. But that is just a relative-to-cultures-example. Lets take the example that the moon is round, because calculations show that and we have been on it. Don't get me wrong, I think it extremely likely the moon is round, like a 99,9999999% chance, even bigger. That is a Huge difference from 100%, would you have 10x10^29183 moons (alot of moons). However maybe there is a 0.0000000001% chance that the moon appears round, but actually is flat with some special twist to it, like a super-gavitational-core so that even from it's surface it looks round, because light acts weird around it. (Ok, unlikely because only black holes bend light that much, and that would suck to have above our heads ).

Point: There are no absolute truths, only likelyness that -outsite of abstract things- never really reach 100%, only come close to it.

Same thing with absolute falses, 0%. You can never disprove a christian god, but it's about 0.001% likely. You also can't proove there isn't a flying spagetti monster (-god). Only that is also quite, quite unlikely. Yet not impossible.



-

Edit: To the silly sun-question: The sun might be flat, just like the sun. Or the sun might be a huge collective deeply-instictual mind-fuck that evolution created to create a day-night rythm. While the actual sun is invisble. Ok, rather fucking unlikely, yet there always is the 'matrix scenario': Everything we see might be a matrix creation.

Basicly 'the matrix' solves your absolute truths. It is unlikely, yet never impossible.

so what do you beleive?

[edit] so, it is only a high posability that you can think?

Originally Posted by Keeper

so what do you beleive?

[edit] so, it is only a high posability that you can think?
[/b]

Erm, who was that directed at?

Originally Posted by 13redfan

Erm, who was that directed at?
[/b]

I think at me, but it wasn't really clear...

Anyhow, I'll just awnser it.

I think it is likely that certain theories are 'correct' or at least (seemingly) correct in so many cases that they can be generally accepted as 'true' (like gravity). It isn't an absolute truth, yet a relative truth that is very, very likely.

Also, I think -if we take the matrix scenario out if it, since in a way that is outside our reality-, you could say it is very likely that I am thinking if I think I am. Really everything is relative, for we are not outside anything but entangeld in reality/the world.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I think it is likely that certain theories are 'correct' or at least (seemingly) correct in so many cases that they can be generally accepted as 'true' (like gravity). It isn't an absolute truth, yet a relative truth that is very, very likely.

Also, I think -if we take the matrix scenario out if it, since in a way that is outside our reality-, you could say it is very likely that I am thinking if I think I am. Really everything is relative, for we are not outside anything but entangeld in reality/the world.
[/b]

Ok, well I sort of understood that. I understand and accept that everything is relative. A good demonstration (I think) would be to say we can or cannot prove whether a glass has water in or not. Now, most would say that it is not relative, because either the glass has water in or does not. Untrue. It is relative to your definition of water (I'm looking for the right wording here give me a hand ok) because even if there is no water that we can see in the glass, and it is bone dry (again a relativity) there is still air in the glass, and there is water in the air. Thus it is relative. So yes, everything is relative.

Now, the truth, as I see it, is not one definitive thing. It is entangled in everything and everyone, and all theories in some way (by theories I include all religions) are made up of fragments of this truth, but are clouded because the truth is not so easy to explain. In the same way that it is difficult for me to relay the happenings of one of my dreams, it is difficult to explain the truth.

I can give you images, feelings, colours, of my dream (the truth, in this analogy) but not the whole dream, and everyone I tell will interpret the images, feelings and colours in another way.

There is a thing called spiritus mundi I'm not really all that clued up on it, but it's like a pool of thought that everyone draws from, all thoughts, ideas anything comes from there. So maybe the truth is that entire pool, fused together in millions of different waves, splashing around, seething with knowledge, and religions are just little puddles around the edges, each holding some values and faults?

The truth is a three edge sword.

Consequently, absolute truth viewed by two different sources usually triggers two different but usually relative truths.

Both are not absolutely right, of course but by comparing the two, and possibly other sources, the absolute truth could be within reach (but not quite). That is why it pays, in the long run, to have a society that has many different points of views on reality. Can you imagine if all spoke English, had the same education, the same grades, the same music…. We’d eventually have a one sided view on things with no mechanism for self correction.

The finer truth decays in time and the closer you get to it. That is a fact observed in many things.

Can you tell me the exact time? Well, no one can, it changes as you speak. Also, you are not in the same azimuth as I am, even if you are one micron away from me.

Is the earth a sphere? Well, not really, a sphere is an absolute geometric construct never observed in nature.

Are we really humans walking on a planet circling a sun? Or are we just an interfaces between two slugs having sex? Well, you know how far this can go…

Conclusively, I can speculate that absolute truth is likely to be too complex to be logically and faithfully reconstructed from speculations made by observers who are trapped inside it and, therefore, can never have a clear picture of what it is and does.

Originally Posted by 13redfan

Ok, well I sort of understood that. I understand and accept that everything is relative. A good demonstration (I think) would be to say we can or cannot prove whether a glass has water in or not. Now, most would say that it is not relative, because either the glass has water in or does not. Untrue. It is relative to your definition of water (I'm looking for the right wording here give me a hand ok) because even if there is no water that we can see in the glass, and it is bone dry (again a relativity) there is still air in the glass, and there is water in the air. Thus it is relative. So yes, everything is relative.[/b]

that is relative in a way of words. Also a thing that makes alot of things relative and open to interpretation: Language isn't 'factual', language is a way to abstractly describe what we see (or actually, process in our brains). Basically, that doesn't even make it secondary truth (what we see/conceive, for that depends on interpretation, like optical illusions). Language is tertiary truths (in a, my, way). It is an abstract way to share our thoughts that lead from observation (and such).

You could form an achtype-question (that would be more useful without language in a way, for lanuge is flawed), anyhow that question would be like 'H20, 2 protons bonded to one oxygen atom, ectect.'. That would in a reality always come up with the same answer: there is H2O in the glass. However there is allways the option that all the H2O in the glass actually are midgets that react exactly the same to all known ways of measurement.

So, there are about 2 things that make truths relative:
-Differences in interpretation: human factors that occur (what is 'good', what is 'water' (H20 or only liquid H20?).
-'Matrix' like possibilities: We could be living in a machine and there could be an invisible, untouchable, undetectable teacup that revolved around everyones heads.

Now, the truth, as I see it, is not one definitive thing. It is entangled in everything and everyone, and all theories in some way (by theories I include all religions) are made up of fragments of this truth, but are clouded because the truth is not so easy to explain. In the same way that it is difficult for me to relay the happenings of one of my dreams, it is difficult to explain the truth.[/b]

Basically, the only 'truths' there are are cultural truths and such. An objective truth wouldn't be entangled with other things, relative truths are entangled with people and religions. That is kind of the definition of Objective, isn't it?

I can give you images, feelings, colours, of my dream (the truth, in this analogy) but not the whole dream, and everyone I tell will interpret the images, feelings and colours in another way.[/b]

Yeah, that kind of makes everything relative.

And even if there would be absolute truths, would people interpret them in the right way? Wouldn't everyone enterpit them differently? Even if there was 100% truth, everyone would see it a slight bit different, thus, is there objective truth? No.

There is a thing called spiritus mundi I'm not really all that clued up on it, but it's like a pool of thought that everyone draws from, all thoughts, ideas anything comes from there. So maybe the truth is that entire pool, fused together in millions of different waves, splashing around, seething with knowledge, and religions are just little puddles around the edges, each holding some values and faults?
[/b]

Ah, collective knowledge or however you like to call it interesting subject. Like how people (in confined spaces) make crosswords puzzles better if they are of yesterdays newspaper (without them knowing it) then when it is a puzzle that is not yet 'out there'.

It is an interesting topic. However, it has little to do with this. Doesn't matter or it exist or not: If mankind puts 'data' into it, it is relative. You would have to go into the realm of supernatural (gods) to give the 'pool of collective knowledge' some super-human 'truths'.

(edit: quotes fixed)

quantum mechanics says that if you put a cat in a box then put some radioactive chamical in it then would kill a kitten and make it that the cat has 50% chance of being alive or 50% chance of being dead. if now body looks into the box then the cat will be alive and dead at the same time where does leave absolute truth.

that was actually an argument against logic from when I heard it.

It as also used to say that the dvice isn't effected by people looking in, becasue the sensor on the device wich releised the gas/radiation (in the version I heard) would serve as human eyes.

guess why people need a god? and those who don't want this god take something else for it .... because you can't make out an absolute truth.. we are not intelligent enough to solve that question. If it was solved, everything explained etc. .. don't you think living would be pretty boring?
I like questioning everything .. that makes me be depressed here and then, but if I couldn't ask anymore .. my sense of life would be taken away .. I wouldn't find that too great .. and think about governments, they couldn't take religion anymore to fuck with their people .. now solving the question about absolute truth would really not be helpful for all of us

Originally Posted by Neruo

So, there are about 2 things that make truths relative:
-Differences in interpretation: human factors that occur (what is 'good', what is 'water' (H20 or only liquid H20?).
-'Matrix' like possibilities: We could be living in a machine and there could be an invisible, untouchable, undetectable teacup that revolved around everyones heads.
[/b]

I totally agree. Well said. I always wondered why my hair smelt like tea.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Ah, collective knowledge or however you like to call it interesting subject. Like how people (in confined spaces) make crosswords puzzles better if they are of yesterdays newspaper (without them knowing it) then when it is a puzzle that is not yet 'out there'.

It is an interesting topic. However, it has little to do with this. Doesn't matter or it exist or not: If mankind puts 'data' into it, it is relative. You would have to go into the realm of supernatural (gods) to give the 'pool of collective knowledge' some super-human 'truths'.
[/b]

It's in a poem of Yeats, "The Second Coming" (one of my favourites) that's where I heard about it. I think it is valid to the absolute truth (the name of the topic) because I think if it holds some truth (haha, truth being relative of course) then absolute truth, or close to it etc. etc. could be in the pool

Conclusively, I can speculate that absolute truth is likely to be too complex to be logically and faithfully reconstructed from speculations made by observers who are trapped inside it and, therefore, can never have a clear picture of what it is and does.
[/b]

This is what I tried to say. This guy is wise.

"Things are only real well they last"

We exist in at least two worlds: Our minds and our bodies.

"Relitive" truth is something that aplies to our minds.
Real Truth belongs to the Real world.

I dont know about you lot, but I think it is 100% conclusive that 1 plus 1 is 2, a fluffy pillow cans cut through steel, and that a newly born baby isn't millions of years old and dressed in a suit of psico reactive plastic.

There is no way that that is even remotly possable, as I am sure most (though not all) of you will agree.

Things exist, even if it is only from our perspectives, wich makes them real in our mind worlds, if not reality.

I hope this is put across in a understandable manner, and I hope you see my point.

Well, you could have a fluffy pillow cutting through molten steel. But babies aren't a million years old, so you have a point there.

Real Truth belongs to the Real world.
[/b]

What is the Real world? Is it the world we live in? Or is it the 2D world snails live in? Or is it the black and white world dogs live in? Is it the world of the Saimese twin where there is no such thing as being alone, or is it the world of some Angolan child, who is starving with no home and has never heard of an iPod or the internet?
Is it the world you live in, or is it the world of a psychic who can see things, and know things, but no-one believes him? Is it the world of a priest who has seen hell and knows God exists, or is it the world of a Romanian teenager who has memories from a past life as a Geisha?

Everything is perspective, so therefore everything is relative (to us anyway) incuding the truth.

If the truth were a sentient being, then the truth wouldn't be relative to the truth (in the same way that to us we are humans, and to a flea we are a giant source of food and blood)

Originally Posted by 13redfan

...What is the Real world? Is it the world we live in? Or is it the 2D world snails live in? Or is it the black and white world dogs live in? Is it the world of the Saimese twin where there is no such thing as being alone, or is it the world of some Angolan child, who is starving with no home and has never heard of an iPod or the internet?
Is it the world you live in, or is it the world of a psychic who can see things, and know things, but no-one believes him? Is it the world of a priest who has seen hell and knows God exists, or is it the world of a Romanian teenager who has memories from a past life as a Geisha?

Everything is perspective, so therefore everything is relative (to us anyway) incuding the truth...
[/b]

What the? That's the same world in every case. Except that 2D world part, seeing as snails exist in the same 3D world as the rest of us. I've seen them crawl across the Z axis, so I have no effing clue what you're talking about on that one.

Originally Posted by 13redfan

..."Relitive" truth is something that aplies to our minds.
Real Truth belongs to the Real world...
[/b]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't get you people. You seem to have the idea that perceptions influence reality, and that beliefs about truth actually become truth. That's a rather distorted perspective. The absolute truth in this case refers to the state at which things actually are. It's not like asking what your favourite colour is. It's not talking about what any one person has seen or heard or thinks. We're speaking of the physical reality in which we are all contained. In which all of these beliefs and perspectives all exist. We aren't speaking of any one person's take on it.

A particular shade of paint may appear as blue to me, but perhaps a shade of grey to someone else. The fact remains that we both exist in the same world and in both cases, the wavelength of light and virtually all other variables outside ourselves are exactly the same. The only thing that changes is our perceptions. But our perceptions do not change any variables. The only thing a person's perceptions affect is themselves*. Weather the paint looks blue to you or grey to him does not affect the light being reflected off it.

Indeed there is relativity in people's interpretations and beliefs. Indeed, we cannot ever know for certain what certainly exists, but certainly there is a certain way in which they do. Now would be a good time to sit back and remember that we all exist in the same reality.


* Your perceptions may or may not reflect what is actually there. We hold no warranties against defective sensory arrays, hallucinations, etc. Results may vary. Consult your psychiatrist before use.