Thread: Definition of truth

Originally Posted by stonedape

Truth depends on context.

Great, I'm glad somebody can remember this. It's unfortunate that the majority of people on the planet have no concern for what is 'context'. Truth is found in context, as is meaning.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Is the present moment infinitely large? What makes you think that? Is it really possible to measure the present moment? If it's not possible, then can't we conclude, that the present moment must be an infinitestimal? I mean try measuring "now", before you can even try, now has already changed into another now.

What we should really say is that therefore there is no "moment". Does not a moment exist only by having made a frame of reference? There is no "now". Therefore it is not infinitely big or small - that would only depend on how it is experienced. Some might say that it is simply infinite; i.e infinite in quality because it encompasses everything. It really has nothing to do with duration, because it ultimately has none.

Fire does not cause boiling water. Fire does not make "boiling water" appear out of nothing, you left out a part of the chain here. Fire causes heat. Heat causes the water the boil. And boiling water causes heat, so the cause and effect are interchangeable.

Boiling water doesn't cause heat either. Cause and effect are really only descriptions; they aren't actually what they imply.

If you say truth is not absolute in almost all cases, then you do agree with me, that in some cases, there is an absolute truth by saying "almost". Which the point I was trying to make, that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

That doesn't make sense. There is no avoiding the absolute, by that very token. If one says that there is "almost no absolute truth", then that would be the absolute truth, in which case it contradicts the statement.

The absolute truth is simply what is absolutely true and never changes; i.e. Reality itself. You will see many paradoxes approach this fact, but none of them have any power to change it.

Originally Posted by elucid

That was exactly my thought, that the only real, absolute truth that we can find is in Mathematics. I agree that the truths you listed, having to do with Mathematics should be consistent eternally.

Mathematics, to me, is what maps out what is concordant with reality and symbols. But I wouldn't call it reality itself. Mathematics is a science, and science can't reveal to you what is reality, it can only provide a means to describe and analyze it. I agree it does it extremely well, but it has limitations.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Yes but it is possible to make a statement which was true that is nor currently. Truth is not absolute, or at least not in almost all cases.

Going back to what you said: In what context is the truth absolute? Without an absolute truth, there is no reality. Therefore the ultimate context for an absolute truth has to be reality itself. What is reality itself - well you might not be able to define it.

Originally Posted by really

Great, I'm glad somebody can remember this. It's unfortunate that the majority of people on the planet have no concern for what is 'context'. Truth is found in context, as is meaning.

I'm reading a great book on the subject. Godel Escher Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter. It's quite long and I've had to reread parts of it to fully understand it, but I Highly recommend it.

Originally Posted by really

Going back to what you said: In what context is the truth absolute? Without an absolute truth, there is no reality. Therefore the ultimate context for an absolute truth has to be reality itself. What is reality itself - well you might not be able to define it.

I agree. But do you really even need the word truth?

If you can't measure something, then it must be infinitely small.

If you think about this, how is this even possible? If something becomes so small, that it disintegrates into nothingness, with infinite, you are suggesting that it becomes smaller than nothing? Is that possible?

Anyway, as I understand it, when you are measuring time, "now" should precisely come to 0. The understanding goes that -1 would be a 1 [unit of time] into the past +1 would be 1 [unit of time] into the future and that should put the "now" at 0.

And I disagree that if you cant measure something, it must be infinitely small, like I said, 0 is nothing and that cant really be measured as I understand it.


As for the case of the Cause and effect being interchangeable. In my opinion, in some cases this could be true such as motion, one motion can be the cause of another motion which is the effect and that effect [motion] can be the cause of the first cause [motion] causing a cyclic motion of cause and effect. And then there are cases where it is not true such as the mention of the boiling water being caused by fire and not the other way around.

Basically this argument comes down to our conception of time being linear and representing it as a line being false and that time is more like a dot, so cause and effect will both fall on the exact same point as there is only one point making it impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect.

What you are doing here is making cause and effect be dependent on time. Basically you are saying that cause and effect are dependent on time (as I understand from you) and since time is only at the moment which is 0, it makes it impossible to differentiate the effect from the cause.

The argument against this goes that since time is only at the moment which places it at 0 which makes time non-existent, since time does not exist, it goes that cause and effect is not dependent on time, which dissolves this issue.

If you claim time does not exist, it doesn't dissolve the issue, but it shows how it is impossible to determine which came first cause or effect as we need a timeline to do that.

Can't argue against the other points you made though. Nice argumentation.

If you claim time does not exist, it doesn't dissolve the issue, but it shows how it is impossible to determine which came first cause or effect as we need a timeline to do that.

You do not necessarily need a timeline to differentiate cause and effect, a ball was pushed, the cause was hand, the effect was motion of the ball. Your argumentation is that since it is dependent on time, and time is only at now, that should predict that I could not differentiate the cause and effect in the case of the hand pushing the ball, clearly it was proven wrong as I could clearly differentiate between the two.

So you do not necessarily need a time-line, you just need to understand which one is the cause and which is the effect.

A ball was pushed. The cause was the desire to see the motion of the ball, the effect the hand pushing the ball. So again, cause and effect are interchanged.

A ball was pushed. The cause was the desire to see the motion of the ball, the effect the hand pushing the ball. So again, cause and effect are interchanged.

Ok, lets look at another example, water causes seed to grow, the seed does not cause the water, correct? If it was interchangeable, it should have been that way. If that is proven wrong, then here is another example, a foot in a mud causes the footprint, the footprint does not cause the foot being placed in the mud. If it was interchangeable, it should have been that way.

Like I said, I dont completely disagree with you, there are cases where it is interchangeable, and I said that it is in case of motion, there could be other cases, but it becomes a very big claim to say that it is interchangeable in every situation.

Every situation is based on motion, so if you say that its the case in motion, then it's the case in every situation.

Putting the foot in the mud is the cause. The footprint is the effect.
The intent to put a footprint is the cause. The putting the foot in the mud is the effect.

Water causes seed to grow. Water entering the seed is the cause. The growing is the effect.
The nature of the seed to grow is the cause for the seed attracting water through osmosis. The effect is the water being pulled into the seed.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Every situation is based on motion, so if you say that its the case in motion, then it's the case in every situation.

Putting the foot in the mud is the cause. The footprint is the effect.
The intent to put a footprint is the cause. The putting the foot in the mud is the effect.

Water causes seed to grow. Water entering the seed is the cause. The growing is the effect.
The nature of the seed to grow is the cause for the seed attracting water through osmosis. The effect is the water being pulled into the seed.

I agree that looking at things, we see the cyclic nature of the world.

The case of the footprint, you mentioned that there was the intent on putting the footprint, that is not true, there isnt an intent in every footprint causing situation.

Also, not every situation is based in motion, we can start talking about language such as an essay paper where the inclusion of a word is caused by another word.

I believe that is what you are trying to say, that the world is cyclic, it creates a figure eight of cause and effect, if that is what you are saying, then I agree with you.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If you claim time does not exist, it doesn't dissolve the issue, but it shows how it is impossible to determine which came first cause or effect as we need a timeline to do that.

Can't argue against the other points you made though. Nice argumentation.

Time exists, but only as a concept, as a way to measure real things. It does not exist in the way that a bannana exists.

I will say though, I certainly cannot say what the first cause was, what started the universe.

I suppose it is impossible to know with 100% certainty cause and effect, but that does not mean that you can not use your own intellect to make a map of reality which explains things in terms of cause and effect.

Cause and effect are concepts which are necessary for understanding this universe. They are necessary for basic survival.

You can argue that the map is not the reality, which is very true, but it does not disprove that we live in a universe where certain actions cause certain effects.

With your example of a mudprint I see a flaw. Many times people have put their foot in the mud completely by accident, with no intention of causing a footprint, yet the footprint still occurs. oops elucid already said this.