Thread: Absolute Truth

Originally Posted by paperdoll

"Objective, absolute truth exists."

do you agree or disagree, and why?

I have always wonder if the past can be considered fact? Such as an event? As they did happen, past tense =fact?
But with all the variables of our perceptions, was it really ever a fact?
I do not believe it exists as a current state either. It is ever changing.
Then when we use science to try and take our own subjective views out of the equation, or own search for new "truths", emerge. Rendering them false too.

I don't agree. At least, there is no evidence for it. It makes about as much sense as any other absolute explanation for the universe (i.e. most religions)

Since I believe in an absolute reality, and 'truth' is something which conforms to reality, then I suppose absolute truths must exist. Due to the constraints and imperfections of human languages, however, I doubt any absolutely true statements can be made.

Most things humans would consider an 'absolute truth' should be called something else, perhaps a 'subjective truth'. A statement like "That ball is red" could be made less subjectively true by instead pinpointing the wavelength of light reflecting from the ball's surface. Even that is a bit subjective, though, because it's based on our current theories of light and atoms - which, though clearly useful, are still subjective interpretations and to some extent abstractions of the world around us.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

"Objective, absolute truth exists."

do you agree or disagree, and why?

I agree because I believe that the statement "I exist" is objectively true. I don't think I need to go into the reasoning for this, the French already did that. So if there is one statement that can be objectively true, absolute truth must exist. I think that any other expression of truth that goes beyond this would also have to go beyond language and symbolism as a whole. "I exist" is only absolute truth in so much as I make this realization with the whole of my being. I can also access this truth without putting it into words. If I see a tree, this is also absolute truth.

As Gnome hinted, once you use a model to try and access truth, you are already in the land of wishful thinking. You are already making and using abstractions and assumptions about the nature of truth. Because, you see, the universe is looking at itself through you, so it hardly makes any difference whether you see the ball as red or as reflecting specific waves.

Karl Popper proposed the idea of humans approximating absolute truth, but never reaching it. In maths, an asymptotic function of truth. But you see, this kind of truth has practical use for us. We can make medicine and all sorts of things. But absolute truth itself everyone can touch right here and now. Erich Fromm said that there are two different ways to recognize a tree when you see it. Saying "I see a tree" doesn't distinguish between these two different ways. You can either see the tree as you actually do and respond to this with the whole of your organism as a manifestation of the universe and affirm this by saying "I see the tree" or you can simply notice the tree as a tree and say "I see a tree". The former is more akin to absolute truth.

We live in a world that we perceive as truths. Black and white - true and false. But there are many cases that because of our perceptions may require multiple truths? There must surely be an ultimate truth to everything, whether we know what that is or not.
Aggravating enough, the subjective argument almost always comes into play as we go on to discuss so many of the topics in all of these forums. While it stands to reason that a subjective argument may exist, it seems more so that many people use this argument to run or hide from the truth, or possible truth. -IMHO. I fucking drives me crazy!

I give a hesitant no. There's no absolute expression of objectivity; we can only talk about degrees of objectivity, in terms of how many people can agree upon an interpretation of events. Even if agreement is thus far universal (which never happens, however you care to dismiss the detractors), or in the case of the physical sciences, even if results have been reproduced 1 million times, one can never close the door on the 1,000,001st result disagreeing, because our knowledge is never total. You can play "what if what if we had omniscience?" but it's a fantasy; you can't see the whole field of events from within it, and there is no outside.

Objectivity and truth have meaning, have value, but no fact or event exists independent of the total field of phenomena, and no expression, no matter how objective or truthful, encompasses the whole.

I believe that there is objective reality, and we are either right or wrong when we make statements about that objective reality. I also don't understand how anybody can think anything else...

The sometimes suggested view that there is only subjective truth is full of absurdities. Aristotle summed them up nicely.

Because, after all, this universe is our own.

We created it, and here we seem to be worrying about the absolute when that is entirely in our grasp.

So who made this place? Of course, it is mine as yours.

"We are one, We are many..."

Originally Posted by really

Because, after all, this universe is our own.

We created it

This seems kind of delusional to me. Do you have any good reason to believe such a thing, rather the other way around? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You speak in absolutes a lot, but this seems like an unfounded statement.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

"Objective, absolute truth exists."

do you agree or disagree, and why?

lol, I love how this has come up at least once a month in the past bit.

I would say that absolute truth should be called the nature of things and that truth is really just the level of understanding between humans and the nature of things.

I define truth as:
- The emergence from ignorance
- Discovering that you have been deceived or lied to.

The Scientific endeavours is the constant emerging from ignorance in process to the nature of things.

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

lol, I love how this has come up at least once a month in the past bit.

it will continue to be expressed, forever, the difference is that peoples' understanding of it is gradually getting clearer (and is thus expressed more poetically [articulately]).

[edit]: I would have to find the exact pattern, but it's something like this: articulacy is using concise words. concise words are words that say a LOT in very little (one word, optimally). you can understand what I'm saying, because you are aware of all that the words I'm using mean, whereas if I were to use the word, say, "optimal" in a conversation with my 14-year-old sister, she wouldn't understand what I was talking about.

actually, plenty of people will read this very post, but few will understand it. I believe you will because I can see that you are at least at my level of intelligence. (and this does NOT necessarily mean that you and I are BETTER than people who don't understand, we're only better in that one respect. worth is not to be judged by knowledge but by...other things...I'll have to think more on it before I say. [whoa sorry, I didn't mean to digress.])

you know what...I see now that at the time I made this thread, I was not near my current level of understanding. if I'd known then what I know now, the thread wouldn't have been necessary...

(but it was necessary, the fact that it happened is proof of that. fatefully, it was necessary. do you believe in fate?)

shit, I'm sorry, I just realized that I didn't even read your post before I replied. did I answer your question?

___________________

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Shakespeare

I do agree with the original statement, and thats because the proposition "there is no absolute truth" is a self-contradicting one, seeing as it is making an absolute claim.

Here's the thing, all absolute means is "total", or end all. Absolute truth = the totality of reality. So it doesn't really matter if we are all living in our own little subjective worlds or not, the totality that situation would still be an objective truth (i.e. Its objectively true that we all live in our own subjective little worlds).

See what I mean?

Whether or not we can know an absolute truth, that is a different story. But in my mind the only way there could not be an absolute truth is if there were no totality of reality, or in other words, if nothing existed. But clearly something exists, aka this reality. We might not know the ultimate nature of this reality we (or maybe just I ) exist in, but its here regardless...meaning it exists in some form, if even just an illusion. That alone is enough me to deduce that there is indeed an absolute truth, or totality of reality.

Gotta love deductive logic.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't agree. At least, there is no evidence for it. It makes about as much sense as any other absolute explanation for the universe (i.e. most religions)

No evidence? No comment.

?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

This seems kind of delusional to me. Do you have any good reason to believe such a thing, rather the other way around? Or am I misunderstanding you?

It seems delusional? Well, what's wrong? It seems not absolute? I am posting my thoughts, whether they are backed up with anything or not. As with anything a misunderstanding is simply just another understanding to understand.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You speak in absolutes a lot, but this seems like an unfounded statement.

I speak in absolutes a lot? Perhaps I could maybe pretend half-intentionally that I couldn't whatever care what says I next time?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I would say that absolute truth should be called the nature of things and that truth is really just the level of understanding between humans and the nature of things.

I define truth as:
- The emergence from ignorance
- Discovering that you have been deceived or lied to.

The Scientific endeavours is the constant emerging from ignorance in process to the nature of things.

What do you think...?
~

Yeah I agree. Would you say that having such subjective freedom has anything to do with the overall absolute universe?

Originally Posted by ethen

Its objectively true that we all live in our own subjective little worlds).

See what I mean?

That's great. I started a topic about this issue: "Forever Or Never?".

Actually, you did comment; just not with any useful information. Show me scientific evidence for absolute truth and I will retract my statements.

Originally Posted by ethen

I do agree with the original statement, and thats because the proposition "there is no absolute truth" is a self-contradicting one, seeing as it is making an absolute claim.

Here's the thing, all absolute means is "total", or end all. Absolute truth = the totality of reality. So it doesn't really matter if we are all living in our own little subjective worlds or not, the totality that situation would still be an objective truth (i.e. Its objectively true that we all live in our own subjective little worlds).

See what I mean?

Whether or not we can know an absolute truth, that is a different story. But in my mind the only way there could not be an absolute truth is if there were no totality of reality, or in other words, if nothing existed. But clearly something exists, aka this reality. We might not know the ultimate nature of this reality we (or maybe just I ) exist in, but its here regardless...meaning it exists in some form, if even just an illusion. That alone is enough me to deduce that there is indeed an absolute truth, or totality of reality.

Gotta love deductive logic.

Well, there are a few problems with your reasoning.

The main problem that I can see, is this; If the possibility of a collapsing universe comes about, then not only will everything cease to exist, but will never have existed in the first place. The totality of reality will be re-winded and erased, as the very fabric of space and time is what will collapse. This allows for a less than absolute existence on all of our parts; regardless of how permanent and real we feel now, and this is only using what little we know of the world. How many more paradoxes could there be that we can not even contemplate yet?

Originally Posted by paperdoll

it will continue to be expressed, forever, the difference is that peoples' understanding of it is gradually getting clearer (and is thus expressed more poetically [articulately]).

[edit]: I would have to find the exact pattern, but it's something like this: articulacy is using concise words. concise words are words that say a LOT in very little (one word, optimally). you can understand what I'm saying, because you are aware of all that the words I'm using mean, whereas if I were to use the word, say, "optimal" in a conversation with my 14-year-old sister, she wouldn't understand what I was talking about.

actually, plenty of people will read this very post, but few will understand it. I believe you will because I can see that you are at least at my level of intelligence. (and this does NOT necessarily mean that you and I are BETTER than people who don't understand, we're only better in that one respect. worth is not to be judged by knowledge but by...other things...I'll have to think more on it before I say. [whoa sorry, I didn't mean to digress.])

you know what...I see now that at the time I made this thread, I was not near my current level of understanding. if I'd known then what I know now, the thread wouldn't have been necessary...

(but it was necessary, the fact that it happened is proof of that. fatefully, it was necessary. do you believe in fate?)


"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Shakespeare

I know many people that feel synonyms only muddle up the system, our language. I feel that with all of the emotions we have, there could not be enough words to explain our absolute "being".
So as we articulate to describe "absolute truth" are we getting further from the truth or closer to an understanding?

O'nus. I often think it is the same thread because it is so often brought up. Then I see only five or six replies. ha ha
I guess there are many others like that too.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Show me scientific evidence for absolute truth and I will retract my statements.

Philosophy isn't science. Epistemology is the basis of science, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, you did comment; just not with any useful information. Show me scientific evidence for absolute truth and I will retract my statements.

Don't you see the connection? "No Evidence" for absolute is equally as contradictory as saying "No Comment".

Tell me you're not lying.

If someone gave you evidence, how would you be able to tell if it was absolute or not?



All please forgive me if my last post seemed harsh or ignorant in any way, often I like to play with words and paradoxes to bring attention to other parts of the brain. Perhaps the questions can answer themselves?

Originally Posted by Korittke

Philosophy isn't science. Epistemology is the basis of science, not the other way around.

What is the purpose of the question if you can't follow through and actually find an answer? It is nothing more than religious musings otherwise. Without scientific rigor, philosophy is religious dogma, in its worst form; that is, one that assumes it is right and that all else is wrong without any supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the purpose of the question if you can't follow through and actually find an answer? It is nothing more than religious musings otherwise. Without scientific rigor, philosophy is religious dogma, in its worst form; that is, one that assumes it is right and that all else is wrong without any supporting evidence.

Philosophy isn't science. It's based on evidence, but not in any way sufficiently. It's based on logic. It it highly theoretical and speculative in nature, unlike science. There are no ultimate answers that all can agree on, based on what they perceive, in combination with reason.

Philosophy always contains an element of uncertainty. Holding a philosophical position doesn't usually entail believing that "it is right and that all else is wrong". It is a personal position about a question that cannot be answered by scientific inquiry. If you feel, that this is "religious dogma", then do so. However, I believe, that differing answers to philosophical question are not the result of differing scientific evidence or differing knowledge, but that of differing personal preferences, opinions and experiences and thus the notion that philosophy equals dogma is a bit far-fetched, considering only that dogma claims to know the truth which philosophy doesn't. Philosophy is, in contrast to science, far more subjective, but subjectivity is not equal to dogmatism.

You could say the same about ethics or any other such field that doesn't have a fixed system as its basis, such as science and experience. Because of the lack of such a system, ethics and philosophy are already predetermined to not reach the level of accuracy that science does. Never did and never will. However, they do form a basis to such things as science by offering a level playing-ground for all to discuss which systems are the ones that will lead us closest to reality (Epistemology - Science).

Natural sciences describe reality through models. The social sciences usually go a bit further. Philosophy doesn't fit in there.

As for "What is the purpose of a question you can't answer with absolute certainty?": Apart from what I've mentioned above (Epistemology and science theory is part of philosophy), philosophy is clearly fun, mind-altering and mind-expanding to me, personally. It is a hobby.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well, there are a few problems with your reasoning.

The main problem that I can see, is this; If the possibility of a collapsing universe comes about, then not only will everything cease to exist, but will never have existed in the first place. The totality of reality will be re-winded and erased, as the very fabric of space and time is what will collapse. This allows for a less than absolute existence on all of our parts; regardless of how permanent and real we feel now, and this is only using what little we know of the world. How many more paradoxes could there be that we cannot even contemplate yet?

I am not quite sure where you got this scenario, but it seems a bit contrived. Here's are the problems with this rebuttal.

1.) You are suggesting that if the universe collapsed on itself, that this would somehow "rewind time", as opposed to just rendering the universe oblivious. I’m not sure I follow why you came to this conclusion, however. I mean, if the universe collapsed on itself, perhaps time would cease to exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing would have never existed in the first place...only that it doesn't exist from that point on

2.) But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt (in regard to #1) and assume that the collapse of the universe would cause reality to have never existed in the first place, then how is it that we are existing now? If what you say is going to happen, it would have already happened since such a phenomenon would completely rewind and erase time, regardless of how far in the future that event actually takes place. It could be in 100 trillion millennia from now. If such a thing were going to happen at any point in time, reality would (eventually) have never existed in the first place, meaning we would (and could) not be here now. And since "now" is a point in time, that scenario will never happen (because if it did, now wouldn’t have ever existed...according to your theory).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the purpose of the question if you can't follow through and actually find an answer? It is nothing more than religious musings otherwise. Without scientific rigor, philosophy is religious dogma, in its worst form; that is, one that assumes it is right and that all else is wrong without any supporting evidence.

What is the purpose of trying to find an answer if there is none? After all, if reality is non-absolute, than so too is truth, correct? And if there is no truth, then there is no answer. If the question is “what is 2 + 2?” then the answer “purple” is just as valid and invalid as the answer “4”. If reality is non-absolute, then answers are completely meaningless and “untrue” by nature.
__________________________________________________ ____________


Logic is a strange thing. Let me begin by saying that logic isn’t synonymous with science, seeing as something can be logically sound, and yet be untrue in regards to the empirical universe. However, logic is why science makes sense. In fact, logic is sense…its reason in its purest form. All logic is is an equation that deduces outcomes from a set of governing premises. For example:


(Premise 1) IF: A = B
(Premise 2) AND IF: B = C
(Conclusion) THEN: A = C

As you can see, the process of deduction itself is seamless. The only fallibility in the deductive process is that it needs “input” …(A= (blank), B= (blank), C= (blank))… to yield “output”, and the validity of the input can be intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate. Because the process is seamless, any inaccuracy in one or more of the premises is going to directly “contaminate” the conclusion. But, this isn't a flaw in the method, its a flaw in the application.

The point is that this is exactly how science works. An equation like the one above is basically what a theory is, with A,B, and C being hypotheses supported by factual data.

(Premise 1) IF: Johnny is a male
(Premise 2) AND IF: All males have XY chromosomes
(Conclusion) THEN: Johnny has XY chromosomes

Science is able to accomplish what it can because it hinges upon logical deduction. Science as a whole is just one big matrix of equations like this that provide conclusions (which become premises in themselves) for more advanced inquiry. The only difference between science and philosophy is that, in science, the premises must be empirically supported, whereas in philosophy, the premises may or may not be empirically supported. Nevertheless, both are essentially the same process, just different applications. So please, don’t undermine the importance of logic, especially when defending science in the same breath. It makes you seem like you don’t understand one or both of the subjects.

I disagree. There are rules, but rules are not truths.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the purpose of the question if you can't follow through and actually find an answer?

Why are you saying you can't? And where's your retraction? The evidence is all around you.

I believe that an objective, absolute reality does exist.

It is interesting to note that most of the debate so far has involved whether we can access absolute truth. This is much different from whethere there is an objective truth or not.

Science is our best means of finding objective reality or causality. Even after the rigorous application of scientific method, there is still possible doubt about the truth or falsity of results. But, it may be said that science achieves objective, absolute truth enough to be workable: how else can we explain the huge progress science has made, and the way in which technology reliably harnesses the discoveries of science?