Is There An Absolute Truth?

[ch'ang]

I personally believe that absolutes exist, but by the nature of consciousness and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we can't know them.

Let me direct you to a wonderful story about a man and his invisible dragon http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

Heres the important part

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Also read a little more about Quantum Mechanics it does for a fact state that not only can we not know a particles speed/velocity with exact certainty but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity.

 

[stemann]

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

One of them exists. I believe that absolutes exist, just as the person in the story believes in dragons. There is no way to prove this, because of the impossibility of interaction between the dragon and one's mind. Similarly, I believe there is no way to know or perceive absolute truths, except maybe a priori ones such as 2+2=4, but then maybe this is not provable- its provability is based on itself. Logic in itself is circular, and thus so is mathematics.

Also read a little more about Quantum Mechanics it does for a fact state that not only can we not know a particles speed/velocity with exact certainty but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity.

I willfully admit my disgracefully miniscule magnitude of apprehension of Quantum Mechanics (considering I mentioned it, one would think I would at least be able to justify my assertions with some linkage).

I believe Quantum Mechanics to be of inestimable value to philosophy, and I actually have a book ("In Search Of Schrödinger's Cat") that I will read sometime soon. Promise.

The little I currently know of Quantum Mechanics leads my intuition to make me believe there is something very important in it that right now I can only guess at.

And I have problems with the concept of "...but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity," which I presume the book will help me clear up, but if not, I will think about it a lot more and surely let the good folk at rf.com know about it!

 

[PureX]

I believe Quantum Mechanics to be of inestimable value to philosophy, and I actually have a book ("In Search Of Schrödinger's Cat") that I will read sometime soon. Promise.

The little I currently know of Quantum Mechanics leads my intuition to make me believe there is something very important in it that right now I can only guess at.

And I have problems with the concept of "...but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity," which I presume the book will help me clear up, but if not, I will think about it a lot more and surely let the good folk at rf.com know about it!

They don't call it "quantum weirdness" for nothing. *smile* You're in for a treat.

 

[ch'ang]

I believethat absolutes exist, just as the person in the story believes in dragons. There is no way to prove this, because of the impossibility of interaction between the dragon and one's mind. Similarly, I believe there is no way to know or perceive absolute truths

This is where you lose me, you say that there is no way to know or persive your absolute truths, but yet you claim that they exist, with no evidence and effectivly voiding any evidence that may or may not be availible in the future. Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as a little odd to me.

I willfully admit my disgracefully miniscule magnitude of apprehension of Quantum Mechanics (considering I mentioned it, one would think I would at least be able to justify my assertions with some linkage).

After reading my pervious post I just realized that it did sound condesending, arrogant and pretty rude, I apologize. But yes most if not all aspects of QM are completely contradictory to our everyday understanding of the world, and I find it quite enjoyable to read about, and I hope you do as well.

 

[stemann]

This is where you lose me, you say that there is no way to know or persive your absolute truths, but yet you claim that they exist, with no evidence and effectivly voiding any evidence that may or may not be availible in the future. Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as a little odd to me.

I don't claim that they exist.

I don't void any evidence that may (or may not? What?) be available in the future.

Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as very very odd to me. I don't know why I believe it to be true, except for a few small glimpses of haphazard intuitions my mind has, which I fully intend to capitalise on by reading that darn book.

After reading my pervious post I just realized that it did sound condesending, arrogant and pretty rude, I apologize.

Don't worry, I am guilty of a lot worse than this relating to rf.com posts. And your previous post looked pretty good to me; there was no offensiveness, and it got to the point very well.

But yes most if not all aspects of QM are completely contradictory to our everyday understanding of the world, and I find it quite enjoyable to read about, and I hope you do as well.

Exactly, I should have read it when I was a bit younger (ie when I bought it, and intended to read it) so that false preconceptions pertaining to the empirical world would not be too entrenched in my head for me to grasp said aspects.

Here's hoping I can still do it.........

 

[Circle_One]

Is There An Absolute Truth?

Yes, that I'm an idiot and have absolutely horrible taste in men. That's definitely an Absolute Truth.

Sorry, had to say it. I'll run away now.

 

[Cynic]

The phrase "Outside the mind" is non-cognitive (no pun intended). You can't speculate about "Outside the mind" because the only way to perceive reality is with some sort of mind.

...And so the only way to perceive truth is with some sort of mind. It's not an objective property of existence, like color not being a property of light, it's something subjectively perceived.

If we cannot speculate "outside of the mind", then how do scientists know that color is not a property of light, but a sensation in the brain?

 

[caminante]

i just see it this way:

have you ever heard of the nazca lines?

they are like some pictures of animals and "gods" on the ground, and they extend for miles.
many people do not know what were they used for. But imagine this:
you are standing on one of the nazca pictures, the only thing you can see is a long, long path, you only see the line, but you have no knowledge of what that line means. You can walk over that line for ever, and it will bring you to the same place. Lets imagine that the line are that we call "truth"...you we might be part of it, we might walk over truth all this time, we are part of this thing called truth, which, we don't know what it is, or why is there for, until one day, we can see it from "up there"...

i don't know if my analogy is clear...do not worry about finding truth, i believe that everything you see is truth, is REAL, there is no such thing as in one side-truth, and in the other-us, this planet, this universe.
do not try to find truth, even if you go, and go over and over again these lines, you will se them only when the right time has aproach...enjoy truth, you are part it, enjoy this life.

 

[PureX]

... i believe that everything you see is truth, is REAL, there is no such thing as in one side-truth, and in the other-us, this planet, this universe.
do not try to find truth, even if you go, and go over and over again these lines, you will se them only when the right time has aproach...enjoy truth, you are part it, enjoy this life.

I agree. I also tend to define "truth" as what is: as reality. But the question here is, is truth (reality) absolute? Or, is there an ultimate truth (ultimate reality)?

I can't think of any way to answer the first question. In a way, reality by definition is self-contained, and therefor would likely be absolute by it's own definition. But at this point it becomes somewhat irrelevant, as anything not contained within reality is "unreal". So the claim that reality is absolute is pretty much meaningless, as everything else doesn't exist, anyway.

As to the second question, I don't really understand what's being asked. What is an "ultimate reality"? Isn't reality "ultimately" real by definition? Seems to me that any answer to this question is probably going to be a tautology.

 

[stemann]

...And so the only way to perceive truth is with some sort of mind. It's not an objective property of existence, like color not being a property of light, it's something subjectively perceived.

I know! That's why I said:

I personally believe that absolutes exist, but by the nature of consciousness and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we can't know them.

If we cannot speculate "outside of the mind", then how do scientists know that color is not a property of light, but a sensation in the brain?

They don't know this any more than they know mercury is liquid at room temperature, or how many feet antelope have. They discover these "facts" through empirical testing but, like me and many others have said, the empirical testing can never be 100% accurate.

I can't think of any way to answer the first question. In a way, reality by definition is self-contained, and therefor would likely be absolute by it's own definition. But at this point it becomes somewhat irrelevant, as anything not contained within reality is "unreal". So the claim that reality is absolute is pretty much meaningless, as everything else doesn't exist, anyway.

This is a tautology; you don't necessarily have to dismiss it, just realise its truth.

As to the second question, I don't really understand what's being asked. What is an "ultimate reality"? Isn't reality "ultimately" real by definition? Seems to me that any answer to this question is probably going to be a tautology.

I don't know what your distinction is between 'absolute' and 'ultimate,' so yes, this also would be a tautology.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Although conditional truth (i.e. a property of the relationship between a descriptor and the thing described) is fairly well defined in philosophy and science, the notion of unconditional, or absolute, truth seems to me to be much less investigated and defined.

For instance, if it is claimed that such a thing as absolute truth exists, then how do we know of it? How is it even possible to know an unconditional truth or whether one exists? I have never found positive answers to those questions. Have you?

Absolute Truths appear to be nothing more than truths by definition. For example, Anslem's "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived", or basic mathmatical equations, chemical equations, tautologies and so forth.

 

[Cynic]

I know! That's why I said:

And I reiterated what I meant, I just put it in different words... But anyhoo.

 

[gnostic]

"The definition of an absolute truth requires that it not be dependent upon or conditioned by an external criteria (ie: not relative). In the case of "2+2=4", un-applied, it's a meaningless presumption. But the moment we apply it to something real, it's truthfulness becomes dependent upon the criteria of the application.

All you need to do is go back to basic. Use your fingers, and count two fingers from one hand and two fingers from the other. To me, that absolute enough to be both true and proof.

However, if you don't know how to count, then it is something you must learn. :yes:

Or heaven-forbid (sorry, but I don't believe in heaven, so I don't know why I use this word), you don't have any finger, then I am afraid I can't help you there.

 

[Smoke]

I believe in absolute truth, but it not something attainable by humans.

We're almost on the same page; I just don't have that certainty. I'd say that if there is any absolute (or ultimate) truth, it's not attainable by humans.

Yes. It is compassion. Self giving love. Even animals perform this for their young and members of their groups. Forests survive through each plant giving the others what support it can.

This is kinda related to my response in the "American Idiots" thread. There's a culture now where we aim, not to support each other, but to support only ourselves. Not sure if those over 40 will see it, and perhaps it's only a growing up thing I'm noticing in the younger generation. It doesn't seem normal to me though.

I think this is deserving of consideration. Compassion may not be absolute truth, but it's certainly the supreme moral value.

Platonism is an ugly thing.:yes:

That may not be Absolute Truth, but it's absolutely true. :yes::yes:

 

[Truth101]

To me, there is no Universal Truth, no Universal Moral, nothing is universal...

I always use the fact that anybody can see from any amount of viewpoints. Although they are rare, some people have no porblem with killing (whereas most people do), not everbody believes World Peace is a goal for the planet (I would fall under that category), and on and on. To me, the fact that these perspectves can not only be seen but believed is proof that there is no universal moral. Nobody is inherently born with a code of ethics, although we are all instilled with one by learning from our parents and school systems!

There is more to this, ask in thread or PM if you want it...I just didn't feel like typing everything out.

You are attempting to disregard absolute truth and replace it with relative views. This is just silly. Let me ask you, If I have 2 apples and you have one and you give me yours, how many do I have? 5? 10? 40? My friend just might believe I have 10 and you may believe I have 40 but the absolute truth is I have 3. A relative view does not rule out the absolute truth that I only have 3 even if I dont believe it myself. Absolute truth is universal and can be applied to anything. The relative never outlaws the absolute. There is only one truth for anything whether accepted, believed or acknowledged.

Dave

 

[sahra-t]

You are attempting to disregard absolute truth and replace it with relative views. This is just silly. Let me ask you, If I have 2 apples and you have one and you give me yours, how many do I have? 5? 10? 40? My friend just might believe I have 10 and you may believe I have 40 but the absolute truth is I have 3. A relative view does not rule out the absolute truth that I only have 3 even if I dont believe it myself. Absolute truth is universal and can be applied to anything. The relative never outlaws the absolute. There is only one truth for anything whether accepted, believed or acknowledged.

Dave

But who says that these dots here < . . . > really represent what we call "3"? We do. To me, that's not absolute.

 

[PureX]

All you need to do is go back to basic. Use your fingers, and count two fingers from one hand and two fingers from the other. To me, that absolute enough to be both true and proof.

However, if you don't know how to count, then it is something you must learn. :yes:

Or heaven-forbid (sorry, but I don't believe in heaven, so I don't know why I use this word), you don't have any finger, then I am afraid I can't help you there.

But you're ignoring all the instances in which the equasion ISN'T true, and looking only at the instance in which it is. Not even your fingers are really "equal", except by name.

 

[Truth101]

But who says that these dots here < . . . > really represent what we call "3"? We do. To me, that's not absolute.

If thats not absolute enough for you than you must live in an unconsious reality. This statement makes no sense on any level.

I bet if I told you ill give you $500,000 for your house and I only give you $100,000 you would get a quick understanding of what absolute is. I absolutely tried to rip you off.

God Bless, Dave

 

[sahra-t]

If thats not absolute enough for you than you must live in an unconsious reality. This statement makes no sense on any level.

I bet if I told you ill give you $500,000 for your house and I only give you $100,000 you would get a quick understanding of what absolute is. I absolutely tried to rip you off.

God Bless, Dave

Forgive me, I don't really understand what you mean with your house example.

To me, it is not absolute because we defined 3. We could just as easily have given it another symbol and another name. The fact is, we chose 3 and three.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've been avoiding the topic primarily because most discussions about "absolute truth" suffer from definitional issues - 'truth' is a problematic term. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is kin to the liars's paradox.