Is There An Absolute Truth?

[Willamena]

A mathematical formula has no context but itself until it's been applied to something actual. Even if a mathematical equation were an absolute truth, what significance would it have if it remains un-applied? And as you are admitting, yourself, the moment we try to apply it, it becomes only relatively true.

The formula of equation need not be applied to any specific thing when we are saying "2 + 2 = 4", but at the same time it is applicable to anything equatable. Unapplied, the formula has the significance that two things plus to more things equals four things. If we are looking to evaluate the truth of a unique thing (apple) to a different unique thing (orange), the formula cannot be used. John plus Joe does not equal John or Joe, or Bill for that matter. Unique identities are not equatable.

The moment we apply the formula has nothing to do with truth or relativity: the things we apply the equation to already exist, so they also already existed in relation to other things before we brought the formula in. What we are determining with our formula is the truth of equation.

But there are no absolutely equatable things. Two absolutely equatable things would be the same thing. It's self contradictory. There are only relatively equatable things.

What I hear you saying is that nothing with a unique identity is equatable, only things that share some bit of identity with other things can be equatable. Two unique things (actual things) equatable would be "the same thing"; an impossibility. I agree.

It is only self-contradictory if we expect that the actual things be equatable, but there is nothing in the rules of mathematics that says unequatable things have to equate and still be true.

Even those things with unique identity exist in relation to other things --in fact, they are defined only in relation to everything. That is how they can have an identity unique amongst everything else. This does not make them "relatively true", it makes them "truly relative".

Nothing is equatable, or everything is equatable, depending on how specifically we "identify" the things in question. The point is that the truthfulness of the equation depends upon some degree of lack of specificity of the identity of the things being equated.

I agree, equatability is dependent upon what 'criteria' we evaluate, in that we must necessarily be able to evaluate the same criteria on both sides of the equation; otherwise, no equation is possible. Nothing is equatable if we look only at the unique identities of things. The equation can only resolve as true or false if we look only at things in terms of shared characteristics and traits, things that are equatable.

That means that any mathematical equasion's truthfulness is dependent upon (relative to) the degree of vagueness of the identity of the things being equated. A relatively true mathematical equation cannot be absolutely true, as the concepts of relative and absolute are opposites.

This is where I fall down. This is saying a different thing than we just said above, an entirely different thing. Oh, it sounds the same, but it's not. Here you are saying that the truthfulness of equation is dependent upon how we look at it. You are implying that truth is dependent upon us.

The opposition of 'absolute' and 'relative' is unique to a particular context: namely perspective, or how we look at it. We cannot look at a thing both ways at once and still make sense, but we can look at it either way. We can look at a thing either absolutely, as a thing with unique identity, or relatively (in this example by looking to shared characteristics or traits). The actual thing doesn't change, just the way we look at it. In other words, something cannot be absolute and relative in the same context; but if we take into account the different contexts, the same thing can be absolute in one context and relative in another. The thing itself can be (and is) both absolute and relative. All that changes is the context.

Most everything is both absolute and relative, depending on context. Truth is special. Truth is always absolute, because there is only one context in which something is "true", that is the objective context. For the formula of equation, that is when equatable conditions are met and the formula balances. If the equation is true (meaning if we plug in equatable things), it is absolutely true regardless of what we chose to look at (that means, regardless of the relativity of the things involved to the actual thing or to each other). Two sheep plus two sheep equals four sheep. It really does. Two black sheep plus two black sheep equals four black sheep.

The truth of the equation is not dependent upon us and our subjective perspective.

But what you're calling "out of context", I'm calling actual application. My point is that the proposition can't really be true until it's been applied to something real.
There are no actual phenomena that are absolutely equitable, so as an absolute, the formula of equality is both pointless and useless. The only reason it works for us is that we ignore the details of actual reality in favor of vague abstract "identities" that allow us to treat things as equal even though they aren't. And it works because the flaws in the results are also subtle, and are also ignored.

I think what I meant by "out of context" was taking 'the equation evaluated is absolutely true' and turning it into 'the relative things equated make the equation only relatively true'. Only the first is actually a statement about truth.

What you call "actual phenomenon" I call the "unique identity of a thing". Rest assured, we are discussing the same thing. You claim that the actual thing in all its properties cannot be equated, I say: Just so! The formula is meant to determine the truth of an equation.

More on this below...

(I see your spell-checker fixed 'equitable' but I prefer to be consistent, and besides, equitable has other connotations.)

 

[Willamena]

I'm as puzzled as you are.

I don't see how you can claim that relativism is "irrelevant to truth". Isn't the truth, 'what is'? If 'what is' cannot be equated absolutely, then it cannot be an absolute truth that one or more of any part of 'what is' equates to one or more of any other part of 'what is'.

The truth is 'what is'. For the thing that exists that means a true existence, a true identity as the sum of all its properties, and true properties. It is true that it exists relative to other things. It is true that it shares characteristics and traits with other things. It also is true that in all its properties it is unique in this world, not equatable to anything else. All these things are absolutely true.

That things being evaluated for truth exist relative to each other is irrelevant to the act of evaluating them.

Imagine that the entire universe is made up of dots in space. And each of these dots is in turn made up of smaller dots in smaller spaces. Our view of the universe is limited so that we can't see if there are "biggest dots", or "smallest dots", so the universe looks like an infinite progression of macro and micro dots, but in truth we have no idea if it is or not. All of these dots are inter-related in a huge network of cause and effect, each dot effecting others, but some of those effects matter to us a lot while other effects don't matter to us so much, so we tend to identify groups of dots as "good environments" and "bad environments". And we often compare these groupings of dots (that we have identified and defined as "environments") to each other.

Question: Can these groups of dots ever be equal?

Answer: Given the apparently infinite complexity of ANY identified grouping of dots, it will not be possible for us to conclude with certainty that any dot really equals any other dot, or that any group of dots equals any other group of dots. However, if we are equating these dot environments according to their value to us, rather than their actual similarity to each other, then it is possible for two different groups, though dissimilar to each other, to be of equal value to us.

Right; we compare things according to identity.

So is the answer to the question 'yes' or 'no'? Well, the answer is that it depends. It depends upon whether or not we're equating the grouped dot's value to us or their actual content to each other.

And this is why the process of equating, and the various mathematical formulations of that process, are relative, and not absolute. They are viable relative to our intent. Equal only exists as an idea, and it only applies to reality when and how we say it does, and then only by the exclusion of facts to the contrary.

No, the answer to whether they are equal is 'yes' or 'no' for the thing we are comparing, if it is equatable, because we are not comparing the reality of it, just its identity. If the identities match in accordance with the formula of equation, then we have a winner.

I agree that it would not be possible to ever know the absolute truth of reality. This is a good thing.

However, knowing even one "vague" bit of reality is still knowing reality. Knowing a little bit of the truth is still knowing truth. We need not see the complete picture to know what is real and what is true. The moon sat in the sky night after night for countless millennia of life on earth; yet, even though we've been there and back and have more complete picture of it, understanding its motions in terms of gravity and torque, measuring its elliptical orbit to predict precise events, and analyzing its composition, it is nevertheless still true that the moon sits in the sky night after night.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Is There An Absolute Truth?

Perhaps, but if there is I doubt we'll be able to recognise it as it is.

(Which appears to be just a copy of your OP :sorry1

EDIT* Hey Bruce!

 

[PureX]

This is where I fall down. This is saying a different thing than we just said above, an entirely different thing. Oh, it sounds the same, but it's not. Here you are saying that the truthfulness of equation is dependent upon how we look at it.

Not exactly. I'm saying that the truthfulness of equating is dependent upon how we look at what we put into it. And that makes the process of equating a relatively truthful phenomenon. And therefore it can't be an absolutely true phenomenon.

You are implying that truth is dependent upon us.

No, only that the truthfulness of this particular idea and process is dependent upon us (true relative to our choices), and therefor is only relatively true, and is not absolutely true.

Most everything is both absolute and relative, depending on context.

I don't agree. Everything that exists is part of the whole. In fact, existence is one phenomenon, that WE choose to perceive as a collection of separate phenomena, but that isn't, really. In actuality everything is related to everything else by cause and effect. The only possible absolute, here, is the whole. The "parts" are just the result of fictional divisions imposed on the whole by us.

Truth is special. Truth is always absolute, ...

The truth is just 'what is'. We don't know if 'what is' is absolute or not. I don't object to treating it as such because from our perspective it's as absolute as is available to us, I think.

For the formula of equation, that is when equatable conditions are met and the formula balances. If the equation is true (meaning if we plug in equatable things), it is absolutely true regardless of what we chose to look at (that means, regardless of the relativity of the things involved to the actual thing or to each other). Two sheep plus two sheep equals four sheep. It really does. Two black sheep plus two black sheep equals four black sheep.

But you're still manipulating your perception of reality to accommodate the limitations of the formula. To me, that makes the formula only relative true, and only relatively useful. There's nothing absolute about it except as a pure ideal, but that's true of any pure ideal. But pure ideals are also pure fantasies until they're applied to reality.

The truth of the equation is not dependent upon us and our subjective perspective.

Sure it is, we've already clearly established that. We have to ignore the reality of the things we are equating, and focus only on their similarities (as perceived by us), just to get them into the equation at all. This is clearly an example of subjectivism.

What you call "actual phenomenon" I call the "unique identity of a thing". Rest assured, we are discussing the same thing. You claim that the actual thing in all its properties cannot be equated, I say: Just so! The formula is meant to determine the truth of an equation.

I guess I object to (and have been confused by) the use of the term "identity" in that context. To me, a thing's identity is imposed upon it by us. We perceive a specific collection of phenomena as apart from the whole of existence, and we designate it as such-n-such. And we assign it a value relative to ourselves. And this is it's "identity". Apart from us, in the light of pure objectivity, it has no "identity" and is not apart from the whole rest of existence.

It's our imposed identity that allows us to equate sets of phenomena that are otherwise not equatable. In fact, what we're really equating are not the phenomena, but the "identities" we've imposed on the phenomena.

.....

I realize this has been a difficult conversation, but I want to thank you for hanging in there. I've learned something and have enjoyed the discourse, as well. I think we are finally narrowing down the misunderstanding and as usual it's about definitions of words. I also think that you do have a perspective that's new to me, and I'm getting glimpses of it that are intriguing.

I tend to be distinctly aware of the difference between our idea of objective reality and actual objective reality. The latter simply is 'what is', while the former is our intellectual conceptualization of what is. The latter is 'the truth', while the former is an inevitably inaccurate hypothesis about what's true, though we don't know how inaccurate we are.

The term "truth", for me, represents an accurate awareness of 'what is'. Which is something that I can never have, or know I have, because that would require omniscience. The best I CAN have, is relative truthfulness. That is, I can establish the truth of one phenomenon relative to another. To be honest, I don't know what an "absolute truth" is. I suspect that it would have to refer to the whole of 'what is', which is not possible for me to grasp or comprehend.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

(I see your spell-checker fixed 'equitable' but I prefer to be consistent, and besides, equitable has other connotations.)

Actually, the checker did that, and then I decided that I preferred the word "equatable" better (as did you), so I went back and changed them all, again. But I missed that one that you noticed. *haha*

 

[Willamena]

Not exactly. I'm saying that the truthfulness of equating is dependent upon how we look at what we put into it. And that makes the process of equating a relatively truthful phenomenon. And therefore it can't be an absolutely true phenomenon.
No, only that the truthfulness of this particular idea and process is dependent upon us (true relative to our choices), and therefor is only relatively true, and is not absolutely true.
I don't agree. Everything that exists is part of the whole. In fact, existence is one phenomenon, that WE choose to perceive as a collection of separate phenomena, but that isn't, really. In actuality everything is related to everything else by cause and effect. The only possible absolute, here, is the whole. The "parts" are just the result of fictional divisions imposed on the whole by us.
The truth is just 'what is'. We don't know if 'what is' is absolute or not. I don't object to treating it as such because from our perspective it's as absolute as is available to us, I think.
But you're still manipulating your perception of reality to accommodate the limitations of the formula. To me, that makes the formula only relative true, and only relatively useful. There's nothing absolute about it except as a pure ideal, but that's true of any pure ideal. But pure ideals are also pure fantasies until they're applied to reality.

Alright, we have a difference of opinion that I don't think can be resolved with a sharing of ideas. I disagree with you, and you with me on this matter.

Still, we agree on a lot of things, and that's neat.

Sure it is, we've already clearly established that. We have to ignore the reality of the things we are equating, and focus only on their similarities (as perceived by us), just to get them into the equation at all. This is clearly an example of subjectivism.

Then you didn't understand what I said.

I guess I object to (and have been confused by) the use of the term "identity" in that context. To me, a thing's identity is imposed upon it by us. We perceive a specific collection of phenomena as apart from the whole of existence, and we designate it as such-n-such. And we assign it a value relative to ourselves. And this is it's "identity". Apart from us, in the light of pure objectivity, it has no "identity" and is not apart from the whole rest of existence.

It's our imposed identity that allows us to equate sets of phenomena that are otherwise not equatable. In fact, what we're really equating are not the phenomena, but the "identities" we've imposed on the phenomena.

You give us too much credit.

I realize this has been a difficult conversation, but I want to thank you for hanging in there. I've learned something and have enjoyed the discourse, as well. I think we are finally narrowing down the misunderstanding and as usual it's about definitions of words. I also think that you do have a perspective that's new to me, and I'm getting glimpses of it that are intriguing.

Cool. I wish I could be so flexible as to see outside of my own little world, but I cannot.

I tend to be distinctly aware of the difference between our idea of objective reality and actual objective reality. The latter simply is 'what is', while the former is our intellectual conceptualization of what is.

This I can agree with: our Image of Reality is not reality. (Similarly, our Image of God is not god.)

The latter is 'the truth', while the former is an inevitably inaccurate hypothesis about what's true…

This I have to disagree with. Reality and truth are two distinct things.

…though we don't know how inaccurate we are. The term "truth", for me, represents an accurate awareness of 'what is'.

This is contrary to what you said above.

Which is something that I can never have, or know I have, because that would require omniscience. The best I CAN have, is relative truthfulness.

That is understanding, not truth.

That is, I can establish the truth of one phenomenon relative to another. To be honest, I don't know what an "absolute truth" is. I suspect that it would have to refer to the whole of 'what is', which is not possible for me to grasp or comprehend.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

Is what you've said here true?

If so, then you know absolute truth a bit more intimately than you let on.