Truth is not constant.

[mikkel_the_dane]

There would still be a certain count of apples - an "arrangement", if you will, yes. Regardless whether there was anyone there to count them or not, or recogonize their separation from one another or not. The objects we (as of now) call "apples" would exist there, in the same state, in the same separation. That doesn't change. When someone came along who devised a numbering/counting system, then they could put a name/label to it. But even without the label, the fundamental reality of the situation remains unchanged.

But there is no fundamental reality, because we have subjectivity in part. In your example you subjectively claim that subjectivity doesn't count, but for the argument to count you have to accept subjectivity.

A historical note about this. It has been tried before to eliminate subjectivity and if you analyze it, it always ends with what you did. Someone subjectively: Subjectivity doesn't real count as a part of fundamental reality.
The joke is that fundamental reality wouldn't be there without humans, because that it is fundamental is not a property of reality. That is a human judgment.
So with empiricism as observation for external sensory experience and/or the use of scientific instruments, please give evidence for the property of being fundamental? You can't.

We are playing this: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." (Protagoras; c. 490 BC – c. 420 BC) That was known even before we invented science. That there is an objective part of reality doesn't make it fundamental. That is a human evaluation/measurement act.
What is fundamental, is relative.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I dont see any reason to believe either one of them
If he said hat he was wrong. The Bible contains falsehoods. Both of fact and of what is good.
But Amanaki is not correct either. So there is that

I am wondering what you found as falsehood in post # 157__________________

 

[Thief]

Magic is so cool in the bible isn't it?

ain't it the truth

ain't it the truth

 

[ChristineM]

ain't it the truth

ain't it the truth

Is it?

Is it?

 

[Thief]

Is it?

Is it?

well I sure hope so

but quite frankly.....I suspect walking on water was a metaphor that got out of hand

still.....His ministry was like walking on water

He could have drowned

but no.....He got crucified

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The joke is that fundamental reality wouldn't be there without humans

Whatever you want to call it, or break it down to, or represent it by (and yes, I completely understand that representing something already introduces a level of subjectivity) there exists an objective level that is there and functioning however it functions regardless whether there is an observer present in the universe to observe it. It is THE reason we can have shared experience of any kind. The fact that we are both human obviously helps, because our perceptions of the elements of "reality" (again, out there and doing their thing regardless whether we are there to perceive it) end up being extremely comparable in a great many situations. But even if we didn't exist... the universe at large would go on existing in whatever actual form it exists in. What we call and choose to represent "fundamental reality" within our minds is completely irrelevant to the actual substances that exist and interact all throughout the universe. Again - the universe doesn't need you to perceive it in order to go about its business simply "being" whatever it is.

 

[ChristineM]

well I sure hope so

but quite frankly.....I suspect walking on water was a metaphor that got out of hand

still.....His ministry was like walking on water

He could have drowned

but no.....He got crucified

I am fairly sure jesus lived but not as described in the bible. It just does not gel with roman law. If he did live then I see the crucifixion as for crimes against the emperor.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. But our understanding of that reality changes, and truth with it,
Once it was true that the world is flat and the sun moon and stars go round it (as any fool could see for himself). Now it's not.....................................

From the ^ above ^ words then happy to say that Ferdinand Magellan was No fool ( c1500AD/CE)
Magellan thought that it was the 'church' (aka Christendom) who said the Earth is Flat, but Magellan knew the Earth was round because he saw the shadow of the Moon and he had more faith in that ' shadow ' then in the 'church'.

Since Jesus' statements did accurately correspond with the old Hebrew Scriptures, and because the Scriptures do Not change, then the 'religious truth' contained within is religion's truth. Like the Moon, Earth hangs upon nothing - Job 26:7 B

 

[ppp]

Then that is all I need, people can talk about truth, though it can be false.

So know you need to show with meta-truth, how your truth is true and the other versions are false. Because you can't assume that your version is true and use that to show it is true. That is begging the question. Hence you need a meta-truth.

I have read thru this a few times, and I do not think that I am following you. Also, I think that you are using 'truth' in a different way that you are. Can you restate what you are saying without using the word "truth"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whatever you want to call it, or break it down to, or represent it by (and yes, I completely understand that representing something already introduces a level of subjectivity) there exists an objective level that is there and functioning however it functions regardless whether there is an observer present in the universe to observe it. It is THE reason we can have shared experience of any kind. The fact that we are both human obviously helps, because our perceptions of the elements of "reality" (again, out there and doing their thing regardless whether we are there to perceive it) end up being extremely comparable in a great many situations. But even if we didn't exist... the universe at large would go on existing in whatever actual form it exists in. What we call and choose to represent "fundamental reality" within our minds is completely irrelevant to the actual substances that exist and interact all throughout the universe. Again - the universe doesn't need you to perceive it in order to go about its business simply "being" whatever it is.

But that this matters, requires humans.
The point is that you are trying to shown that something objective matters. It does, but that, it matters, is subjective.
We are playing this:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ...

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

You apparently subjectively fall within the first one. "The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole". I subjectively fall within the second one: ""The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience." Which one is the most true one? I don't know.
You can do as you like as long as you don't use a universal "we", that is not there. If you accept this limited relative subjectivity and don't try to win using objectivity, I will have no leg to stand on. But as long as you overdo objectivity, I can catch you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Thief]

I am fairly sure jesus lived but not as described in the bible. It just does not gel with roman law. If he did live then I see the crucifixion as for crimes against the emperor.

truth

 

[Onoma]

It's an interesting question. And the answer is--it depends on exactly what you mean.

For example, I would not expect another form of sentient life to develop the same mathematics as we have. To quote Kronecker, "natural numbers were created by God, everything else is the work of men". In other words, being able to count is probably universal, but I would suspect the specifics of, say, eigenvalues bounded linear operators, to be a human invention.

On the other hand, I would also suspect that any mathematics or logic that another sentient being makes up would be understandable by human mathematicians, given training and vice versa.

For physics, I would also suspect that even if the formulations differ, they would be mutually understandable and each would be able to check the experiments of the other, after learning some terminology and techniques. The same would be true of chemistry. Biology and the basis of biochemistry would likely be different, but mutually understandable and testable.

Philosophy I am pretty sure is NOT universal. It isn't even universal for humans, why would I expect it to be universal for other species? Sure, the issues will probably be similar (how is knowledge possible, if it is?), but I suspect the range of answers would be quite different.

And I have a similar feeling about religion. Given how many and varied the religions are the humans produce, I would be greatly surprised if another sentient species had anything close to what humans have.

In a sense, this is the distinction I make between 'knowledge', which is something another sentient species would agree upon given training, and opinion, which is not. And, I suspect that ALL of human spirituality is firmly in the 'opinion' category.

A very well thought out and composed response, thank you !

Out of curiosity, have you guys ever discussed Gödel's 14 point outline ( His philosophical beliefs ) ?

I find them quite intriguing

 

[Polymath257]

It's obviously not in base 3 because there is a "4" in the equation.

But, who knows what the OP was on about - 'alternative truth' is a made up phrase from the alt-right lexicon. There cannot be an alternate truth.

The point is that you can define 1=S0, 2=S1, 3=S2, 4=S3 and use a definition of + to find that 2+2=4.

The base three representation is just another way of writing the same thing: 2+2=11=1*3 +1. It isn't that the fact is wrong base 3, it's just that the formula 2+2=4 is not the base 3 description.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

............ It just does not gel with roman law. If he did live then I see the crucifixion as for crimes against the emperor.

Bingo ! Absolutely right, but it did gel with Roman Law. I hope this will add to your fund of knowledge.
The corrupted religious leaders did Not tell Pilate that they (religious leaders) condemned Jesus for blasphemy, so they had to trump up different charges.
They said they found Jesus (1) subverting our nation (2) forbidding the paying of taxes, which was Not true because Jesus taught to pay back to Caesar what was Caesar's (3) saying that Jesus himself was saying he is Christ a king ( injured majesty ) - Luke 23:2-4.
In Roman eyes claiming to be king was breaking that law and that was a capital offence.
So, Pilate wanted to know if Jesus had broken the Law of the Empire by declaring himself to be a king in opposition to Caesar?
Jesus does Not attempt to dodge that central issue: kingship. However, Jesus does answer in a way that greatly surprises Pilate - John 18:35-36.

 

[Polymath257]

I get where you're coming from. Sort of like two drops of water placed right next two more two drops of water may just become one bigger pooling of water. I was going more for the effect of an "object" being a distinct thing unto itself that remains that way under relatively normal (with respect to our human experience) conditions. In the end, if I changed it to "2 groupings of 2 apples" that should clear up any messiness of the type you're describing I would think. And, of course, I would also propose that we're observing these groupings under fairly "normal" human conditions... not within the center of the sun or something else that would dash even that example.

And part of my point is that the conditions under which humans can live are unusual in the universe as a whole. The center of the sun or the vacuum of space are MUCH more typical.

So, once again, the question of whether and when the mathematical statement holds in reality is a matter of observation and testing, NOT of the math.

 

[oldbadger]

Truth change according to what level of wisdom a person has achieved.
It means two people do not see the same truth, because no person hold the exact same wisdom level.
Relative truth and conditional truth are two different truths, but they are both true.

Examples,...?

 

[Polymath257]

I get where you're coming from. Sort of like two drops of water placed right next two more two drops of water may just become one bigger pooling of water. I was going more for the effect of an "object" being a distinct thing unto itself that remains that way under relatively normal (with respect to our human experience) conditions. In the end, if I changed it to "2 groupings of 2 apples" that should clear up any messiness of the type you're describing I would think. And, of course, I would also propose that we're observing these groupings under fairly "normal" human conditions... not within the center of the sun or something else that would dash even that example.

I think there is also a problem in what it means to be an 'object being a distinct thing unto itself'. I suspect that it simply means that the 'conservation of objects' law is true under those circumstances. In other words, the whole thing becomes circular: if 2+2=4 does not apply, it is because we don't have distinct objects of the 'right' sort. So having such distinct objects is ultimately defined by the mathematical formulas for addition working for them.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

well I sure hope so
but quite frankly.....I suspect walking on water was a metaphor that got out of hand
still.....His ministry was like walking on water
He could have drowned
but no.....He got crucified

Jesus' walking on water was showing that Jesus had control over weather conditions - Mark 4:39; Mark 6:47-51
Jesus resurrecting people was showing Jesus was given the Resurrection Power.
Jesus ministry was Not like walking on water but like walking on land - Luke 4:43.
Jesus could have walked away from being arrested and executed.
Jesus was sent here to be a ransom for us - Matthew 20:28.
That is why he was willing to die for us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have read thru this a few times, and I do not think that I am following you. Also, I think that you are using 'truth' in a different way that you are. Can you restate what you are saying without using the word "truth"?

Truth is always a definition that involves an evaluation. But as I have shown, there is an subjective element to that. Now you need an (meta-)evaluation of the different evaluations, but then you are caught. Because the meta-one is also subjective.
This is a very old problem in philosophy and regards justifications, which are logical and all that. It is not possible, because we run into Agrippa's Trilemma.
So in practice to me truth is something, which seems to work for me. Now some parts of reality are objective, others inter-subjective and yet others subjective. So depending on context I use different criteria for what works as different evaluations.

Truth is in practice, what works. There can be given no reasoned argument for it and that is why, science is methodological naturalism and has nothing to do with truth or if reality is really metaphysically natural.
If we assume the reality is natural, fair as no evil demon and what not and knowable, we are in business. But you can give no reasoned justification for that.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ppp]

I am wondering what you found as falsehood in post # 157__________________

Pilate was in effect saying the concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to give attention.

I don't agree with the position that he concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to give attention. Unless all that you mean is it is sometimes difficult to ask the correct question. And it is sometimes difficult (or impossible) to access the required information. But I think that 'broad and elusive' mean more than just that. No?

That scriptural truth was absolute truth to Jesus because the Bible as truth is unchanging, eternal truth to Jesus.

The Bible contains things that are true, and things that are not true, and things that are false.