# Can absolute truth ever exist?



## Polednice

Dodecaplex made me think about this in the 'defining music' thread, but this has a scope beyond that discussion.

My answer to the titular question is: no. My approach regards the concept of a deity, because humanity's general assumption seems to be that if absolute truth does exist, then it _must_ come from a supreme being. Here's why I think that is flawed.

1) *Deistic Universes*: Most interpretations of a supreme being follow the monotheistic, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent template. However, there are an infinite number of conceivable deities that could create a universe and life, but have no interest in the affairs of life, and never intervene in those affairs, meaning that, despite its existence, it would be of little importance to life except as another little factoid. Therefore, it is conceivable that there are deistic universes in which absolute truth (as dictated by a deity) does not exist.

2) *Theistic Universes*: Even if we were to accept the monotheistic, omni-everything interpretation, I still have an issue with it being said that it follows that the supreme being's judgement on affairs within the universe would be _absolutely_ right. Its eternal morals would provide an unwavering benchmark if it could punish us for transgression after death, but we could still find those morals repugnant and follow them purely out of fear. Does that make them "right"? Just because an all-powerful being created the universe and allowed my existence does not mean that I owe it deference! Though the deity's rules might be eternal and attached to reward and punishment, that does not make them _right_, only unavoidable.

Instead, I think that setting a deity as the arbiter of absolute truth is simply pushing the goal-posts onto a non-human being, when it would actually be just as good to say that we are our own arbiters of absoluteness. If absolute truth exists, it must come from within our species. Given that, I would still say that absolute truth does _not_ exist: it doesn't come from us, it doesn't come from the material universe, and it doesn't come from any deity you can speculate.

As I see it, there are two consequences of this outlook:

a) The common criticism, "there's no point talking about this because there are no fundamental truths" needs to be scrapped. The fact that a subjective discussion cannot reach conclusions of truth is not a flaw. All that matters is human experience and the enrichment of it, which is entirely possible in a discussion that aims to be exploratory and utilitarian rather than absolutely "right".

b) An acknowledgement of there being no absolute truths does not mean that I think people should reject a deity if it could be shown that a deity exists. What I would contend is that any followers of such a deity could only do so out of love, appreciation, fear, or some other array of emotions - _not_ because anything the deity demands is absolutely true.

To me, whatever eternal benchmarks a supreme being might set, it is always more important to follow the paths that human experience takes us down rather than the rules of even the most benevolent tyrant.


----------



## kv466

It is absolutely true that you start too many funky threads and you're my buddy


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> It is absolutely true that you start too many funky threads [...]


Thet's fer sure; thet's fer dang sure. Funky like that sweatshirt you never remember to take home from the gym.


----------



## Guest

To answer these kinds of questions, you need to have a crystal clear ontology. As I see it, there are three levels to existence:
1) the physical universe - big bang, fundamental forces, appearance of planets, emergence of life, etc
2) our subjective experience of life (including our desire to live well)
3) the accumulation of concepts we use to communicate with each other

Note that both deity and truth are concepts - level 3 mental tools we try to use to interpret and organize our knowledge and experiences.

Can there be an absolute truth? If by this we mean a statement which correctly corresponds to level 1 objective reality I say sure - the earth revolves around the sun. Done. If you want a true statement about level 2 subjective reality I offer this - I am typing now. Or maybe, "if you don't do your homework you will suffer the consequences".

If my answer is unsatisfactory, then maybe you are asking something else. The problem may be that you are not clearly defining your concepts and/or allowing your concepts to have multiple meanings. It seems, for example, that you have a lot of hidden meaning packed into "absolute". Or perhaps by "absolute truth" you are looking for one statement which sums everything up - the ultimate compression routine if you will, to use a geeky metaphor. Or maybe you seek a definitive answer to the question "how then should we live".

There are many lines of reasoning where basic concept definitions are hopelessly muddled. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.


----------



## Kopachris

I think BPS has a fair point, but I would still say "no" merely because of the limits of language. I could say "I type," and that would be a true statement to whoever understood the definition of those two words the same way that I do, but if someone understood the definition of "type" as "to assign types" and not "to clack away at a keyboard," the statement would be interpreted as an activity which I am _not_ doing right now, and would therefore be untrue.


----------



## Guest

Agreed. It may be too much to ask to look for statements which are true in all possible circumstances and which cannot be misunderstood. I fear though we have misunderstood Polednice's initial communication. Was he really asking something or just letting off steam? He seems to be reacting to "my god is true so therefore you must behave thusly" sorts of pressures.

Polednice?


----------



## Polednice

BPS, I think those are very good distinctions to work with, so I'll address them here. Note that I didn't intentionally hide any meanings in my original use of "absolute truth", but I certainly didn't unpack everything I could have.

1) The physical universe. Yes, I think truths exist here, though we probably won't ever have access to them. As discussed in another thread fairly recently, our scientific models may have great predictive and utilitarian power, but they are models, not perfect representations.

2) I'm not entirely sure about everything that falls into this 'subjective experience' category, so let me tackle it with the next level.

3) Concepts humans use, like deities and truths. In this category, I would also place morality, ethics, aesthetics and other similar concepts (tell me if you think these should go in number 2 and why). This 3rd category is what my original post was implicitly (and exclusively) about. In any type of universe, could an absolute truth about morals or aesthetics exist?

For the reasons outlined in the OP, which I think still stand, I think not. Precisely because all of these concepts are for human communication and use, so even if a deity communicated an opinion to us with rewards and/or punishment, I don't think that would make them absolute truths. Similarly, as human concepts and tools, I don't think we can rationally imbue them absoluteness - that seems nonsensical.


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> It is absolutely true that you start too many funky threads and you're my buddy


Love you too.


----------



## Guest

"Could an absolute truth about morals or aesthetics exist? ... I think not." I agree 100% with you here. 

The regularity with which debates about absolute aesthetic greatness pop up amuses and baffles me. Must be something in the water.

Absolute morality is a thornier issue, since we all seem to be born with an inherent moral sense. But I would argue that (a) moral instincts are a natural and fairly common product of evolution (eg monkeys and other animals have altruistic instincts as well as a sense of fairness); (b) moral instincts are not particularly consistent - there are many situations (ie moral dilemmas) where our moral intuitions offer conflicting guidance - service to family or country, women's rights after conception, etc; and (c) moral instincts are not completely homogenous - different people will have legitimately different views on what constitutes moral behavior.

Since moral instincts are a useful and even important but not foolproof or universal guide to behavior, the concept of absolute morality does not seem very descriptively accurate. 

JMHO FWIW.


----------



## Guest

By the way, my ontological level 2 refers to our personal experience of living - from the momentary existential perspective (e.g. I think therefore I am and everyone else might be robots) to the more big picture perspective (e.g. this is my life and what do I do with it).

Science, for example, can be faulted for focusing too much on level 1 questions and failing to help people answer level 2 questions.

And you are correct to place all concepts in level 3. Level 3 is concept space, which evolves memetically on top of human evolution.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Couchie

I say yes. The universe is fundamentally events transforming matter and energy. To relate these events accurately is truth. To relate them ambiguously or falsely is non-truth. We know something said is truth if the person receiving the statement could recreate that exact transformation of matter and energy if given the necessary prerequisites to do so. If he does something different, he has either misinterpreted the truth (which indicates the truth has been related ambiguously), or has received false information.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

The argument against absolute truth is irrational. By claiming "there is no absolute truth," you are indirectly saying "there is no absolute truth, except this statement which we let escape it's own conjecture." Therefore, there has to be an absolute truth of _some _sort. You may consider this as true: "There is no God." But the idea of there being no absolute truth would mean _your_ own conclusion about reality is equally susceptible to being false as mine. Again, considering true the statement: "We'll never know whether or not there is a God," is equally susceptible to being false, so we can expect a little chance at certainty in this world. The odds of reality isn't a matter of 99:1, Your Truth vs. Everyone Else's truth respectively. It's _equal _chance of each.

The fact is, all you really want is absolute truth _on your own terms._ If you can't have it, you deny absolute truth's existence entirely.

Then you may wonder, "Why _not_ believe truths of my own terms?"

If you have even the tiniest bit of a conscience, you would recognize your own imperfections and shortfallings. I.E. You cannot even trust yourself, besides other people.

By following your argument, this is your only option Polednice: to disclaim your own interpretation of reality while rejecting everyone else's.


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> I say yes. The universe is fundamentally events transforming matter and energy. To relate these events accurately is truth. To relate them ambiguously or falsely is non-truth. We know something said is truth if the person receiving the statement could recreate that exact transformation of matter and energy if given the necessary prerequisites to do so. If he does something different, he has either misinterpreted the truth (which indicates the truth has been related ambiguously), or has received false information.


Do you think that _every_ manifestation and capacity of consciousness is describable in matter and energy terms? I've read some rather confusing things on this very confusing subject, and while I do believe that consciousness is entirely a trick of a trillion cells - no ghost in the machine - that doesn't mean that the things it creates can be reduced to those physical components.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> The argument against absolute truth is irrational. By claiming "there is no absolute truth," you are indirectly saying "there is no absolute truth, except this statement which we let escape it's own conjecture."


That's not at all the case - you're just presenting it like that because you think a trite summary is enough to destroy the argument. Rather than spend some time getting into a complex debate about how some seemingly paradoxical statements _can_ make sense, I will instead offer my own pithy response to your ensuing argument by saying this: even if we cannot state that no absolute truth exists, because the petty, circular semantics of such a statement would seem to deny it, that emphatically does _*not*_ mean that, therefore, there _has_ to be an absolute truth of some sort. That simply does not follow.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> The fact is, all you really want is absolute truth _on your own terms._ If you can't have it, you deny absolute truth's existence entirely.


No I don't. I don't think there is anything attractive whatsoever in the idea of absolute truth. I am perfectly happy living without absolute truth. It isn't necessary, and it doesn't scare me. I'm just opening up a discussion without bias, and if someone can demonstrate to me why there _is_ absolute truth, then fine!



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Then you may wonder, "Why _not_ believe truths of my own terms?"
> 
> If you have even the tiniest bit of a conscience, you would recognize your own imperfections and shortfallings. I.E. You cannot even trust yourself, besides other people.


You make it seem as though your statements are supposed to follow each other logically, but the leaps and bounds in the gaps between the full-stops is staggering.

Perhaps I should ask you this question on your own Christian terms. Even if we were to all accept that the Christian God exists, and that it can communicate with us, and that it has ideas about morality and offers us rewards and punishments in line with its idea, would that be _absolute_ morality? I don't think so. We might be compelled to follow it out of fear or love, but that doesn't mean that it is absolutely true.


----------



## Couchie

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Again, considering true the statement: "We'll never know whether or not there is a God," is equally susceptible to being false, so we can expect a little chance at certainty in this world. The odds of reality isn't a matter of 99:1, Your Truth vs. Everyone Else's truth respectively. It's _equal _chance of each.


This is a very common misconception on behalf of theists. Is a teapot orbiting Jupiter as likely to exist as not exist?


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> This is a very common misconception on behalf of theists. Is a teapot orbiting Jupiter as likely to exist as not exist?


That's true, but let's please not get into discussions about the existence of god. If we're going to talk about god at all, then I'd like it to be about the hypothesis that, if it does exist, then it doesn't follow that absolute morality does. Otherwise, keep god out of it!


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> Do you think that _every_ manifestation and capacity of consciousness is describable in matter and energy terms? I've read some rather confusing things on this very confusing subject, and while I do believe that consciousness is entirely a trick of a trillion cells - no ghost in the machine - that doesn't mean that the things it creates can be reduced to those physical components.


Ah yes, I am a strict materialist. If you aren't, then my argument goes to **** very quickly. Philosophy is fun.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> That's true, but let's please not get into discussions about the existence of god. If we're going to talk about god at all, then I'd like it to be about the hypothesis that, if it does exist, then it doesn't follow that absolute morality does. Otherwise, keep god out of it!


I suppose I should have left out "on behalf of theists" because non-theists can be guilty as well. At any rate I never intended to strike up a conversation about god.


----------



## Chrythes

It seems that deciding what moral action or behaviour is the truth in any given situation just doesn't make sense. Even if we take the most important of the ten commandments - "Thou shalt not kill" can't be true in some circumstances - when facing a situation when it's either you or the killer I'd say that surviving is the ground for your "moral" decision, thus killing your opponent is your only chance. But I still wonder - what would the believer do in such situation? If he does believe that the commandment is the word of God, then he would not kill his opponent - despite knowing that it would lead to his death, but on the other hand (assuming that the he was the better man in this incident) he would let the bad thrive by letting himself die. 
It seems that in the end morality and ethics are used to enhance yours or your race's survival, what's interesting is why some decide to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and why some feel they can do that by sacrificing others.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Couchie said:


> I say yes. The universe is fundamentally events transforming matter and energy. To relate these events accurately is truth.


But the events can't _all_ be related truthfully because of an inbuilt obstacle for the observer, namely Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can never know all of the physical truth, because knowing one part of it prevents us from knowing another--unless my (admittedly somewhat limited) knowledge of quantum mechanics is wrong.


----------



## Guest

How consciousness arises from matter is one of the great mysteries. I can only offer some feeble thoughts...

1) That which persists, exists. Arrangements of matter and/or activity can exist independent of their underlying componenents. For example a "wave" at a stadium is made up of what? The coordinated behavior of the crowd in attendance.

2) Our brain seems to reconstruct and store (and compress) internal representations of what is happening around us. Our internal mental states don't exactly mirror our immediate surroundings, but rather seem to dance along with it.

3) Your subjective experience is what it feels like to be that collective behavior of neurons dancing in response to its surroundings. More specificallly that portion of neuronal activity which seeks to integrate different modes of sensory input in order to make sense of what is happening and guide behavior.

Have we reached the absolute truth yet?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The argument against absolute truth is irrational. By claiming "there is no absolute truth," you are indirectly saying "there is no absolute truth, except this statement which we let escape its own conjecture"


That's actually a very interesting logical point if you mean what I think you do, namely that to claim "there is no absolute truth" is circular reasoning.


----------



## Guest

Saying "no statement is true" is a bit like saying "this statement is false". The logical contradiction is clever but not exactly full of implications.


----------



## Polednice

On this (I think) rather silly point of circular reasoning, on reflection it seems to me that the fundamental issue here is not the statement, "there is no absolute truth." Instead, I think the problem is actually that the very concept of absolute truth does not make sense, therefore one cannot make any rational statements about it in the positive or negative.

My challenge (now) is for anyone to provide a suitable definition of "absolute truth" with regards to concepts such as morals (not with regards to physical laws, which is less contentious). Evoke a deity or not as you wish, I don't think the term can be adequately defined because it's a false, misleading idea.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> On this (I think) rather silly point of circular reasoning, on reflection it seems to me that the fundamental issue here is not the statement, "there is no absolute truth." Instead, I think the problem is actually that the very concept of absolute truth does not make sense, therefore one cannot make any rational statements about it in the positive or negative.
> 
> My challenge (now) is for anyone to provide a suitable definition of "absolute truth" with regards to concepts such as morals (not with regards to physical laws, which is less contentious). Evoke a deity or not as you wish, I don't think the term can be adequately defined because it's a false, misleading idea.


Morality is really just the opinion of whether certain events are "good" or "bad" for a functional society. The only way they could be considered "absolute" is if the originator's opinions are considered absolute, ie. authoritarianism. The very idea is fascist by nature and should be repulsive to anyone who values freedom.


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> Morality is really just the opinion of whether certain events are "good" or "bad" for a functional society. The only way they could be considered "absolute" is if the originator's opinions are considered absolute, ie. authoritarianism. The very idea is fascist by nature and should be repulsive to anyone who values freedom.


Even given your context, couchie, what does "absolute" really mean? I think absoluteness is fundamentally a self-contradictory idea. When people talk of absolute morality, what they really mean - as you have demonstrated in your example - is that something is absolute _by reference to an arbiter_. The arbiter might be all-powerful, but the fundamental fact that we are using a _relative_ benchmark remains. Unless this relative aspect of morality is taken away (i.e. _no_ arbiter is used), it cannot be absolute.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> Even given your context, couchie, what does "absolute" really mean? I think absoluteness is fundamentally a self-contradictory idea. When people talk of absolute morality, what they really mean - as you have demonstrated in your example - is that something is absolute _by reference to an arbiter_. The arbiter might be all-powerful, but the fundamental fact that we are using a _relative_ benchmark remains. Unless this relative aspect of morality is taken away (i.e. _no_ arbiter is used), it cannot be absolute.


Usually it means a set of rules, i.e. the 10 commandments, which apply to all individuals regardless of unique geographical circumstances, culture, time period, etc; everyone is held to the same metric of right vs. wrong. Such absolutists always do seem beg the divine to justify their authority, whether its the papacy, fundamentalists, rabbis, islamic scholars, mormon prophets... of course this is the "oldest trick in the book", something monarchies used to justify their authoritarianism for thousands of years through "divine command"...


----------



## Sid James

This is a bit above my head. Actually, a lot.

Whatever you believe in, The Golden Rule is common to all peoples.

Christ said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But the wikipedia article above says this basic moral tenet goes back to ancient times way before Christ. & it is agreed to by Humanists and the natural law, natural justice, other religions, etc.

So it basically doesn't matter what you do or don't believe in. Or if there's an "absolute truth" or not. All that matters to most people is how you act in your limited time on this earth. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes.

For all religious people, there is only one "God," but they call it different names.

As for what is "reality," things like the movie_ The Matrix _made me think about what that is. Is it fully in our heads (as some theorists argue) or mainly a physical "reality?"

I don't know, but I suspect it's a bit of both...


----------



## starthrower

Thank you, Sid! I wanted to say this earlier on in the thread, but I figured I'd let the mental ************ proceed uninhibited!


----------



## Vaneyes

There are absolute truths that shall remain such...until they are superceded.


----------



## starthrower

Wow, that word got censored? What kind of a puritanical forum is this anyway? :lol:


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> Morality is really just the opinion of whether certain events are "good" or "bad" for a functional society. The only way they could be considered "absolute" is if the originator's opinions are considered absolute, ie. authoritarianism. The very idea is fascist by nature and should be repulsive to anyone who values freedom.


Yes! Exactly!


----------



## science

I haven't seen mathematics mentioned, and it may be a pedantic point, but I'd like to mention that I think mathematics (pure logic) is a realm of absolute truths. Given a certain set of assumptions, certain conclusions follow with absolute certainty. 

It is sometimes a challenge to enumerate all of the assumptions, and it is apparently true that we'll never be to list all of the conclusions that follow (the incompleteness theorem), but still....


----------



## Guest

I would put mathematics in the realm of concept space (my third ontological category, which could be expanded to include not only ideas but also things like culture that evolve on top of us (i.e. memes)). Of course some concepts like "3" and "pi" seem so obvious it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't be understood by any thinking being. 

It is tempting to assume that these concepts somehow exist independently of us (e.g. Plato's forms) but I think these concepts exist only because we think about them. In my opinion the platonists and especially the neoplatonists really took a wrong turn (glimpses of which can be found at the start of the Book of John, and elsewhere, as I bet you know).

Nevertheless, it is interesting that there seem to be patterns (like the Mandelbrot set) just waiting for us to discover them. When you set up a formal system and work through everything that can be derived from your initial assumptions and recombination rules, then you can find lots of stuff that seem to have been there waiting for you to discover. Stephen Wolfram is absolutely brilliant on this topic.

Note also that within a formal system you can cleanly define "true" and "false", creating some sense of absolute truth and falsehood but subject to logical paradoxes as noted above.


----------



## Guest

Perhaps even weirder than seemingly pre-existing mathematical truths are circumstances when the behavior of mathematical systems uncannily matches the behavior of the physical universe. I vaguely recall (and understand less) some story about Maxwell or someone just on a lark trying to "model" electromagnetic radiation as a standing wave of sorts - never imagining that such a model was appropriate - and out of his calculations popped the speed of light with uncanny precision. Until that point I don't even think Maxwell (?) knew that light was an example of electromagnetic radiation.

I suppose all this really proves though is that formal mathematical systems (level 3) can be structured to closely correspond with the behavior of the physical universe (level 1).


----------



## Philip

science said:


> I haven't seen mathematics mentioned, and it may be a pedantic point, but I'd like to mention that I think mathematics (pure logic) is a realm of absolute truths. Given a certain set of assumptions, certain conclusions follow with absolute certainty.
> 
> It is sometimes a challenge to enumerate all of the assumptions, and it is apparently true that we'll never be to list all of the conclusions that follow (the incompleteness theorem), but still....


sometimes in math, instead of trying to prove something, it's useful to prove whether it's provable or not.


----------



## science

BPS said:


> Perhaps even weirder than seemingly pre-existing mathematical truths are circumstances when the behavior of mathematical systems uncannily matches the behavior of the physical universe. I vaguely recall (and understand less) some story about Maxwell or someone just on a lark trying to "model" electromagnetic radiation as a standing wave of sorts - never imagining that such a model was appropriate - and out of his calculations popped the speed of light with uncanny precision. Until that point I don't even think Maxwell (?) knew that light was an example of electromagnetic radiation.
> 
> I suppose all this really proves though is that formal mathematical systems (level 3) *can be* structured to closely correspond with the behavior of the physical universe (level 1).


The "can be" that I bolded misses the mystery: we haven't tried to match our mathematical systems to the universe and found ourselves able to do so; we've found that in fact our mathematical systems _do_ match the universe - better to say, we've found that the universe seems to obey our concepts. If math is purely conceptual (I'm fine with that), then the universe seems to be "subconsciously aware" of the concepts.

This is one of the two or three great mysteries of existence to me. Another is why there is something rather than nothing (I've heard something along the lines that it is because "something" is a more stable state, but that just seems to move back the mystery a single step). The third is consciousness; I'm not sure it really is a mystery, but it is at least a problem.


----------



## Guest

Science - I think that any different set of initial assumptions and recombination rules generates a different mathematical system. So there are infinitely many possible mathematical systems. We (collectively) have focused largely on those mathematical systems which exhibit correspondence to physical behavior. 

But they are by no means the only ones - you could for example have block geometry where movement is restricted to north-south and east-west movements along a grid. Distance between two points would be measured by "city blocks" rather than diagonally. If by chance such geometry was found to be useful in describing a real phenomenon then it's properties would be carefully studied and applied. Who knows - maybe the lack of a unique shortest path between two points in block geometry will someday help resolve the particle-wave duality (I'm really pulling this one out of my *utt, BTW).

But in general, I do think that our mathematics evolves in directions which help it fit reality - starting with numbers. Certainly calculus and physics co-evolved. The fit is remarkable but not just a coincidence. So I would downgrade mathematics to a mini-mystery. But this may be a judgement call.

I'm sticking with two fundamental mysteries (1) why the physical universe exists; and (2) why our subjective conscious experience arises. But I certainly see your point, and you may be right.


----------



## PetrB

If it did, the mental masturbationists of the planet would be plumb out of luck, wouldn't they?


----------



## brianwalker

and

http://mikejohnduff.blogspot.com/2007/10/hegel-and-sway-of-truth.html

Heidegger allows us to see that for metaphysics, and I quote,"truth is the agreement of thought with the object." The history of metaphysics determines the true in this way, and thus cannot be broken with or altered without altering how truth is supposed to be the truth of agreement.

Now, the problem with this characterization of metaphysical truth is that it is not only Heidegger's. The quote just cited is not Heidegger, but Hegel in his Science of Logic (44). Hegel writes that it is "inept" to think that

truth is the agreement of thought with the object, and [that] in order to bring about this agreement--for it does not exist on its own account--thinking is supposed to adapt and accomodate itself to the object.
-Science of Logic, "Introduction," 44.

In other words, Hegel both characterizes metaphysical truth with regard to its essence and seeks to break with it, just like Heidegger. Truth shall not be the truth of agreement for Hegel. It shall be more. But before we define what it is, we must ask: is it this "more" that will make his philosophy look "restricted," or "idealistic?" Or could it merely be the fact that he is rebelling against a tradition of truth as agreement, as adequation between the thought and the object?

While this last thought is obviously--if anyone who utters it knows their Hegel and particularly the definition of truth that Hegel gives us--unfounded, wild, and stupid: for Hegel, truth is in fact even more the truth of adequation or agreement than the metaphysical tradition he here criticizes as "inept." But I'd like to suggest that maybe this last thought isn't as unfounded or wild or stupid as we'd like to think it is.
In other words, Hegel really does attempt to break with the metaphysical tradition that we now, only with the help of Nietzsche, Wittegenstein and Heidegger, have come to recognize and to an extent overcome. And this attempt in its critical gestures comes dangerously close to carrying it out. The boldness of the criticism, and the attempt to overcome it by a systematic shift in the way philosophy is done, in fact seem to make it almost impenetrable to the charge of idealism--that is, if they didn't fail. But it is this dangerous closeness, I'd like to say, that makes Hegel in his failure, appear all the more restricted--in a way he comes so close to doing what we attempt to do today that it is inevitable that a failure would seem idealistic. But who genuinely can criticize someone as idealistic who rightly is able to diagnose and to an extent displace the condition of metaphysical truth since even before Plato? Wouldn't someone who is able to do this precisely be the most realistic, most generally (i.e. not restricted) in touch with the actual as opposed to someone who sacraficed reality to his own ideas? That is what I mean.
*Truth is not agreement for Hegel. *As Heidegger makes clear, anyone who diverges from the tradition that affirms the opposite of this statement is destined to remain either in deep obscurity or will be cast off by the tide of reaction in favor of truth as what agrees. And yet Hegel says, "One must discard the prejudice that truth must be something tangible" (50), that is, able to be ascertained as what in an object agrees with a thought about that object.

http://mikejohnduff.blogspot.com/2007/08/heidegger-as-philosopher-of-truth-and.html

In order that a certain sentence should assert a certain fact there must, however the language may be constructed, be something in common between the structure of the sentence and the structure of the fact. This is perhaps the most fundamental thesis of Mr. Wittgenstein's theory. That which has to be in common between the sentence and the fact cannot, so he contends, be itself in turn said in language. It can, in his phraseology, only be shown, not said, for whatever we may say will still need to have the same structure.
-Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Introduction, 8.

Heidegger himself says almost the same thing:

"Truth" is not a feature of correct propositions that are asserted of an "object" by a human "subject" and then "are valid" somewhere, in what sphere we know not; rather, truth is disclosure of beings through which an openness essentially unfolds/appears/is. All human comportment and bearing are exposed in its open region. Therefore man is in the manner of ek-sistence.
-"On the Essence of Truth," 127.

===============

Truth (with a capital T, i.e. the Truth of the Universe, not facts or trivia) is not an object you scour the earth to find and then lock up in an empty steel compartment and then put in a zoo.

This thread has been on the wrong track from the start.

That is not to say that "truth doesn't exist" or that "there are no truths" - *Pyrrhonism is stupid. *

We're reinventing the wheel here.

=========

Already gathering everything, such is that from which I begin, for I
will return here once again.

Thus it is necessary
To allow to be said and to guard in thought
Beings-being.

There is in truth being; nothing on the contrary is not; it is this that I exhort you to meditate. From this path, my words hold you back. But from this other also, along which mortals knowing naught wan-
der two-headed. For it is helplessness that moves the wandering thoughts in their breasts.* They are borne here and there, deaf as they are and no less blind, astounded, undiscerning races whose lot is to say as much: "it is" as "it is not," "it is the same," and "it is not at all the same." **All of them for as long as they are advance only in retracing their steps.*'By no inquiry will you ever equate being with non-beings. Restrain your thought from this path of inquiry and let not rich habitual experience constrain you to send one eye there so as not to see, an ear full of noise, a tongue, but, letting what is be, think for yourself the difference, the one that is brought into question by the test involving great struggle, of which my words speak to you

Parmenides


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> sometimes in math, instead of trying to prove something, it's useful to prove whether it's provable or not.


"That is the beauty, that is the terror of Mathematics..."


----------



## science

Since the last time I've contributed to this thread, something that I read (perhaps here on talkclassical) has led me to take a new position on consciousness: it's not that much of a mystery. In a few cases along the course of evolution, organisms became increasingly aware of the world, at some point in that history they became aware of themselves as agents - the model of the world in their brain began to include themselves. That is what we call consciousness. 

(Edit: I want to add to that: our awareness of ourselves is at least as incomplete as our awareness of any other aspect of the world. We are no more aware of our neural circuitry or the processes that actually lead to our actions and thoughts than we are aware of, to use an example from another thread, the photons interacting with the particles of a "tree." But just as we have partially-insightful and systematically flawed and very practical mental models of the tree and perhaps of the light and perhaps even of the particles, we have a partially-insightful and systematically flawed and very practical mental model of ourselves.) 

So now, personally, I'm down to two mysteries. 

I'm considering the "something rather than nothing" question. Some physicist - Krauss? - wrote a book about it, and I listened to an interview with him on a podcast, and his answer might satisfy me: there is something rather than nothing because something is more stable. Too hard for me to get to the bottom of that. Another thing I've thought of lately - why would there be nothing rather than something? In some sense, both would be equally arbitrary. 

But the fact that mathematics runs the observable universe remains a great mystery to me. A kind of mysticism there.


----------



## mmsbls

The physicist, Wigner, wrote an article called _The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences_. Scientists have pondered why the math of their theories explains, so well, phenomena beyond what they originally attempted to explain. It is a fascinating topic. I personally believe that by the time expansive theories are developed (relativity, quantum mechanics, Maxwell's equations, etc.) enough is known from experiments that the theories are strongly constrained. The vast majority of theories must be discarded due either to contradiction with experimental data or inconsistencies. The actual universe is also strongly constrained in that it must be internally consistent. Once you match a significant part of reality, there's a good chance that you've matched much more of reality as well.

Yes, Lawrence M. Krauss wrote, _A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing_. The argument that something is more stable is true if one assumes that the "nothing" we are talking about is the physical system with the absence of everything we would normally call something (no mass, no energy, no space, no time, etc.). However what is left is still what I would call a physical system with quantum fields which then tend to decay into something. The real question is why would there be quantum fields rather than nothing.


----------



## PetrB

Yeah, Right.  

I think you need to get out far more often. This is knocking about in your own skull cage - unless you enjoy bruising yourself that way.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> [...]
> This is one of the two or three great mysteries of existence to me. Another is why there is something rather than nothing (I've heard something along the lines that it is because "something" is a more stable state, but that just seems to move back the mystery a single step). The third is consciousness; I'm not sure it really is a mystery, but it is at least a problem.


I should be apologetic about delving into this so late (but I'm not).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Terry Pratchet covered this stuff.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> I think you need to get out far more often. This is knocking about in your own skull cage - unless you enjoy bruising yourself that way.


Well, it's certainly not for everyone. But for those of us with an intense curiosity about reality, there's no denying the powerful draw of fascinating subjects like these.

I always said I went into physics for the money and the babes.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> The physicist, Wigner, wrote an article called _The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences_. Scientists have pondered why the math of their theories explains, so well, phenomena beyond what they originally attempted to explain.


For me that's not very mysterious at all. In mathematics, some concepts are defined and using _logic_ you can study some of the properties of these concepts and their relation between each other. Now, we assume that the same logic applies on the physical reality. So, when you find some relation between a mathematical concept and a physical concept, i.e., you establish a set of rules for interpreting physically some mathematical concepts, then those properties of the mathematical concepts that you have studied in mathematics have now a physical interpretation, they are the predictions of your mathematical model. This works because the physical reality and the mathematical reality are governed by the same logic (i.e., if you have deducted these mathematical properties from the original concept using logic, and you know how to interpret physically the mathematical concepts involved and you suppose that the same logic applies to the physical reality, then there must exist a physical phenomenon which corresponds to the mathematical properties of the original concept and this phenomenon must be a logical consequence of the first physical phenomenon which we have associated with the original mathematical concept). So, the construction of mathematical models of the physical reality is just a very sophisticated way of studying the physical reality using logic, nothing more.


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> For me that's not very mysterious at all. In mathematics, some concepts are defined and using _logic_ you can study some of the properties of these concepts and their relation between each other. Now, we assume that the same logic applies on the physical reality. So, when you find some relation between a mathematical concept and a physical concept, i.e., you establish a set of rules for interpreting physically some mathematical concepts, then those properties of the mathematical concepts that you have studied in mathematics have now a physical interpretation, they are the predictions of your mathematical model. This works because the physical reality and the mathematical reality are governed by the same logic (i.e., if you have deducted these mathematical properties from the original concept using logic, and you know how to interpret physically the mathematical concepts involved and you suppose that the same logic applies to the physical reality, then there must exist a physical phenomenon which corresponds to the mathematical properties of the original concept and this phenomenon must be a logical consequence of the first physical phenomenon which we have associated with the original mathematical concept). So, the construction of mathematical models of the physical reality is just a very sophisticated way of studying the physical reality using logic, nothing more.


Yes, I believe physicists assume what you are saying is true. The real question is _why_ are "physical reality and the mathematical reality ... governed by the same logic?" It's not obvious that the two should be that way. I would probably say it's really not truly mysterious but more curious. Your last sentence is pretty much what I believe, but there's still that question of why the models work so well. It's true that once you start seeing the effectiveness of math for modeling physical reality, you assume that effectiveness will continue to other parts of reality.


----------



## aleazk

mmsbls said:


> Yes, I believe physicists assume what you are saying is true. The real question is _why_ are "physical reality and the mathematical reality ... governed by the same logic?" It's not obvious that the two should be that way. I would probably say it's really not truly mysterious but more curious. Your last sentence is pretty much what I believe, but there's still that question of why the models work so well. It's true that once you start seeing the effectiveness of math for modeling physical reality, you assume that effectiveness will continue to other parts of reality.


When I said physical reality and mathematical reality, that was just for the emphasis. I'm not a mathematical platonist. I think that there's only one reality and one logic: physical reality and its logic. In mathematics, you just study concepts and their properties, using this logic. 
I think it's effective because in that way (constructing mathematical models of reality) you can deal more easily with the important concepts involved (normally in physics, we are interested only in some fundamental properties of the physical concepts we study), and this is because of the nature of mathematics, which require a clear statement of the concepts and a careful and detailed study of them, step by step. So, at the end, is very effective because you are studying the consequences of those fundamental concepts that are of your interest. For example in relativity, the interesting fact about spacetime is that events can be parameterized by four real numbers, this is the fundamental fact. Spacetime modeled by a four dimensional differentiable manifold captures precisely this property (since a set whose elements can be characterized by n real numbers is the definition of a manifold!). But now that you have captured the property or concept of your interest, almost any prediction will be of interest!, since that's what you wanted, predictions about this concept, and mathematics provide a systematic framework for studying the properties of these fundamental concepts of interest.
So, the key points, I think, are that mathematics requiere a clear statement of the concepts, because of its own nature, and, once you have them, they provide a systematic framework for studying their properties, again because of its own nature (careful, clear, step by step, etc.). The correct phrase is the construction of mathematical models of the physical reality is just a very sophisticated and very refined way of studying the physical reality using logic.


----------



## Guest

I think aleazk and mmsbls and the points I'm gonna try to make below are all pretty much the same. At the risk of stirring up the mud, I will try to reach for greater clarity of expression...

Formal mathematical systems are governed by rules of deduction - how to create new "true" statements from existing statements. Physical systems at some level are also governed by rules - how the configuration of reality at time t+1 is derived from the configuration of reality at time t.

When there is a strong similarity (homomorphism) between the rules and behavior of the physical system and the rules and behavior of the formal mathematical system being used to model it, then (a) you can use calculations in the formal system to anticipate the evolution of the physical system; and (b) sometimes behavior of the formal system will suggest phenomena that you had not yet noticed in the physical system.

I consider this remarkable, and sometimes even astonishing, but not a "mystery".

In defense of the "mystery" of consciousness....

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that evolving organisms will develop mechanisms to sense their external environment, and, more relevant, will develop mechanisms to integrate the information received across senses. Ultimately, perhaps the only way to make sense of the flood of sensory data is to create an internal model of the external world, then use the sensory data to refine that internal model, while simultaneously using the internal model to help interpret the sensory data. 

It is no mystery therefore that some sort of "integrated awareness" mechanism would evolve. However, it is not clear why the operation of this mechanism should produce the "qualia" of consciousness. It seems reasonable to imagine that the same tasks could be accomplished without generating ghosts. The existence of these ghosts - which cannot be proven and which probably we would never believe existed if we were not ourselves precisely such ghosts - is a mystery to me. 

Our subjective reality is this integrated awareness mechanism as seen from the perspective of that awareness mechanism. The existence of objective reality is one mystery, the existence of our subjective perspective on that reality is a second mystery.

Not sure whether or not that's convincing, and maybe the power of mathematics is a bigger mystery than the subjective phenomena of consciousness, but I personally am more baffled by the latter than the former.


----------



## BurningDesire

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes! ... wait a minute.


----------



## Ramako

This is silly. I haven't read the above, but I'm sure this has already been pointed out.

Does absolute truth exist?
- yes? then obviously it does.
- no? then the fact that there is no absolute truth is absolute, and so must be an absolute truth, as Socrates put it much better.

Now I'm sure there are clever ways to word things out, but absolute truth must exist if there is such a thing as reality, reality and truth being much of a muchness. Even if you don't accept cogito ergo sum, you must accept cogito, even if you believe we live in a Matrix unreality, so thinking, even Matrix thinking, is an absolute reality => truth.

From there we can make our way to being normal people.


----------



## aleazk

Ramako said:


> This is silly. I haven't read the above, but I'm sure this has already been pointed out.
> 
> Does absolute truth exist?
> - yes? then obviously it does.
> - no? then the fact that there is no absolute truth is absolute, and so must be an absolute truth, as Socrates put it much better.
> 
> Now I'm sure there are clever ways to word things out, but absolute truth must exist if there is such a thing as reality, reality and truth being much of a muchness. Even if you don't accept cogito ergo sum, you must accept cogito, even if you believe we live in a Matrix unreality, so thinking, even Matrix thinking, is an absolute reality => truth.
> 
> From there we can make our way to being normal people.


Actually, we were discussing other stuff, but yeah, 'absolute truth must exist if there is such a thing as reality' (at least those truths related with the objective world and not political truths or ethical truths, which is a more complicated matter).


----------



## aleazk

BPS said:


> I think aleazk and mmsbls and the points I'm gonna try to make below are all pretty much the same. At the risk of stirring up the mud, I will try to reach for greater clarity of expression...
> 
> Formal mathematical systems are governed by rules of deduction - how to create new "true" statements from existing statements. Physical systems at some level are also governed by rules - how the configuration of reality at time t+1 is derived from the configuration of reality at time t.
> 
> When there is a strong similarity (homomorphism) between the rules and behavior of the physical system and the rules and behavior of the formal mathematical system being used to model it, then (a) you can use calculations in the formal system to anticipate the evolution of the physical system; and (b) sometimes behavior of the formal system will suggest phenomena that you had not yet noticed in the physical system.
> 
> I consider this remarkable, and sometimes even astonishing, but not a "mystery".


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying, although I go a little further when I say that there's simply one logic, the logic of physical reality. That's more stronger that saying that mathematical reality's logic and physical reality's logic are isomorphic.
The issue about consciousness is a real mystery as you say.


----------



## BurningDesire

Ramako said:


> This is silly. I haven't read the above, but I'm sure this has already been pointed out.
> 
> Does absolute truth exist?
> - yes? then obviously it does.
> - no? then the fact that there is no absolute truth is absolute, and so must be an absolute truth, as Socrates put it much better.
> 
> Now I'm sure there are clever ways to word things out, but absolute truth must exist if there is such a thing as reality, reality and truth being much of a muchness. Even if you don't accept cogito ergo sum, you must accept cogito, even if you believe we live in a Matrix unreality, so thinking, even Matrix thinking, is an absolute reality => truth.
> 
> From there we can make our way to being normal people.


*BOOM!* you just blew my mind brother.


----------



## zeszut

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "We'll never know whether or not there is a God"


being a metaphor, "god" neither exists nor does not exist.


----------



## emiellucifuge

aleazk said:


> The issue about consciousness is a real mystery as you say.


I think this is a question that will only be answered via material studies of the brain. I can recommend a book by Bruce Hood, called 'the Self Illusion'. He is a prominent neuroscientist, who argues that the current state of research suggests that the idea of a self, or a consciousness is developed only in social animals in order for them to relate to each other better. Intelligence is thought to have evolved to the degree it has in humans purely for the purposes of functioning within a large community and keeping tracks of all the relationships between individuals.


----------



## Philip

zeszut said:


> God neither exists nor does not exist.


----------



## Ondine

The only absolute truth I know is that one day -as beings- we will cease to exist.


----------



## mmsbls

emiellucifuge said:


> I think this is a question that will only be answered via material studies of the brain. I can recommend a book by Bruce Hood, called 'the Self Illusion'. He is a prominent neuroscientist, who argues that the current state of research suggests that the idea of a self, or a consciousness is developed only in social animals in order for them to relate to each other better. Intelligence is thought to have evolved to the degree it has in humans purely for the purposes of functioning within a large community and keeping tracks of all the relationships between individuals.


I haven't read Hood's book, but I have read many books by neuroscientists that point to similar conclusions about the conscious self. Our memories are quite malleable and often distinctly different from what actually happened. Almost all the neuroscientists I read believe there is no consciousness with free will that controls our actions and thoughts. Instead there are subconscious neural processes that "solve problems", "make decisions", and determine actions. Consciousness itself seems to be an "after the fact" phenomenon caused by our subconscious brain processes for reasons we simply don't understand. We obviously need to understand an enormous additional amount about the brain to truly understand consciousness.


----------



## Renaissance

Ondine said:


> The only absolute truth I know is that one day -as beings- we will cease to exist.


Well, it is a very high probability that this thing will happen, but it is not an absolute truth, in terms of Boltzmann statistics. I do not wish to go further into "technical" details as I tend to see this kind of questions more approachable from a philosophical point of view.

In my opinion, there is not such thing as "absolute" truth, because all the reality we perceive is "filtered" (don't have another word to suit better) through our senses. We can see no more than our "instruments" allow us to see. I don't think that science will ever discover all is to be discover about nature, simply because we are part of the puzzle that we are trying to solve. If you regard the whole thing from a reductionist perspective, your logic is merely an algorithm, a phenomena generated by a chain-connections of nervous cells. Like Einstein said, what does a fish know about the water in which it swims all its life? Well, he knows nothing. At a first sight, it can be observed that one's capacity of transcending the common reality (which is nothing more than cognitive patterns that we form throughout the life) is given by the intelligence, rational-intelligence to be more precise. And this intelligence is largely a gift from nature. But if we see clearly, the intellect does nothing more than replacing an old pattern, with a new one. A vision, with another. This is the way that knowledge has evolved in the past, and it is still doing it the same way. The intellect itself, is a kind of prison. The whole mind, if you wish. The intellect works with concepts, and the nature of concept doesn't have to be of the same nature like the reality itself. In fact, I really find questionable the hypothesis of the existence of an "outside" reality. We really can't know what is outside of your consciousness. Because, all the processes, concepts, things you can work with, are only reflections of the reality (filtered by senses) into our cognition. Very many things remain outside the field of our rational mind, because we have those patterns the we rely on. We see things that we are trained to see, based on how you form your intellect. A child who grew up in a forest won't know how a TV looks like. He doesn't have the concept of the TV in his mind, so he can't imagine it. He needs at least something similar in his mind, otherwise, he can't perceive it. It is all based on our way of imagining the reality, of how you make the connections. This is what we should be taught in school, how to make connections between concepts, how to understand the way our mind works, not learning by heart some useless informations that you can find at any time on web. A critical thinking is essential for someone who wants to understand a little bit this world. And this apply both in the use of logic and emotions.

Because of the relative nature of the concepts, and your way of thinking (cognitive patterns, or whatever you call them) which is not always conscious, you have access only to a limited amount of knowledge. Only with an increased awareness you can realize them, the correct them if you have a strong critical thinking. There is no philosophy witch can not be approved or disapproved at the same time. Only the way we chose to think about it, makes the whole difference. We are not only rational, we are also emotional. The intellect itself, like an abstract concept if you wish, is not unidirectional. No man can be only logical, or makes use only of pure logic. When you are interpreting a result, you will always be guided by subjectivity.Something else decide if one way is more logical than other. In fact, there is a logic in anything. Again, we can see how misleading these things can be. Because the concepts don't have an exact definition. Only maths is an universal language. Our words, are not. So, it is clear for me that an "absolute" truth can't be find through this way. Even the term "absolute" is ambiguous for mind, yet we use it. We don't even imagine a thing being "absolute", yet we think if a truth can be absolute or not. So, the whole thing here is misleading and non-sense. The rational side of the mind is a powerful tool, but only used in a proper way, and paying attention to the patterns that pulls you on a way or another. There is an "Me" hidden in all this story, which is not the same as the mind, as the emotions, or whatever. You can't use a tool (the mind) to get your way to that entity, a tool which is subordinated to it. In modern biology there are some reductionist "trends" which I try to avoid. When to pull things to fix your vision, you are no longer making science, you are founding ideologies. A thing which is to be avoided in a world already full of errors. Science don't have to work that way. I strongly recommend to all students/people interesting in this area to study the history of science, or the philosophy of science. It is really helpful for a wider understanding of this field and how it should work. To know what to believe, and what to ignore. It is important to know what is scientifical proved, and what is a fantesy of a so-called "scientists".

I really apology for my english, I don't think I made myself very clear. And sorry for the lack of coherence, I was trying to reach more subjects in one.


----------



## Ramako

There is a difference between absolute truth and undeniable truth. One person can say reality exists, a second may say it doesn't. One must be wrong - even though we have no undeniable evidence either way. Ultimately we have no absolutely reliable evidence for anything, except some level of consciousness. Actually, in some sense this implies that there is more evidence for free will than there is for the existence of external reality around us - since free will is a part of our consciousness.

I certainly agree that science is full to bursting with ideology. Actually, this might be why many scientists seem to be of a similar mind - if they had different ideologies they might not become scientists.


----------



## Renaissance

Good post, Ramako. 

Yes, but you see, the word "truth" is just a word. "Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal." (Wiki) What I see here is a recursive thinking. As if we already know the reality, and what we discover is to be classified as truth or falsehood. But we don't know what reality is. A truth, as my mind understand it, can just be established on certain criteria. But these criteria are also the product of our imagination and choice. The reality, beyond your senses can't be verifiable. When you establish any fact as a truth, you guide yourself by your own mind. Because mind can understand in a form or another a simple concept. But the mind can't understand the whole reality which makes its existence possible,for example.

Take for example the famous experiment with the Schrodinger's cat. And this paradox was only meant to show how illogical is to apply the laws of the quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world. I think the ultimate criterion for establishing if a thing is true or false is its verifiability. A truth is no more than a convention when we speak of the metaphysics. Given no chance that you will ever find a way to verify those facts, it may be said, by the definition that there is no absolute truth *for us to understand. * There is something, of course, but not as we imagine it. That is why I consider that there is no absolute truth *to know.*


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ondine said:


> The only absolute truth I know is that one day -as beings- we will cease to exist.


How can you be sure of that? Biologists have no understanding of the processes that 
lead to death and why death is at all necessary. It is inexplicable that an elephant live to around 60, a human to around 77 and a mouse much much shorter. Yes, so far every person has died, but as we do not know why it is also incorrect to assume it is some universal truth.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I should probably read through all the posts but anyway.
It seems to me that truth/absolute truth are words/phrases that point to belief in a supreme supernatural power - god - who is supposedly the source of truth. I reject god - therefore I reject the existence of truth.


----------



## pierrot

If there is or there isn't a truth is irrelevant, what is important is that we have to recognize that this society is flawed and corrupted and narcissist, therefore we _must_ have some higher values of right and wrong. I'm not saying that must be religion, but some sort of higher ethical duties for our future generations, otherwise they will be just slaves for the prevailing system's ideology.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ramako said:


> This is silly. I haven't read the above, but I'm sure this has already been pointed out.
> 
> Does absolute truth exist?
> - yes? then obviously it does.
> - no? then the fact that there is no absolute truth is absolute, and so must be an absolute truth, as Socrates put it much better.


The truth of the statement "there is no absolute truth" can be true without negating itself as it is one absolutely true statement rather than truth itself.


----------



## Ramako

stomanek said:


> The truth of the statement "there is no absolute truth" can be true without negating itself as it is one absolutely true statement rather than truth itself.


This makes no sense. You cannot have an absolutely true statement without having absolute truth. If a statement is absolutely true then it implies in the strongest sense that absolute truth exists because if it does not and there is absolute truth _then what is it_?

Any one absolute truth implies that absolute truth exists even if it only covers that one statement. To say that there is no absolute truth is a 'for all' statement, and quite clearly it is not 'for all'. Whether this has any significance beyond this one fact is up to you, but it seems to me that having one truth it is not so hard to believe that there are others. But either way truth exists and this seems to me hugely significant - especially since it is one of the first and only things we can absolutely prove - more than physical reality.

Alternatively I am possibly misunderstanding your post, and perhaps you are using truth in the sense of, for want of a better way of putting it, Truth; which is a different matter, albeit related.


----------



## Guest

What's wrong with relative truth? Why worry whether it is absolute?


----------



## pierrot

MacLeod said:


> What's wrong with relative truth? Why worry whether it is absolute?


Because it can be manipulated at will by whoever have more money through the current way of getting knowledge (it was religion and philosophy, now it's science).


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> What's wrong with relative truth? Why worry whether it is absolute?


What's wrong with absolute truth? Why worry if it's relative?

Many relative truth advocates seem to believe that absolutists are uncomfortable with the idea of relative truth, or that absolute truth doesn't exist. It is not a matter of discomfort rather than disbelief. It makes a difference to everything.


----------



## Tero

Many facts are true. Hydrogen atoms are 1.1 Angstroms in diameter through the known universe. Stick to things you can know. Unknowables are useless information.


----------



## Ramako

Tero said:


> Many facts are true. Hydrogen atoms are 1.1 Angstroms in diameter through the known universe. Stick to things you can know. Unknowables are useless information.


Not if they have a bearing on what we do here and now.

Also, I must admit I am struck by your example of a what is a useful piece of information. Most things that are most useful are those which are hardest to prove it seems to me.


----------



## Guest

pierrot said:


> Because it can be manipulated at will by whoever have more money through the current way of getting knowledge (it was religion and philosophy, now it's science).


But if there is no absolute truth (and I'm not sure what the definition of this is) then it is already subject to manipulation.



Ramako said:


> What's wrong with absolute truth? Why worry if it's relative?
> 
> Many relative truth advocates seem to believe that absolutists are uncomfortable with the idea of relative truth, or that absolute truth doesn't exist. It is not a matter of discomfort rather than disbelief. It makes a difference to everything.


I pose the question against the OP, which seems to worry that we should be searching for it, or at least deciding if it exists. If I'm misreading 'worry' into the OP, I'll withdraw the question as I framed it. Nevertheless, pierrot thinks there is a problem if it doesn't.


----------



## pierrot

Someone said better than me how most truths people know are manufactured:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/09/this_onion_clip_is_hilarious_n_1.html


----------



## Ramako

MacLeod said:


> I pose the question against the OP, which seems to worry that we should be searching for it, or at least deciding if it exists. If I'm misreading 'worry' into the OP, I'll withdraw the question as I framed it. Nevertheless, pierrot thinks there is a problem if it doesn't.


In that case I apologise. I didn't realise you were replying directly to the OP polednice/Mephistopheles


----------



## pierrot

> But if there is no absolute truth (and I'm not sure what the definition of this is) then it is already subject to manipulation.


That absolute is created by us to be *better* than the current moral truths. What truth is that is with you and your god.


----------



## pierrot

Re: nobody can tell you the absolute truth.


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> In that case I apologise. I didn't realise you were replying directly to the OP polednice/Mephistopheles


No problem


----------



## pierrot

pierrot said:


> That absolute is created by us to be *better* than the current moral truths. What truth is that is with you and your god.


'Better' wasn't what I really meant here, too ambiguous, *'above'* is more appropriate.


----------



## Guest

pierrot said:


> That absolute is created by us to be *better* than the current moral truths. What truth is that is with you and your god.


I didn't realise we were talking about moral truths alone. The problem with god as the source of truth is that if it comes from him, then anything goes, if he says it does. On the other hand, if it doesn't come from him, but from some other absolute source, doesn't that undermine god as an absolute (Euthyphro's dilemma).


----------



## pierrot

If the truth it's not rigid and strict, you could create a Enslaved God for you own purposes (stealing is wrong, but in this case...), as I see it's your worry, but if Him really exists (just think hypothetically now) don't you think he would be able to see through that? People can't just pick the god they think will like them.


----------



## pierrot

But the source is only relevant for you, the outcomes is that matter.


----------



## pierrot

To finish my point once for all:



> Guilt implies an internal sense of right and wrong. *Whether it originates from your religion or your parents or the penal code or Star Wars isn't relevant*, only that external rules are then internalized, and you then build an identity around them. So that when you violate them and there is no way anyone noticed, it still gnaws at you because it conflicts with your ego, who you are.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ramako said:


> This makes no sense. You cannot have an absolutely true statement without having absolute truth. If a statement is absolutely true then it implies in the strongest sense that absolute truth exists because if it does not and there is absolute truth _then what is it_?
> 
> Any one absolute truth implies that absolute truth exists even if it only covers that one statement. To say that there is no absolute truth is a 'for all' statement, and quite clearly it is not 'for all'. Whether this has any significance beyond this one fact is up to you, but it seems to me that having one truth it is not so hard to believe that there are others. But either way truth exists and this seems to me hugely significant - especially since it is one of the first and only things we can absolutely prove - more than physical reality.
> 
> Alternatively I am possibly misunderstanding your post, and perhaps you are using truth in the sense of, for want of a better way of putting it, Truth; which is a different matter, albeit related.


Yes I was referring to Truth with a capital T - something which has yet to be properly defined yet I have some sense of what people refer to when talking about Truth. There are obviously an abundant number of absolute truths - or just plain truths - surely a truth by it's meaning is absolute.

Something occurred to me recently about trying to prove by logical argument something to be true for which there is no empiricle evidence - such as the existence of Truth - or God. If you were presented with a 1000 page argument which proved the existence of God - and all peer reviews could not find a fault with the argument and scholars agreed that logically, the existence of God had been proven. Would that mean necessarily that God really exists given that no other evidence exists beyond a logically proven argument. And what if you had trouble comprehending the argument - you got lost on page 55 for example and had to keep going back and you found you just could not get your mind around it. Would you, as an atheist unable to follow the logic but accepting the opinion of the academic world - accept it as proof of God's existence and if so - how would it change your outlook? Would you still be an atheist/agnostic?


----------

