All solutions and answers are correct

[olde drunk]

All answers, solutions to the various paradoxes and debates are valid.

Accepting the premise that we are all in the state of becoming, we subjectively will accept a solution, answer, belief, etc that satisfies the need in any given present.

‘Is there a god or life after death’, etc are good examples. Each of us will use the answer that best suits our level of becoming.

Even the atheist who will reject this notion is right, because he wants to experience believing, non-believing at this time. Ironically believing in non-believing is a belief. As such, valid.

who cares what the 'accepted' answer is? look for your answer.


peace,

 

[FZ+]

So you are saying that the idea of having absolute truth is invalid?

Pretty much what atheists or agnostics have been saying all along.

 

[olde drunk]

the only truth is that there ain't no
ABSOLUTE (mmmm, my favorite) truth.


peace,

 

[Pseudonym]

When you say 'truth', are you only referring to those things which lie outside the senses? I could debate what I ate for breakfast, and it seems obvious that in that case there is only one correct solution.

Also, could you illustrate how you could come to this conclusion?

 

[elwestrand]

There is relatiuve truth and absolute truth, but we are currently incapable of knowing absolute truth-- actually that's a relative statement, I don't know if we can know absolutely. Relative truth is true based on its surrounding truths and falsehoods, which are in turn what they are based on their context with other relative truths and falsehoods.

Um this theory is relatively true. There is one absoute that is undeniable: something exists.

How can the mind gain enough distance from itself to understand itself? How can understanding understand understanding? The mind is trapped in viewing itself from within the context of itself. The only objective knowledge is that there is subjective knowledge.

 

[jammieg]

elwestand, congratulations you are philosophically drunk out of your mind, maybe the holy grail or ultimate knowledge is something truly worthy to seek and pray you never actually find it because to me the Buddha set out believing in himself that he would find the solution and he did find something really wonderful but he concluded that it was the ultimate truth or Nirvana and then proceeded to spend the rest of his life utterly stoned-not a bad way to go though.
"There is one absoute that is undeniable: something exists."

I agree with that one, at least someone upstairs believes that to be is better than not to be or we wouldn't be here.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Pseudonym

Also, could you illustrate how you could come to this conclusion?

i observe so many debates (duality, no-duality, predetemination, freewill, etc
light is a wave or particle) that i realize that each person will draw their 'truth' from their perspective and each is valid.

if you said you had rice krispies for breakfast and i said you had rice puffs, so what?

there might be an absolute truth at the end of our journey,but until then we will only accept our truth, which is relative; and necessary for our individual experience and growth. we will embrace the truth that suits our purpose at that moment in time, to learn from the experience.

actually, it might be, that the truths that we accept do create beliefs, which ultimately creates our experience and/or reality. this includes unconscious beliefs that we may not always acknowledge.

believing in a safe universe has a calming effect; believing in chaos, stimulates unruly energy.

peace,

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I could debate what I ate for breakfast, and it seems obvious that in that case there is only one correct solution.

i can argue against this.

the simple philosophical fact (and to my knowledge the only one) that the only thing we truly know is that we posses conciousness...

to back oldes point some more:

an argument with one ore more false objective premises is still valid as long as these premises' come together to form a valid argument.

definition of a valid argument is that it is not possible for all the premises of an argument to be true and the conclusion false.

this allows for false premises with true conclusions...

so for example some dudes conclusion was drawn from incorrect premises', so to the dude it is true.

when it comes down to it, we are the only judges in this world of whether something is true or false, so all we have is each individual opinion of everyone.

and what is commonly assumed as truth is the majority of people believing something. i think it is a mistake to assume something is true because a majority of individuals believe it is true.

for all you know all of there conclusions could be drawn from false premises'!

 

[phoenixthoth]

somewhere lying around i have a thread where i prove there are infinitely many absolute truths.

anyways, three-valued and fuzzy logic takes care of certain paradoxes.

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
anyways, three-valued and fuzzy logic takes care of certain paradoxes.

what does that mean?

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
somewhere lying around i have a thread where i prove there are infinitely many absolute truths.

phoenix: those absolute truths are absolute for you! what if i need to learn that 'killing is wrong'?

i might accept that as a commandment, etc but i won't know it until i 'experience' it.

so, in a given experience thread i will choose to believe that 'killing is ok, in war'. after experiencing that there was no glory in killing, i will examine my 'truth'. (vietnam was an excellent example) for that particular period of time that truth was necessary and VALID.

i repeat, all truths are relative and valid. as i think about it, once an absolute truth is attainted(experienced), our journey might be over.

peace,

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by elibol
what does that mean?

here are two references on nonstandard logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-fuzzy/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/

the basic idea is that if p if and only if not p is to be non-false, then p can have a truth value besides true or false. for example, in three valued logic with a third truth value M, when asked if the barber shaves himself you can say that "the barber shaves himself" has truth value M and "the barber does not shave himself" has truth value M whereas either of those being T or F leads to a contradiction.

olde drunk, the basic idea was that if there are any absolute truths then there are infinitely many. it's not something i necessarily believe because i don't know if words can be the truth anyway. just like the description of a cup is not a cup, the description of truth is not the truth. so while there may be absolute truths, whether they can be expressed perfectly in a (dualistic) language is questionable.

 

[elibol]

your missing the point, it isn't whether something is really true or false, or undefined/M. if you don't know whether the barber shaves himself or not then you simply don't know or M in your terms. but the fact of the matter is that you have a belief, and that belief is you don't know whether the barber shaves himself or not.

what happens after death for example could be one of these great paradoxes you speak of, and could apply as an example of what i said.

you don't know.
or M.

 

[phoenixthoth]

M is knowledge. why is M any less knowledge than T or F? to me, no knowledge would be if it were completely impossible to assign any truth value and/or if several truth values applied so that one couldn't know which one to assign.

 

[elibol]

why is M any less knowledge than T or F?

i never said it was any less than anything. your still missing the point. it is more general and not as specific as you are making it out to be.

we are on the same page man, if you re-read and re-evaluate what i wrote than i think you will see that...

 

[phoenixthoth]

if you don't know whether the barber shaves himself or not then you simply don't know or M in your terms. but the fact of the matter is that you have a belief, and that belief is you don't know whether the barber shaves himself or not.

you wrote "don't know" several times. that's what i mean by less knowledge. M is knowledge. why is M any less knowledge than T or F? to me, no knowledge would be if it were completely impossible to assign any truth value and/or if several truth values applied so that one couldn't know which one to assign.

 

[elibol]

M is not knowing. not knowing whether it is true or false. hence the fuzzy logic.

will i have to argue that not knowing something is still knowledge?

it seems that is what is required to prove the correctness of my writing...

besides, if you are going to nit-pick at the way it was written instead of understanding what i was trying to get across to you then i don't even think it is worth it to take this conversation any further then it has already been taken.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by elibol
M is not knowing. not knowing whether it is true or false. hence the fuzzy logic.

will i have to argue that not knowing something is still knowledge?

it seems that is what is required to prove the correctness of my writing...

besides, if you are going to nit-pick at the way it was written instead of understanding what i was trying to get across to you then i don't even think it is worth it to take this conversation any further then it has already been taken.

not knowing is when the truth value is unspecifiable or well-defined. this is the way the barber paradox stands without a better equipped logic. however, in three valued logic for example, the truth value is well-defined and it is M. to ask in a poor way, why is M any less knowledge than T or F?

to be able to prove something is undecidable is knowledge. to not know if it is undecidable is less knowledge than that. there may be paradoxes out there that not even nonstandard logic can deal with.

well, all i have to go on is what you wrote and if you didnt' write what you mean then you can't expect the reader to understand what you meant. so if you're incapable of writing what you mean, then yes, there is no point in continuing unless you want me to debate with what you don't mean.

 

[elibol]

not knowing is when the truth value is unspecifiable or well-defined.

or well-defined? what the hell are you talking about? that would mean the truth value is defined...

you said:
"if you didnt' write what you mean then you can't expect the reader to understand what you meant."

so EXPLAIN.

this is the way the barber paradox stands without a better equipped logic.

stands to what? explain.

however, in three valued logic for example, the truth value is well-defined and it is M.

where did this truth value factor come in? it is well-defined and it is M. that's nice, i don't know what your talking about anymore.

to ask in a poor way, why is M any less knowledge than T or F?

are you asking me something? and are u having trouble with comprehension? i have told you that i don't think it is any less knowledge than true or false... it is knowledge. and however you want to put it is up to you. T F M N O P Q R S. all of it is knowledge.

oh and what does M stand for may i ask?

to be able to prove something is undecidable is knowledge.

this sentence is incorrect, i do not understand it. you are trying to explain something very complex, and your lack of grammar isn't helping at all. there is no sense in it.

to not know if it is undecidable is less knowledge than that.

[/B][/QUOTE]

to not know if its undecidable is bla bla bla bla... your former sentence doesn't make sense. how am i suppose to understand this one?

there may be paradoxes out there that not even nonstandard logic can deal with.

i think i was able to comprehend this, dispite the fact that it was poorly written based on the strictness of grammar you have posed on the matter...

what is nonstandard logic?

why did u even say this? i don't think it has any relevance to our argument.

since i really don't know what nonstandard logic is i really wasnt able to understand this.

please be more descriptive with your reply.

 

[olde drunk]

i must repeat, as a practicle matter, all answers are valid.

if Phoenix needs to believe in 3 value logic, so be it. it works for him. it is part of what he wishes to deal with, experience. i must admit, tho, it has little value for me in applying ideas to my daily experience.

if it were to become important, then i would understand and either accept or reject his view. til then i feel no need to wrap my brain around 'not knowing is knowing'.

peace,

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by elibol
the simple philosophical fact (and to my knowledge the only one) that the only thing we truly know is that we posses conciousness...

I disagree. Perhaps our thoughts prove that we exist. But not all our thoughts are ours. We receive sensory input to the brain. Perhaps these 'involuntary thoughts' prove we exist within a physical framework. We can learn about this framework through the use of our senses.

Anyways olde drunk - your willingness to express your reasoning exposes a problem in your theory. How do you make a decision on anything if everything is true? You still seem to have a shred of reason, but what's it worth?- my theory's as good as yours.

If evidence and reason are to be discarded, what's left but emotion and guessing?

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I disagree. Perhaps our thoughts prove that we exist. But not all our thoughts are ours. We receive sensory input to the brain. Perhaps these 'involuntary thoughts' prove we exist within a physical framework. We can learn about this framework through the use of our senses.

no, all our thoughts are ours... the sensory input to your brain is a translation of the received sense. this is a bottleneck point in what we percieve to be real. if you effect the translation (with drugs and the such) or change sensory input to your brain then you will experience another reality.

this is what makes matrix possible.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Pseudonym

Anyways olde drunk - your willingness to express your reasoning exposes a problem in your theory. How do you make a decision on anything if everything is true? You still seem to have a shred of reason, but what's it worth?- my theory's as good as yours.

If evidence and reason are to be discarded, what's left but emotion and guessing?

the same way as you do; through experience. i can only experience truth AND it is a relative, subjective truth.

if i tell you a stove is hot, what do you do? IF, you know that i am honest (thru experience) you can agree. if you do not know me, you got to go over and touch the stove.

ah, the rub! is there really a stove to begin with? i suspect, not believe yet, that we telepathically communicate and agree to having a physical world with it's rules of physics, etc. for us to interact.

we can debate, are there two stoves, one or none. as a practical matter we agree there is a stove. the view and qualities of an experience are still subjective.

i believe that we all choose the truth that serves a practical purpose for a given moment. if you believe the stove is cold put your hand on it and get severly burned, you wanted a burned hand. the greater self had a need for this experience.

there are no right or wrong decisions, only your decisions. whatever you do is correct for that moment.

peace,

 

[elibol]

Originally posted by olde drunk i suspect, not believe yet, that we telepathically communicate and agree to having a physical world with it's rules of physics, etc. for us to interact. [/B]

interesting theorie, but in the end if it is like this, then that is what defines reality.

whatever is the workings to create this reality is reality...

whether it be a computer simulation, or some telepathic communication point our spirits choose to manifest.

it is our reality.

 

[olde drunk]

yes! we each define our own reality for our own individual purpose.

it servers no useful purpose, that i can see, to debate whether it is me, a tradition god, matrix, or unknown energy that is the creator.. we will believe what we want, to accomplish our goal in this life.

even the most rabid, book banging, follower of any religion is correct for him. he may need to go to extremes to see a new truth.

i will discuss and explore all ideas. unfortunately, my olde, sodden brain doesn't want to invest time and energy on an idea that doesn't improve my experience.

peace,

 

[hypnagogue]

There is still at the very least intersubjective truth, which we normally take for granted to be objective truth because it is so dependable.

Does that stove over there exist? If you see a stove, it exists at least in the purely subjective sense of your own perception of it. If I see the stove as well, it now becomes an intersubjective truth; our subjectivities agree. It becomes public domain rather than private; or, more accurately, it is linked across several private domains rather than being epistemically restricted to just one.

Once a reliable set of intersubjective truths have been established we can use these as a criterion for judging claims made by individuals. I suppose if someone says "the sun is square" it may be valid enough for that one individual, but that claim has no validity with respect to our shared set of intersubjective truths. This is the usual sense in which we speak of objective truth, and in this circumstance there is a clear criterion by which one's own claims may be judged to be true or false.

As a sidenote, the ontological question "what is the nature of the stove?" (ie is it physical in nature, or 'telepathic' or whatever) is separate from the existential question "does something that we agree to call a stove exist over there?" In general, existence is much easier to assert than nature, once we agree on basic terms.

 

[olde drunk]

hypnagogue :

i believe that we agree, thru whatever means, to have a stove within our experience. these are basic rules of engagement within the physical, as it were.

we agree to be -together, alone OR alone, together. we have a goal and the universe is here to help us attain that goal. we co-operate and not co-operate with others for the same reason. quite often, it is the person who most upsets us that opens a new territory of awareness.

please remember that my original post assumed that we are in the process of becoming.

peace,

 

[Canute]

Why is it assumed here that absolute knowledge, or knowledge of the absolute, is impossible? That needs proving. Anyway, to assert that it is true is to assert that there is an absolute truth, which makes little sense.

Aristotle and Popper, among others, concluded from logical analysis that 'certain truth' entailed that the knower become one with the known. Thus in their view absolute truth is not impossible, just tricky to achieve. Buddhists etc. reach this view by a slightly different route.

Imo it is one of the tragedies of our age that we have come to associate truth with proof, and thus tend to assume truth is unknowable. Such a view necessarily entails moral relativity, and from there it's downhill all the way.

As someone more or less said earlier, it has been proven mathematically that (paradoxically) all theorems cannot be proved. However truth does not have to come in the form of theorems. If nothing can be proved within formal systems of theorems then this can only be because it is a consequence of the nature of reality. Surely that must be considered a clue to the truth about it?

 

[phoenixthoth]

that's interesting because in this book I'm reading, it states that truth can only be arrived at by identification with it (in a sense, being it) and anything else is just knowing about it.

when confronted by a paradox, one "solution" is to give both a solution and its negation truth value M (use any symbol you like). that way, neother the statement nor its negation lead to contradiction. then the question becomes this: which is the truth?

certain things are set instone once you adopt axioms. like that when you define 1, +, =, and 2 in the "USUAL" ways, and you assume that modus poenens works, then your hand is forced: 1+1=2.

other things are not set in stone even if you assume axioms. for example, it is known that the contiuum hypothesis and its negation do not contradict the "USUAL" axioms of ZFC set theory. in a sense, if one asks what the truth value of the continuum hypothesis is relative to the other axioms, one could say M: neither it nor its negation leads to contradiction. (an underlying assumption, or premise if you will, behind all assumptions is that our universe is free of contradiction.)

the question remains: is the contiuum hypothesis true or false? that question has an answer and it is this: neither (imo). this doesn't mean everything has neither of the two classical truth values.

so something having truth value M is a kind of rudimentary form of it being undecidable. you may find this website interesting: http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm

there's an idea floating around in my head that words are never the truth, despite how in some other thread i "proved" that there are infinitely many absolutely true statements. if the description of a cup, comprised of words and/or symbols, is not a cup then, by analogy, the description of truth, comprised of words/symbols, is not truth itself. imo, truth is completely ineffable, i.e., not expressible in language; furthermore, it can only be known by experiencing it first-hand and not by reading a description of it.

so am i lying?

well, the answer is asldnfq3pofjiw09vse;lrknv098jv045vjw;lkvn!

 

[Pseudonym]

olde drunk - What would you say to a man breaking into your house?

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
olde drunk - What would you say to a man breaking into your house?

why is it necessary that you do this? i am not a threat to you. take what you need, please do not harm anyone.
if you have problems, please realize that we have come together for a reason, this is not an accidental meeting. can we work toward another solution?

again, material property has no value compared to my, or my families injury.

i would deal with the interloper on whatever terms he presented.

yes, i would report the crime and prosecute the culprit.

why do you ask?

peace,

 

[olde drunk]

absolute anything??

as a practical matter, why do we need an absolute truth or anything?

are we so unsure of ourselves that we must have a 'truth' above all other 'truths' in order to confidently face the world?

even a misguided truth (when weighed against the societal or scientific 'truth') can lead to a revelation. so, for that individual, the relative, wrong truth, was valid and necessary.

peace,


ps: we do agree on rules of nature and man for convenience in dealing with each other.

 

[Canute]

Phoenix

I don't agree with your 'third way' approach to truth and falsity, but it's too big a topic for this thread. I do at least agree that there are an infinite number of relatively true (or false)statements.

Olde Drunk

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is a remarkable statement.

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

Do you mean we should believe in absolute truth, for no other reason than that it would be morally inconvenient not to? The whole trend of philosophy after Kant led to the position stated by Nietsche: God is dead, there is no absolute truth, and we have to decide for ourselves how to behave. Are you just waving all that away?

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Canute
.
Olde Drunk
One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

we think we have these 'truths' now. what good have they done?

if we show everyone, that they are the powerful creator of their reality, not an outside force. AND that they are responsible for enjoying the consequences of all their actions, we might short circuit the 'hopeless-helpless' feelings that cause antisocial behavior.

we cannot legislate morals and/or behavior. we can only educate! haven't we learned that yet? why do we continually pass laws and rules when something is wrong in society? we must have thousands of books containing laws, including sacred books (bible, talmud, torah, koran, etc) what is your result? 'the current behaviour of human beings'?

let's lead the way for self-determination, with a minimum of rules. do you think that everyone would drive safer if they knew that all the traffic controls were suspended during their trip?

peace,