Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

All solutions and answers are correct! ! !

  1. Feb 20, 2004 #1
    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 20, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

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

    Pretty much what atheists or agnostics have been saying all along.
  4. Feb 20, 2004 #3
    the only truth is that there ain't no
    ABSOLUTE (mmmm, my favorite) truth.

  5. Feb 20, 2004 #4
    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?
  6. Feb 20, 2004 #5
    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.
  7. Feb 20, 2004 #6
    elwestand, congradulations 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.
  8. Feb 21, 2004 #7
    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.

  9. Feb 21, 2004 #8
    i can argue against this.

    the simple philosophical fact (and to my knowledge the only one) that the only thing we truely 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'!
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2004
  10. Feb 21, 2004 #9
    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.
  11. Feb 21, 2004 #10
    what does that mean?
  12. Feb 21, 2004 #11
    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.

  13. Feb 21, 2004 #12
    here are two references on nonstandard logic:

    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.
  14. Feb 21, 2004 #13
    your missing the point, it isnt whether something is really true or false, or undefined/M. if you dont know whether the barber shaves himself or not then you simply dont know or M in your terms. but the fact of the matter is that you have a belief, and that belief is you dont 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 dont know.
    or M.
  15. Feb 21, 2004 #14
    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.
  16. Feb 22, 2004 #15
    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...
  17. Feb 22, 2004 #16
    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.
  18. Feb 22, 2004 #17
    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 dont even think it is worth it to take this conversation any further then it has already been taken.
  19. Feb 22, 2004 #18
    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.
  20. Feb 22, 2004 #19
    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.

    stands to what? explain.

    where did this truth value factor come in? it is well-defined and it is M. thats nice, i dont know what your talking about anymore.

    are you asking me something? and are u having trouble with comprehension? i have told you that i dont 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?

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


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

    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 dont think it has any relevance to our argument.

    since i really dont know what nonstandard logic is i really wasnt able to understand this.

    please be more descriptive with your reply.
  21. Feb 23, 2004 #20
    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'.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook