Defining 'Truth': A Puzzling Quandary

[Sikz]

Defining "truth"

What is the actual definition of "truth"?

The obvious answer would be "something that can be proved". But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable. By our definition, then, axioms are untrue (false), and the results of our proofs are void.

Hmmm... What do you guys think?

 

[wahoo q]

truth is perception...define truth!

 

[Jeebus]

I find that there are three types of truth.

• Truth truth
• semi-truth
  and
• pseudo-truth

How you define these gives truth a whole new meaning. The interpretation of truth can exist inside your subconscious. One person's perspective of truth can be a whole different ballpark to another person's truth. So as wahoo q said, please give your definition of "truth" first, then we can start playing around with the "meaning" of it.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
What is the actual definition of "truth"?

The obvious answer would be "something that can be proved". But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable. By our definition, then, axioms are untrue (false), and the results of our proofs are void.

Just because an axiom is unprovable doesn't make it untrue or false. So I strongly disagree with your premise.

There's proof in the perfect, absolute sense, which must be based on axioms that are assummed to be valid and true. That's one kind of proof.

Then there's a somewhat less pure truth, which corrosponds with experience to an overwhelming degree (like, getting bitten by my cat is going to hurt, and that's the truth). That's a bit more complicated than can be formally laid out in a mathematical proof. But in another sense it's far more real and just as certainly true.

Take your pick.

 

[Sikz]

Just because an axiom is unprovable doesn't make it untrue or false. So I strongly disagree with your premise.

You are correct, it doesn't- but under the definition of "That which can be proved", an axiom would indeed be unprovable, which is why I concluded that that particular definition is incorrect.

And I can't give you my definition of truth, as I don't know it. I posted this thread wondering what it was, because I realized I didn't seem to have a good, working definition.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
And I can't give you my definition of truth, as I don't know it. I posted this thread wondering what it was, because I realized I didn't seem to have a good, working definition.

Well, that was my two cents. There are two possible definitions of truth: 1) the pure, absolute truth based on what can be derived from assumed axioms, and 2) the impure, relative truth based on correlations with individual observations of personal experiences.

The first may very well not apply to anything (almost certainly won't, since the axioms are likely to be very elementary and abstract). The second is subjective and, no matter how stronly believed to be true by the individual, is unlikely to be agreed on by another.

Anything more than that isn't available for sale in this universe. Fortunately, a little bargaining often yields some very workable compromises between the two.

 

[Sikz]

Hmmm... What about "What you believe"? Seems incorrect, but is there actually any logical reason why it can't be the actuality?

 

[Adam]

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3. Sincerity; integrity.

4. Fidelity to an original or standard.

5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth

But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable.

What on Earth makes you assert such a thing?

 

[Sikz]

What on Earth makes you assert such a thing?

Axioms can't be proven, all theorums are built on axioms, all proofs are built on these things. Right?


And the dictionary.com definition isn't a working definition, it just lists synonyms of "truth" (EG actuality, fact, reality).

 

[Adam]

Axioms can't be proven,

Right.

all theorums are built on axioms, all proofs are built on these things.

This is the odd bit. Why say this? Give a reason for saying this.

 

[Kakorot]

truth is whatever your memory says it is, and whatever you believe it is. For instance, you may believe in God, you may not, whichever one you believe is "your" truth, but it may not be the actual truth.
Plus you can't be sure of anything anyhow because the whole universe could have been created 2 seconds ago along with all our memories and such. And no one would be wise to it. So it is impossible to even prove to others that you exist, because as soon as you do, your proof becomes a memory and there is no way to prove a memory to be true. Its all faith.

 

[Thallium]

I need a little clarification before I can say anything. What is an axiom?

 

[Adam]

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).

2. An established rule, principle, or law.

3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=axiom

 

[olde drunk]

****!

i've said many times, 'the only truth is that there ain't no truth'.

all is relative to what we believe or want to accomplish. societies establish truths so that there is the opportunity to interact and communicate and/or excommunicate.

science sets up truths to explore the external/physical universe. as we progress these truths are revised and disgarded as new truths are revealed.

the best definition of truth that i have heard is what the lawyers say, 'truth is whatever the jury says it is!'.

i got mine and i am ready to throw any or all of them away as each days presents new information.

then again?? who really knows?

 

[Adam]

1) Not all truth relies on axioms. This is a very silly thing which I have seen people type a lot, but it simply isn't true. Ohm's Law is not built on any axioms.

2) Not all "truth" is relative. Ohm's Law is not relative. It just is.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Adam
1) Not all truth relies on axioms. This is a very silly thing which I have seen people type a lot, but it simply isn't true. Ohm's Law is not built on any axioms.

2) Not all "truth" is relative. Ohm's Law is not relative. It just is.

But Ohm's Law isn't "truth" as I think the original poster intended, which seemed to be looking for absolutes. And it's not actually a law. It's a modeled explanation for an observation, and it's only an approximation. Ohm's law applies more or less and in a limited domain; it doesn't account for relativistic effects, or quantum effects; it doesn't apply in superconductivity or in extremely high magnetic fields. As a simplified, common sense interpretation of normally experienced reality, it works very well, and that's good enough.

In a physics forum, I'd say nitpicking like this is just annoying. But what is Philosophy if not a lot of nits?

 

[Stryker]

I have no idea what an axiom is, but this is how I veiw truth.

1- Relative truth. What we percive to be true. What we "know". But just maybe we live in a giant marble like at the end of MiB.

2- Eternal truth. But for this to work there has to be a belife in an unchangeable unaterable God. A supreme being that lives by the truths that all eternity is bound by. This is what would make Him a God.

All this science that we do, all the experiments that we procede with. There all measured from perseption. And until we have a perfect math that we may derive equations from, science is only relative truth.

 

[Adam]

1 + 1 = 2

Perfect math.

 

[Stryker]

Touché

But have you ever heard of the 1+1=3 therum. Two people working together create the same amount of work as three indaviduals.

And we also need a math that can properly define infinity. Last I read the big bang started from an infinitly small point. Then couln't it expand forever and never reach a real number size. I believe that figuring infinity is the last big step we need in math.

 

[Adam]

Infinity already is defined. In terms of numbers, it's not really a number, it's more like a function. Spiffy explanation: http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

 

[olde drunk]

1 + 1 = 3!

the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

if the big bang occurred billions of years ago to create our physical world, where did it take place? in a void?

imho, it is/was an idea let loose by the conciousness of a creator. how different are we from the characters in a novel? the author created their existence and then let them loose and recorded their exploits. only difference is that we are aware of who/what we are and have the freedom to write the next page or chapter in an unending story {until we choose to move to another book (demension)}.

wow! how about all the worlds and characters we created! infinity just gets bigger and bigger. we emerge from an infinite universe and we create more universes, WOW!

 

[Stryker]

Intaresting. Nice Adam.

 

[vedder]

truth, an idea or course of action that is relatively benifeicial at the moment of it's conception or realization.

?

 

[jammieg]

What are the typical effects of knowing the truth to you?

 

[jammieg]

The other cold and hard truth

The truth is also mostly the things people don't want to know about themselves because it is common to run from pain and seek pleasure, common to capitalize on strength and conceal weakness, possibly that's why Socrates was fond of saying, "I have no positive knowledge to offer".

 

[Les Sleeth]

One difficulty I see for contemplating the meaning of truth here is that the several ways of looking at it are all mushed up together in this discussion. On the one hand, some are discussing how one discovers or knows truth, while on the other hand some are talking about the abstract or objective meaning of truth. It might help to clarify things if truth were broken down into the main ways it is considered.

I would begin by distinguishing two primary perspectives on truth: 1) objective, or what is true apart from human perception of truth, and 2) subjective, or what is discovered to be true through human perception; I would also further break down the subjective perspective to mundane, logical, and absolute.

The objective meaning is most difficult to define. To say what is true irrespective of human perception is to say what exists. What actually exists, and I think we have to include what has the potential to exist, is the whole of what is true. If it does not exist, and cannot exist, then we can say it is not true or real. So in terms of objective truth, it’s a derivation of existence. For instance, light (in our universe) exists, so it we say it is “true” light exists, and it is also not true that light doesn’t exist. What exists has no relationship to whether or not we know it exists or affects us . . . it just is. Whatever that objective realm of existence is has been pondered and debated for thousands of years, just as it is now. Is existence at the most basic level monistic, and all the “things” we observe just forms this most basic level of existence has taken? Or is the most basic level of existence multifaceted? Is part of it conscious, or does raw mechanics prevail at all levels?

Moving on to the subjective perspective, because we are conscious, we know things and ourselves exist. We know existence affects us, we want to understand how existence works, and we wonder about the ultimate nature of existence; these three aspects of our awareness determine the three sub-categories of subjective truth. So “mundane” truths are those aspects of existence which are personal, like it is “true” I prefer asparagus to lima beans, that I need x amount of money to pay my mortgage, and that I am most comfortable in a temperate climate. These elements of my existence may not be true for someone else, but they are true for me. Then there is my attempt to understand how the objective universe “works.” Because it appears that at least the physical universe works in an orderly way, logic and reason operate superbly to reveal certain objective truths to our subjective awareness so we can interpret, predict, and develop the practical means for interacting with the physical universe. This is where axioms, proofs, empiricsim, etc. have the most relevance. Finally, there is that very difficult ontological question of the ultimate or absolute nature of our own existence. Are we purely physical, or is there something “more” behind the physical? This is truly the most challenging truth to know. Some say logic, reason and sense observation can answer this, while others say only some deep inner experience reveals the truth about the nature of our absolute existence.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Truth does not need axioms. It is free-standing experience, the only sure way of certainty.

Side Note: Mystic Masters (whoever you consider as such) would say that it is the experience that tops all experiences.

Axioms are Useful and coherent assumptions that if you build upon them as a foundation - you can do things with it. You choose axioms based on past experience.

Truth in my opinion must stand above axioms. It is the most useful of assumptions - the most constant of these.

The 'experience' I speak of can only be ordinary sensual experience for the common man. There has been a stream of constant claims througout history of those people who say that have reached a level of experience beyond that of the bodily senses. You decide if they lunatics or illuminated.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is the actual definition of "truth"?

Why do you use the word "actual" in your question? :)

When you ask for a definition, are you expecting a sentence or a conversation?

What is the definition of cow?

How simple can a definition be? Is a definition something to start with or end with?

Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?

Perhaps Socrates claimed to not know anything because he knew that any argument he put forward could be spun in circles or picked apart until it was a meaningless pile of symbols or sounds.
Or perhaps he claimed to not know anything so that others would think about what he meant and question why he would make such a claim.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[New|c]

my point of view.. truth cannot be define actually, but can be related to whatever that you have learn and understand. Example, to a cave man. his truth is that fire is a god or someone upthere. But actually, its combustion. That is what we think it is, so we might actually get it wrong also. So truth is relative. simply.

 

[honestrosewater]

my point of view.. truth cannot be define actually, but can be related to whatever that you have learn and understand. Example, to a cave man. his truth is that fire is a god or someone upthere. But actually, its combustion. That is what we think it is, so we might actually get it wrong also. So truth is relative. simply.

Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?

EDIT- where are my manners? Welcome to the forum.
How do you pronounce your name? I'm not sure what that character represents (New?c).

 

[olde drunk]

now, 'a cow is a cow'. this is a true agreement, not 'truth'. we agree that the word will define a 4 legged bovine (see, there is another word for that creature) and agree that the term is true in our communication.

relative truth, is relative because it relies on the holder of that truth.

love and peace,
olde drunk

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Doesn't what you said - a cow is a cow - also depend on the holder of the truth? Both of them?

 

[New|c]

Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?

EDIT- where are my manners? Welcome to the forum.
How do you pronounce your name? I'm not sure what that character represents (New?c).

its newic, its pronouce as new-wic. Yes, its my point of view. I am based in Singapore, tropical type you know.

 

[loseyourname]

Even if you didn't define the word, it wouldn't change the fact that the object itself is that object, regardless of what you call it. That is true, and there is nothing relative about it.

 

[honestrosewater]

"A cow is a cow" could be restated as "A is A", and is similar to the statement "truth is relative". It's different because "is" is not an equivalence relation, ex. "truth is relative" does not mean "relative is truth".

However, I think olde drunk was pointing out the difference between a name and the thing that is named.

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/logic.htm]The[/PLAIN] word ‘thing’, which occurs in each one of the principles of logic, refers to anything about which you may want to say something. Thus, an object (the Eiffel tower, your computer) is a thing. So is an animal (your cat), a person (me, you, your father), or a fictional character (Mickey Mouse). An historical or fictional event (the Second Gulf War, the Big Bang, your birth, your neighbour's marriage, the death of Sherlock Holmes) is a thing. Other things are a letter of the alphabet, a word, a sentence, an argument; and so on. In short, a thing is anything that is or can be the subject of something one says.

What one says about a thing is called its predicate -- it is what one predicates of it. For example, you might predicate of a subject that it has, or does not have, a certain property; or that it stands, or does not stand, in a certain relation to some thing(s).

Notice that one should always make a clear distinction between a thing and the names or descriptions by means of which one refers to it. The name 'Oliver' is composed of six letters, but the person (if any) to whom the name applies is not composed of letters. The name 'Dracula', as the proper name of a vampire, does not refer to a real thing--thát Dracula does not exist--but obviously the name itself does exist. Consequently, in the context of a description of the real world, the 'axiom of existence' applies only to the name 'Dracula', but not to the non-existent Dracula. Thus, one should not read the axiom of existence as if it said 'for every name, there is a thing to which the name refers'.

Sometimes, we find that a thing is known by more than one name or description. For example, the names 'the morning star' and 'the evening star' refer to the same planet. However, that fact does give us a counterexample or an exception to the principle of uniqueness. In other words, it is not the case that we have here a pair of things--the morning star and the evening star--such that the one thing is the other thing: there is only the one planet. Nor is the case that we have here a pair of things--the name 'the morning star' and the name 'the evening star'--such that the one name is identical to the other.

This is what I was trying to point out by asking, "Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?" and "Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?"

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[Ebolamonk3y]

truth is that can be defined. Everything else can come from truths. Some can argue sense alter truth and there is no truth. Ahh well.

 

[AlanPartr]

truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist), all we can do is make observations and describe them in the most logical way, in 200 years these descriptions may be considered wrong after new evidence arrises

 

[Moonrat]

With the new global dialectic of OS 012, we can now find objective co-ordinates for what true really is...

really...

dont take my word for it, see for yourself.

truth is objective, honest, rational, scientific, that which does not depend upon your belief in it to exist or not. true is that which we all agree on, or can all agree on. truth is certainty. true is represented by the only true number, which is the number one. This sentence began with the word this. this is true, certain, objective, honest, and rational. Any argument against this is only irrational and can be exposed for such in an environment of rational discussion...

TRUE.


to find TRUE, one must have it's opposite in sight, that which is false. true is easy to understand..try defining what 'false' means...that one is a kicker!

 

[Moonrat]

truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist), all we can do is make observations and describe them in the most logical way, in 200 years these descriptions may be considered wrong after new evidence arrises

that is not true!


there is relative truth (false)
there is objective absolute truth (the sun is in the sky), and there is also mysterious truth, or the truth is that mystery is a constant.

true is perhaps the ONLY meaningful concept...

 

[Moonrat]

This is what I was trying to point out by asking, "Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?" and "Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?"

Happy thoughts
Rachel

to understand precisely and with perfection and perfect clarity what true is, one must understand false and mystery. Until false and mystery is integrated in your understanding, then you can really appreciate the nature of that which is true.

this sentence begins with the word this. this is a true statement.

i really can't stand this conversation, and think all of you are a bunch of wankers (just kidding for the shock value of a relative or personal truth, which is false in objective reality but true for the individual)


TRUE IS ONE FOR ALL. ( the sun is in the sky, on this we can all see for ourselves and agree)
relative truth, or false, is all for one...

Mystery is all for all..

 

[honestrosewater]

( the sun is in the sky, on this we can all see for ourselves and agree)

What if you were blind?

I don't understand what you mean by "all for one" and "all for all"- could you explain?

 

[Moonrat]

What if you were blind?

I don't understand what you mean by "all for one" and "all for all"- could you explain?

if you are blind, then you cannot see the sun in the sky, but that does not mean that the sun is not there and does not supply you with warmth.

Objective reality is true, that is which is the environment outside of us that we all participate in together. There in only ONE environment outside of us, hence, ONE FOR ALL.

after all, the blind man agrees that he cannot see the sun in the sky. true is that which we all can agree on naturally.

Now, on what is false, or subjective reality, or subjective enviroment, that which is your own spin on the one reality outside of us, like, that sun is waaay to hot for me today..there are an almost infinite number of subjective points of view responding to the ONE environment outside of us, this is ALL FOR ONE..

now, the third and the most often missed is mystery, which exists both inside and outside. ALL is mYSTERY for ALL participating, mystery is in all directions, and it is BOTH true and false at once, or, when you can no longer distinguish between that which is true and that which is false.


1=True, Honest, Objective, Science, MIND, Order, unidirectional.
2= False, inspriational, subjective, ART, Feelings, chaos, non directional.
0= Mystery, both subjective and objective, omni directional...

all ideas or concepts will always fall in one of these three natural synergies that can be observed by all and for all.



cool beans and red and blue jeans

Moonrat

 

[Nicomachus]

You people are going around in circles.

Truth is a relational property of propositions. Next question.

As far as the statement "a cow is a cow" this is a tautology, of course it is true, if anyone denies this then that person is probably a nihilist.

This statement is also true: "all red elephants always exist within loaves of rye bread."

For AlanPartr's statement "truth is a meaningless concept, there is nothing absolutly true (possibly apart from I exist)." That is poppycock. You are employing what's known as the "Stolen Concept Fallacy." A similar example is of the professor who says to his student "Nothing is certain, of this I am certain" If nothing was certain then there can be no certain statements thus the statement itself is meaningless.

If anyone of you actually think reality does not exist objectively then you must be a nihilist spinning in a vortex of nothingness. There would be no point in discussing anything with you if you do not accept the objectivity of reality as you would have no ability to justify any proposition or hold any positions. You would just need to remain silent or become a hypocrite.

Most of this sounds like bad poetry lamenting fallibility. Bah.
*Nico

 

[olde drunk]

THE SUN ISN'T IN THE SKY!

it is out in space. all truth is relative!

the only truth that exists it that "THERE AIN'T NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

and that's the truth; blaaaaaaaaatt!

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Moonrat]

THE SUN ISN'T IN THE SKY!

it is out in space. all truth is relative!

the only truth that exists it that "THERE AIN'T NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

and that's the truth; blaaaaaaaaatt!

love&peace,
olde drunk

hehe, looks like ol drunk challenged one truth with another, but lookee here ol drunk, we still agree it is the SUN we are talking about.

SUN is the objective truth.


TRUE is! that is an absolute truth.

objective reality is always relative to a point of view, but the point of view does not create the truth, just the unique spin on it...

when we die, the Earth still keeps spinnin'. absolutly!

 

[Moonrat]

You people are going around in circles.

Truth is a relational property of propositions. Next question.


This statement is also true: "all red elephants always exist within loaves of rye bread."


*Nico

I think you may be confusing grammatical equations with objective observations! (even though I agree with most of your post)

that statement by the way is not 'truth' in the objective sense but false in the objective sense. False can be a personal truth, however it is still false in objective reality...


hehe, what's wrong with poetry? or even pottery?

Moonrat

 

[olde drunk]

hehe, looks like ol drunk challenged one truth with another, but lookee here ol drunk, we still agree it is the SUN we are talking about.

SUN is the objective truth.


TRUE is! that is an absolute truth.

objective reality is always relative to a point of view, but the point of view does not create the truth, just the unique spin on it...

when we die, the Earth still keeps spinnin'. absolutly!

i consider these to be agreements about our physical reality.

to me, philosophically, when people talk about truth, they want to know what is the whole of reality and/or a creator, prime source, etc.

for that, we all have an opinion and it is subjective. whatever reality or source is, we can not but opine. QT is showing us that the observered reality IS influenced by the observer and his/her expectations or beliefs.

personally, i like to accept and work with my beliefs as being true for me and listen to other views to see if i need to refine my beliefs. again, these are my (temporal) truths.

this is a more comfortable way to live life. accepting someone or something else's truths only got me in conflict with myself (sex is a sin outside of wedlock = sex is bad = I'm bad, because i want sex). this apparent truth and others only taught me to examine ALL truths and create my own.

i don't know if these ideas are formally presented by a recognized scholar, however, they work for me.

love&peace,
olde drunk
(very olde)

 

[Växan]

Absolute Truth = actuality, whether known or not

Accepted Truth = perceived reality, whether an illusion or not

 

[Moonrat]

hehe, Olde Drunk, I likes yer style...

for that, we all have an opinion and it is subjective. whatever reality or source is, we can not but opine. QT is showing us that the observered reality IS influenced by the observer and his/her expectations or beliefs.

In 'physical' or objective reality, or, the only reality we all can agree on, 'source' or 'God' or 'ultimate reality' is OUR mystery...

See Ol Drunk, we gots our 1, which is TRUE, we gots our 2, which is False, and then we gots our 0, which is Mystery. And our 'physical' reality is made up of all three...with the 0, the 1 and the 2, you can hack it...

 

[olde drunk]

hehe, Olde Drunk, I likes yer style...

In 'physical' or objective reality, or, the only reality we all can agree on, 'source' or 'God' or 'ultimate reality' is OUR mystery...

See Ol Drunk, we gots our 1, which is TRUE, we gots our 2, which is False, and then we gots our 0, which is Mystery. And our 'physical' reality is made up of all three...with the 0, the 1 and the 2, you can hack it...

ah yes, we can agree that your statements are true. BUT, they are not TRUTH.

to me, truth is an involitile statement that transcends all. we can agree that i am typing and it is true. BUT, is it true within the vastness of the universe?? this mite be a dream, within a dream, within a dream, etc.

i can say that i am the creator of my reality and this may be true today, in the physical reality, but is it true for eternity. from what i understand, every time we make a 'true statement' is must include a qualifier. once we do that we make it a relative, subjective truth.

perhaps a statement like 'the universe is eternal and infinite' is true. unfortunately, it is based on belief and can not be proven. we might agree, but is it the TRUTH??

das all I'm sayin.

love&peace,
olde drunk