Is Absolute Truth a Myth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imparcticle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Absolute
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of absolute truth, with participants debating its existence and implications. One argument suggests that truth is subjective, influenced by individual perception, as illustrated by a conversation about the color of a wall. Another perspective posits that there is an objective reality independent of perception, asserting that communication and agreement on truths indicate their existence. The dialogue explores the complexities of defining truth, emphasizing that while perceptions may differ, the underlying reality remains constant. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a deep inquiry into the nature of truth and its relation to human understanding.
  • #51
Absolute truth?

Absolute compared to what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
The following sets have the same cardinality:
1. the set of absolutely true statements
2. the set of statements that aren't absolutely true
3. the set of statements
4. the set of natural numbers

and perhaps the above statement is itself a member of the set mentioned in 1.
 
  • #53
Of course there is absolute truth. If truth were not absolute then it would make no difference what we do. Everyone has found that at about the age of 2 that what you do make a difference in results. If you have been paying attention all you life you should know by now that going against absolute truth has bad results. I think the number of repeated bad choices they make never realizing that they are making choices against basic truth may judge the intelligence of a person.
 
  • #54
TENYEARS said:
We are expressions of absolute truth.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
  • #55
Is there an absolute truth??

NO!

Oh, wait...
 
  • #56
yes, we are expressions of absolute truth, but we are under illusion if we think we are representing it absolutely objectively. ie. mathematics are elitist to the nonmathematician. philosophy is elitist to the non philosopher. etc...

yet all the people (and animals and plants etc.) in the world who have there own versions of truth, still exist, and mathematicians still exist for all the others.

the complexity of ones truths reflects the individual constructor of the truth, and is also linked directly to their intentions.

for example, fish F may have the truth: subject X provides quality Y for my own survival. (one obviously cannot assume to understand another, unless one IS the other, but this is just an example)

but fish P may have the truth: subject X provides quality Z for my offsprings survival.

now, when fish F and P both desire subject X for say quality T (maybe to restore a dwelling) quality T would be considered an objective truth, no?


ohhh... maybe not but it makes you think though doesn't it?

substitute the fish F for one culture of the human race, and fish P for another and what do you get? maybe a surprisingly accurate representation of Reality.


does this make sense?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
63
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
1K
Back
Top