Is Absolute Truth a Myth?

[Imparcticle]

Is there an absolute truth??

I was having a discussion with a friend a few days ago about the validity of absolute truth. She said that in many philosophy classes, it is taught that there is no aboslute truth. She believed the contrary was true, and based her argument on the following illustration (and for the heck of it, I'll just type our conversation):
My Friend: "What color is this wall?"
(the wall would normally be considered white)
my friend continues: "I believe it is white. Do you agree?"

me: "Yes. But how do I know the white you see is the same as the white I see? How do I know the white you see is not the equivalent of something I would percieve to be red?"

My friend: "How do you think we would be sure? I think we should go ask the maker of the paint"

me: "Ah, but my argument still holds for anyone. What if the maker is color blind? What if he IS blind?"

my friend: "well, we will have to bow to the creator of the paint. He should know what it is he created."

Me: "I think you misunderstand. The idea that there is no absolute truth is based on another idea: that there are various perspectives of one thing. There is no absolute certainty of one person's being more right than another. If it were taken as litrally as you have, then there would be no logical system in which to come up with the notion of truth in the first place...The universe has its own logical system of things, and those things have truth in them. On the other hand, we can say truth is defined by a particular logical system."

Am I right? I really want to understand this subject, if I have come to misunderstand it.

thanks

 

[jammieg]

It makes sense, but do you want only to be right? Even if being right meant less understanding of the subject?

 

[Imparcticle]

Nay, I want not to only be right; I would also like to understand the subject. I am really glad what I said made sense...I really wasn't sure.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This was a good discussion. Basing truth on the nature of the universe independent of our perceptions is good, although you get a pretty narrow truth that way. There are problems with getting morality out of "brute nature".

Similarly the truth defined by logical systems is problematic. Some would say they have no truth in them at all, just self consistency. That in the end they boil down to a = a, a tautology.

 

[Prometheus]

Am I right? I really want to understand this subject,

I basically like your argument. Is it true? What might such a question mean? Is it convincing to your friend? Perhaps that is your goal.

Here is a conversation that I just had with myself:

What color is this wall?

It is white.

What is white?

White is the English label for the perception of a certain portion of the continuum of visible light.

How broad is this portion of the spectrum?

That depends on the perceiver. It depends on the physical attributes of the perceiver, which are basically similar across English speakers; it is based on the cultural attributes of the perceiver, and on the precision and distinctions in describing shades of color; and it depends on the interest of the perceiver in the conversation, and the precision or sloppiness of the response.

Perhaps we should ask the maker of the paint.

Why? You asked me what color the paint is. What bearing on my opinion should the opinion of a stranger possess?

This is not opinion. There is an absolute truth, and I seek it by discovering the objectively true color of this wall.

This conversation has lasted quite a long time. Now, it is beginning to get dark. Look, the color of the wall has changed.

How can the color of the wall change?

The wall does not contain color. The wall emits light. My eyes receive the light. The color exists in my brain and in my perception of the light. My mind does not interact with the wall, but only with light from the wall. What does it mean to ask the color of the wall, since my eyes do not interact with it directly. Perhaps you meant to ask what is my perception of the color of the light that enables my mind to interact with the wall. My perception is affected by my mind, making it subjective, and by the medium through which the light passes, making it less than absolute.

Perhaps there is no absolute truth.

My opinion exactly.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is reality itself, whether we are fully capable of discerning what that means or not, absolute?

 

[olde drunk]

the only absolute truth is that there ain't no absolute truth.

ABSOLUTE - ly,
olde drunk

 

[Iacchus32]

Or, perhaps it's just our perception which is not absolute? Otherwise what are perceiving? Absolutely something? Or, absolutely nothing? So yes, the absolute truth of reality (whether obtainable or not) does exist.

 

[Prometheus]

Absolutely something? Or, absolutely nothing?

I don't find either of these questions as demonstrating anything in terms of a conclusion.

So yes, the absolute truth of reality (whether obtainable or not) does exist.

So, I am at a loss as to how you can therefore draw this conclusion on the basis of asking two questions.

 

[Iacchus32]

The fact that something exists, states that it exists absolutely. The fact that nothing exists, states that it doesn't exist absolutely. So yes, there is absolute truth relative to either statement. Ever stop to consider that everything is relative to the absoluteness of the whole? If so, wouldn't we also find absolute truth in that sense as well?

 

[Prometheus]

The fact that something exists, states that it exists absolutely. The fact that nothing exists, states that it doesn't exist absolutely. So yes, there is absolute truth relative to either statement. Ever stop to consider that everything is relative to the absoluteness of the whole? If so, wouldn't we also find absolute truth in that sense as well?

I see. It must be that I do not understand what you mean when you say that something exists absolutely. You must have a meaning different from mine.

Would you provide an example of something that exists absolutely, and provide a reasoning as to what it is about your example that is absolute.

 

[Dayle Record]

Your computer won't run without electricity.

 

[Torley Wong]

LOL! Maybe someday they'll make a computer that doesn't need to be plugged in -- but how far off would that be?

I guess you can get into all sorts of interesting wordplay and semantics puzzles, but I'm not sure what the point of that is. As fine as we'd like to define words, they are kinda like those yellow Lego blocks... rough and quantized, no matter how far the size. Or the pixels of finite resolution on the computer screen. The same words mean different things to different people.

For example, if I shout out "DOG!", each of us is going to have a different visual image come first into our mind before cycling onwards. If one of us actually has a dog as a companion animal, that dog may be pictured first. If we watch Lassie a lot, that may be the likely first choice pictured.

And soforth. It's an interesting thing to discuss but I personally am of the belief that humans are full of contradictions. I've come to embrace these relatively absolute personally universal truths ;)

:D

 

[Imparcticle]

The fact that something exists, states that it exists absolutely. The fact that nothing exists, states that it doesn't exist absolutely. So yes, there is absolute truth relative to either statement. Ever stop to consider that everything is relative to the absoluteness of the whole? If so, wouldn't we also find absolute truth in that sense as well?

I agree with you on that. After reading your posts, it occurred to me that, most if not all logical systems are identified by human perception, which is also based on a logical system. Does our perception influence our judgement in identifying independent logical systems? How do we know that non-Euclidean geometry is really non-Euclidean? Our minds, our thought processes are governed by the laws we are trying to classify. How do we know those laws are not effecting our way of thought in such a way that we end up deducing something as a result of a cause and effect sequence in our brain that doesn't neccesarily have to do with what we're studying?How do we know If the universe is a single logical system, then all its counterparts must essentially be based on the same logic, right?

LOL! Maybe someday they'll make a computer that doesn't need to be plugged in -- but how far off would that be?

Solar powered computers don't need to be plugged in. Of course, that would depend on your precise notion of "plug in"...

So, I am at a loss as to how you can therefore draw this conclusion on the basis of asking two questions.

Well, obviously there cannot be "absolutely nothing". It wouldn't make sense in the first place. Why? Because something cannot be in a state of non-existence, because for it to be in a state of non-exitence it would have to exist in the first place. Iaachus was merely pointing out that existence is absolute. It's opposite doesn't exist
I typed my last sentence "It's opposite doesn't exist " to make a sarcastic joke, but I couldn't help but notice the contradictions it implies. Note that I said "something cannot be" above. IOW, I said something can cannot be which is still not logically sound. Seriously, the fact that it is impossible for something to not not exist makes it possible for it to not exist, right??

It's an interesting thing to discuss but I personally am of the belief that humans are full of contradictions.

Interesting! If our minds work according to defined physical law, then why would there be contradictions?
I will guess: 1.) The laws of complexity, entropy

 

[Egmont]

Truth is a matter of linguistics, and it doesn't make sense to argue that it may not exist in an absolute sense. Two people can only agree on a proposition if both think it is true; if true propositions did not exist communication would be impossible, as we would spend all our time talking nonsense. The fact that we can, to some extent, successfully communicate with other people necessarily means truth exists in an absolute sense.

The truth of a statement such as "that wall is white" is not as difficult to assert as some people think, because the truth about it has little to do with anyone's subjective perception. In fact, the word "white" does not convey anyone's perception of a certain color, but simply the thing we all perceive in common amongst all objects we call "white". So what makes the wall "white" is not anyone's subjective sensation of color, but the common agreement amonst all speakers that we are all going to call that sensation "white" without worrying about what it really feels like. Whether "white" looks "pink" to you or me is completely beside the point.

 

[Iacchus32]

The truth of a statement such as "that wall is white" is not as difficult to assert as some people think, because the truth about it has little to do with anyone's subjective perception.

And of course our perception does not change the fact of "what is."

 

[Egmont]

And of course our perception does not change the fact of "what is."

Of course not. If it did, then "what is" would not be...

 

[Imparcticle]

Truth is a matter of linguistics, and it doesn't make sense to argue that it may not exist in an absolute sense.

What is the purpose of linguistics? To describe something. Here, I am trying to understand the dimensions of an absolute truth.

Two people can only agree on a proposition if both think it is true; if true propositions did not exist communication would be impossible, as we would spend all our time talking nonsense.

They think it is true. That does not mean what they speak of is true. It was once devoutly thought that disease was caused by demons and other supernatural causes. That is obviously not true. Truth exist, whether or not it is identified.

The truth of a statement such as "that wall is white" is not as difficult to assert as some people think, because the truth about it has little to do with anyone's subjective perception. In fact, the word "white" does not convey anyone's perception of a certain color, but simply the thing we all perceive in common amongst all objects we call "white". So what makes the wall "white" is not anyone's subjective sensation of color, but the common agreement amonst all speakers that we are all going to call that sensation "white" without worrying about what it really feels like. Whether "white" looks "pink" to you or me is completely beside the point.

It is highly subjective. It is not considered to be, but with careful analysis it is perfectly possible that it is indeed subjective. An example would be a color blind person. The color we percieve to be white could be the same as the color they percieve to be red, but with the same name. To some people, (even those who are not color blind) a color may look more orange than pink. I suppose my example (of using color) is not a very good one. Here's a better one:
I think chocolate icecream is better than vanilla icecream. On the contrary, my sister believes vanilla is the best flavor. Who is right??

 

[Egmont]

I think chocolate icecream is better than vanilla icecream. On the contrary, my sister believes vanilla is the best flavor. Who is right??

I suppose you'd accept as absolutely true that you do prefer chocolate over vanilla. And if I see you eating chocolate far more often that you eat vanilla, then I can also accept it as absolutely true.

Is there anything wrong there?

 

[Prometheus]

Is there anything wrong there?

Absolutely. How often, on a daily basis, when you consider that something is true, do you contemplate whether or not that truth is an abolute truth?

 

[bdkeenan00]

Absolute Truth: There may or may not be an absolute truth.
(of course with exception to the one absolute truth above)

 

[Erus]

I've only read the last posts of this thread.. However, I have some things to suggest... First off is Fuzzy Logic, that nothing is either True (1) or False (0), it is always between 0 and 1. Like the Liar Paradox:

a) Statement B is true.
b) Statement A is false.

In fuzzy logic, the paradox is .50 True/False, or 50% true.

Technically if you think this way you can say anything about anything and have some truth.

Absolute truth, I don't know. If existence is a truth, then it is an absolute truth but then again existence could be an illusion, and painstakingly false.

 

[olde drunk]

a true statement has nothing to do with whether or not there is an "absolute truth". we can make true statements until the cows come home, but can you tell me what the ultimate - absolute truth is, about anything?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Iacchus32]

Of course if truth were merely relative, what would it be relative to? That which is even less relevant? If so, what could we possibly hope to establish? That our being here is totally irrelevant? Or else why even try to be accurate and specific in what we say? If it's not relative to something even more specific, what would be the point? Otherwise we will have built our foundation of meaning upon sand. The silicon chip perhaps?

Yes, but knowledge is not wisdom!

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

If you say "There is no absolute truth", then it goes back to the old situation if it is true it's false, if false it's false. There must be some kind of absolute truths (like mathematics) because saying "There is no absolute truth" is contradictory. See what I'm sayin?

 

[Philocrat]

Absolute Truth is an ability to know everything about everithing, including the knower!

 

[Philocrat]

That is also equivalent to saying that it is an ability to raise oneself above all causal and relational laws of nature!

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Absolute Truth is an ability to know everything about everithing, including the knower!

Actually, I think "absolute truth" is a description of a statement, or set of statements, that is true no matter what, where, or when. Such as in math, 2+2=4, no matter what culture, no matter what galaxy...

 

[Imparcticle]

If you say "There is no absolute truth", then it goes back to the old situation if it is true it's false, if false it's true. There must be some kind of absolute truths (like mathematics) because saying "There is no absolute truth" is contradictory. See what I'm sayin?

Have you read my first post?
I said:

"I think you misunderstand. The idea that there is no absolute truth is based on another idea: that there are various perspectives of one thing. There is no absolute certainty of one person's being more right than another. If it were taken as litrally as you have, then there would be no logical system in which to come up with the notion of truth in the first place...The universe has its own logical system of things, and those things have truth in them. On the other hand, we can say truth is defined by a particular logical system."

I agree with what you have said (in addition to what I have said ). The distinction I am making is the same one made when someone refers to different kinds of mathematics and opinions.
For example, in spherical geometry and Euclidean geometry. In spherical geometry, a triangle is defined as having a sum of degree measures equal to 270. In Euclidean geometry, a triangle is defined as having a sum of degree measures equal to 180. Hence spherical geometry is non-Euclidean. Nonetheless, both aforementioned facts are true, for each specific geometry. They are true for each distinct geometry, but not for both.
On the other hand, my opinion of a certain ice cream tasting better than another doesn't neccesarily hold true for another person.
One could argue that each person is unique, therefore he or she has their own individual logical system that subsists as a result of many, chaotic phenomena in their neurological processes. That is what basically makes an individual. Though a human brain in general works a certain way, each is unique. I once read a SCIAM article on how the brain gets addicted to drugs (or any other addictive substance or thing). Basically, consumption of something (not just something addictive) causes an electric charge to pass through certain parts in the cerebral cortex. For you to know if you like or dislike something is based on how strong the charge is when it makes contact with a particular neurotransmitter. So, my point is that maybe cerain foods might cause a charge to be stonger in one person than in anothers, therefore making this one person like a certain food better. If that argument is correct, then is there an absolute truth?

 

[Iacchus32]

How about ... Everything is relative to the absoluteness of the whole? And, that through the whole, purpose is established? For example, what purpose would an arm serve, if it wasn't attached to a fully functional human body? For if it were severed and on its own, without the rest of the body to support it, it would have no functionality whatsoever.

 

[Dissident Dan]

If you say "There is no absolute truth", then it goes back to the old situation if it is true it's false, if false it's true. There must be some kind of absolute truths (like mathematics) because saying "There is no absolute truth" is contradictory. See what I'm sayin?

No:

If it's true, then it's false.
If it's false, then it's false.

 

[flippy]

Well if you're going to say that there is no such thing as truth because everything is relative, then relativity is a truth and you contradict yourself.

 

[Enos]

There is or isn't an absolute truth.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

So, my point is that maybe cerain foods might cause a charge to be stonger in one person than in anothers, therefore making this one person like a certain food better. If that argument is correct, then is there an absolute truth?

Why are you concerned with an absolute truth with food tastes? Of course there is no absolute truth with the likeness of certain foods. things like favorite food, color, movie, music are all opinions, relative things. As far as mathematics is concerned, i think it is an absolute truth. i think it must be, since it is the "language" of the universe. Like I said before, 2+2=4, no matter where or when you are. It is independent of reference frame, like many things in math (tensors for example)..

No:

If it's true, then it's false.
If it's false, then it's false.

Yea I meant to type that.. Sometimes words are mistyped when you work 14 hour days...

 

[TENYEARS]

There is absolute truth, it is an experience which will uncover the great secret. In knowing this little secret, the universe will open to you. Any question in which you desire to ask will be answered. ANY QUESTION. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees, it stands of itself, and touches the heavans and the earth, for it is all things, and unthings.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

There is absolute truth, it is an experience which will uncover the great secret. In knowing this little secret, the universe will open to you. Any question in which you desire to ask will be answered. ANY QUESTION. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees, it stands of itself, and touches the heavans and the earth, for it is all things, and unthings.

Ummm.. yyeeeaahh.. 'Absolute Truth' cannot answer the question of "What chocolate tastes the best?", or "What is the prettiest flower?", etc. I think you may have watched one too many reruns of The Lord Of The Rings.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ummm.. yyeeeaahh.. 'Absolute Truth' cannot answer the question of "What chocolate tastes the best?", or "What is the prettiest flower?", etc. I think you may have watched one too many reruns of The Lord Of The Rings.

What difference does it make so long as you're in heaven?

 

[Iacchus32]

There is or isn't an absolute truth.

Yes, if we are choosing between absolute truth and no absolute truth, we are choosing between one of two absolute truths. Got it?

 

[Egmont]

Yes, if we are choosing between absolute truth and no absolute truth, we are choosing between one of two absolute truths.

(playing the devil's advocate for a bit...)

I have seen this kind of reply a lot of times and it does make sense. The sentence "there is no absolute truth" can't possibly be true as a matter of logic, ergo it must be false, ergo absolute truth exists. That is fine. But what next? If absolute truths must exist as a matter of logical necessity, where are they, how do we find them, and can anyone provide some examples?

Now that, I think, will be tough. "I know it exists, I just don't know where it is". Just like misplaced car keys...

Any takers?

 

[Enos]

There is and isn't an absolute truth.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is and isn't an absolute truth.

Is that "There is and there isn't" in the sense of Goedel, or in the sense of Schroedinger?

 

[Enos]

Now who are they? lol

 

[Imparcticle]

Why are you concerned with an absolute truth with food tastes? Of course there is no absolute truth with the likeness of certain foods. things like favorite food, color, movie, music are all opinions, relative things. As far as mathematics is concerned, i think it is an absolute truth. i think it must be, since it is the "language" of the universe. Like I said before, 2+2=4, no matter where or when you are. It is independent of reference frame, like many things in math (tensors for example)..

Precisesly my original point. But I have come to wonder, do opinions have a factual basis? Are they logical?

My example about the brain was intended to describe a possibility where opinions are determined by the energy of certain chemical reactions. This implies there may be a systematic basis (that is, a logical basis) in which opinions are developed. Now, it may seem to us that opinions are tend to be different amoung various people. Some may have the same opinion, others a different opinion. This leads to the question, why do people have different opinions or opinions that are the same? If there are two ways in which to describe how much you like something (your liking of it is at a low degree or it is at a high degree), doesn't that make you wonder if there is a logical basis on which opinions are determined or exist?
Opinions seem to be rather sporadic. Just like a scatter plot diagram (i think that's what it's called; the name just won't come to me at this moment ) where many points on a coordinate plane are sporadically charted. Though it is sporadic, a line may be identified as a description of the average tendencies of the sporadic points on the graph. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

 

[Prometheus]

Actually, I think "absolute truth" is a description of a statement, or set of statements, that is true no matter what, where, or when. Such as in math, 2+2=4, no matter what culture, no matter what galaxy...

No matter what the base, unless of course it is base 3.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

No matter what the base, unless of course it is base 3.

base or mod? it should work out anyways in either..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Precisesly my original point. But I have come to wonder, do opinions have a factual basis? Are they logical?

My example about the brain was intended to describe a possibility where opinions are determined by the energy of certain chemical reactions. This implies there may be a systematic basis (that is, a logical basis) in which opinions are developed. Now, it may seem to us that opinions are tend to be different amoung various people. Some may have the same opinion, others a different opinion. This leads to the question, why do people have different opinions or opinions that are the same? If there are two ways in which to describe how much you like something (your liking of it is at a low degree or it is at a high degree), doesn't that make you wonder if there is a logical basis on which opinions are determined or exist?
Opinions seem to be rather sporadic. Just like a scatter plot diagram (i think that's what it's called; the name just won't come to me at this moment ) where many points on a coordinate plane are sporadically charted. Though it is sporadic, a line may be identified as a description of the average tendencies of the sporadic points on the graph. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

yea.. but i'll have to wait til later to respond. my bday so I am runnin around catching sleep and parties..

 

[Philocrat]

Actually, I think "absolute truth" is a description of a statement, or set of statements, that is true no matter what, where, or when. Such as in math, 2+2=4, no matter what culture, no matter what galaxy...

Well, climb out of the form that you are now in (that is, your human form) and watch mathematics, logic and any other device of causal and relational analysis colapse with it! Can you calculate or reason in a formless state?

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

There is a big objective reality out there, or rather, absolute truth. But i don't think human minds would be able to fully comprehend it. Just as some people say the subjective is needed to elucidate the objective. its like light, light can lie to us, maybe our sh*it is pink or blue, but light tells us that its brown. its like accepted truths, it may not be exactly objective and an accurate representation of this "absolute truth", but as much as we need light, we need these bits of accepted wisdom.

Its like maybe, what if EM induction was not the result of electrons moving in the wire when it cuts a magnetic field. Maybe its little fairies in the wire who carry the electrons around and this movement wakes them up or something. Ok, so, this bit of accepted wisdom is defunct, but we invented electricity and the generator in the process anyway.

Humans naturally live in delusion, because the objective reality would be too infinite for us to comprehend. And its good, because it compels us to seek out this "truth", and this would lead to growth in human knowledge, an endless one even.

 

[TENYEARS]

We are expressions of absolute truth.

 

[cogito]

I was having a discussion with a friend a few days ago about the validity of absolute truth. She said that in many philosophy classes, it is taught that there is no aboslute truth. She believed the contrary was true, and based her argument on the following illustration (and for the heck of it, I'll just type our conversation):
My Friend: "What color is this wall?"
(the wall would normally be considered white)
my friend continues: "I believe it is white. Do you agree?"

me: "Yes. But how do I know the white you see is the same as the white I see? How do I know the white you see is not the equivalent of something I would percieve to be red?"

My friend: "How do you think we would be sure? I think we should go ask the maker of the paint"

me: "Ah, but my argument still holds for anyone. What if the maker is color blind? What if he IS blind?"

my friend: "well, we will have to bow to the creator of the paint. He should know what it is he created."

Me: "I think you misunderstand. The idea that there is no absolute truth is based on another idea: that there are various perspectives of one thing. There is no absolute certainty of one person's being more right than another. If it were taken as litrally as you have, then there would be no logical system in which to come up with the notion of truth in the first place...The universe has its own logical system of things, and those things have truth in them. On the other hand, we can say truth is defined by a particular logical system."

Am I right? I really want to understand this subject, if I have come to misunderstand it.

thanks

Look, suppose we assume that no claim is true absolutely (i.e., true regardless of what anybody thinks or perceives). If so, then we can infer that there is in fact at least one absolute truth. We can infer from our original supposition that the claim "no claim is true absolutely" is itself true absolutely. But, of course, this contradicts our original supposition. So, the supposition "no claim is true absolutely" entails its own falsehood. Any claim that entails a falsehood is false, so our original supposition is false. Hence, there is at least one abolute truth. QED