Uncovering the Truth: A Discussion

[raptix]

Truth

a fact that has been verified; reality - actuality

That's my definition. But how do you get past those who say that the truth is a statement merely accepted to be true. And is there absolute truth?

I am typing.

Is the above an absolute truth? I believe, it is at least true. Because I am.

But is the English language, or any other human language, or higher level thinking, incapable of describing the absolute truth on say, issues of abortion, and the like?

See I have a feeling that one day humans could be Gods in respect, making themselves higher thinkers through technological advancement, able to describe the absolute truth. A discussion would be fun about this..

Getting closer and closer to the truth, putting aside our emotions in debates, our ideologies, and looking at rock hard truths and describing them in the most accurate clause, that's what is my aim.

 

[Icebreaker]

There is no absolute truth, or any truth, in issues like abortion. In my opinion, ethical issues and choices are simply commands, not unlike "open the door"; they are not true or false, they are simply tools of persuasion.

 

[Flexor]

What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.

 

[The Rev]

It seems to me that any abstract idea like "abortion is wrong" can be broken down into more and more fundamental truths until only self-evident premises remain. Then those premises can be considered as factual or not, and thus, the truth of the statement can be determined.

Of course, one problem is agreeing on which truths are plainly self-evident. Some people would take "abortion is wrong" as axiomatic in itself. Another is arriving at a common set of self-evident premises, and agreement on how truths are to be constructed with them. Certainly logic would play a role, but applying logic to emotionally charged issues has proved problematic in the past.

:)

The Rev

 

[Flexor]

I used the statement "abortion is wrong" as an example because it's an opinion and not a truth. A truth would be wether or not the baby has conscience, wether or not the baby has a soul, etc. You then base your opinions on these truths. What is true and what people want to be true are two very different things. Regardless of what the truth is, people will twist it to better fit their opinions.

 

[aek]

wow

the answer to all your questions is undefined, we are to weak to answer those questions, we do not know what's true and what's not. All we know is actually what we think and assume.

 

[Icebreaker]

Something is true if we define it to be true. There may not be an intrisic truthfulness to everything.

 

[moving finger]

What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.

I agree there are no absolute truths in philosophy or morality; but I am sorry, there are no absolute truths in mathematics either.
Any mathematical system must be constructed from axioms. Axioms are (for want of a better word) assumptions that we take to be true without being able to prove they are true. All of mathematics therefore rests on assumptions, not absolute truth.

MF

 

[Icebreaker]

Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.

 

[Flexor]

Indeed.

As long as we exist in this reality, "1 + 1 = 2" will always be true. Try to prove otherwise.

 

[hypnagogue]

Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.

I don't know about that. Isn't it (or, wasn't it) self-evident that, given a straight line L and a point P not lying on L, there is only one unique line that intersects P without intersecting L?

 

[Icebreaker]

It still is. Each geometry uses its own parallel postulate, and in each geometry, they are self-evident.

 

[moving finger]

Mathematical assumptions are self-evident. It is the only field that can make that claim.

If they are self-evident, why are there different versions of arithmetic, each legitimate and each with different axioms?

The only rule underlying mathematics is consistency. As long as my system of arithmetic is consistent then it is legitimate. There is more than one consistent arithmetical system.

The "truths" derived from each version of arithmetic rest on the axioms of that arithmetic. Change the axioms (which, since there is more than one version, are not self-evident) and the truths change too.

As long as we exist in this reality, "1 + 1 = 2" will always be true. Try to prove otherwise.

Try to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 without first defining 2 as the integer successor of 1. (for definition of "successor" see Peano arithmetic).

I doubt if you can do it.

Ergo, the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 rests on the prior assumption that 2 is defined as the integer successor of 1.

All we achieve is proving the truth of our prior definition. Which is circular.

MF

 

[Icebreaker]

Ah, but just because some axioms may not be compatible with one another, doesn't mean they are not self-evident. Take the parallel postulate: all versions of it are true and self-evident under certain conditions, one of those conditions being the mutual-exclusivity of one another.

For example, if we assume that there's an unstoppable force, then there cannot be an unmovable object; if we assume that there's an unmovable object, then there cannot be an unstoppable force. Under the condition that the other assumption is false, either one is true and self-evident.

 

[moving finger]

Ah, but just because some axioms may not be compatible with one another, doesn't mean they are not self-evident. Take the parallel postulate: all versions of it are true and self-evident under certain conditions, one of those conditions being the mutual-exclusivity of one another.

For example, if we assume that there's an unstoppable force, then there cannot be an unmovable object; if we assume that there's an unmovable object, then there cannot be an unstoppable force. Under the condition that the other assumption is false, either one is true and self-evident.

Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.
The "truths" of Euclidean geometry are only true given the a priori assumptions (axioms) of Euclidean geometry - at the basis of which is a Euclidean "flat" space. The same is true of any other geometry.

MF

 

[aek]

hehe

ignorance is bliss

 

[Icebreaker]

Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.

The truth is based on axioms and these "conditions", but it does not mean that the latter two aren't self-evident.

 

[moving finger]

The truth is based on axioms and these "conditions", but it does not mean that the latter two aren't self-evident.

Can you give some examples of what you consider to be "self-evident" axioms or conditions?

Take geometry for example. It is not "self-evident" that geometry-space is necessarily Euclidean. This is a subjective condition/axiom/assumption, and there are perfectly acceptable alternative geometries which are based on non-Euclidean spaces.

MF

 

[spicerack]

does the fact that I live and exist qualify as a self evident axiom and condition which predicates truth if only on a personal level

 

[moving finger]

does the fact that I live and exist qualify as a self evident axiom and condition which predicates truth if only on a personal level

That's a good example - of a subjective (but not an absolute) truth

MF

 

[Owen Holden]

Truth

a fact that has been verified; reality - actuality

That's my definition. But how do you get past those who say that the truth is a statement merely accepted to be true. And is there absolute truth?

I am typing.

Is the above an absolute truth? I believe, it is at least true. Because I am.

But is the English language, or any other human language, or higher level thinking, incapable of describing the absolute truth on say, issues of abortion, and the like?

See I have a feeling that one day humans could be Gods in respect, making themselves higher thinkers through technological advancement, able to describe the absolute truth. A discussion would be fun about this..

Getting closer and closer to the truth, putting aside our emotions in debates, our ideologies, and looking at rock hard truths and describing them in the most accurate clause, that's what is my aim.

There is no sense to the concept "the truth".
By what decision method, can you decide 'the truth'?
Truth is not unique, it is dependent on the system used.

Watch out for the dictator "Herkl", If he does not agree with your remarks he will 'lock the whole thread', Heil Herkl!

Of course, his opinion is correct an all others are not ?!

 

[Owen Holden]

Here you take as an axiom the "certain condition".
Any "truth" that you derive from your axioms is therefore resting on the assumption of that "certain condition".
My point is that the whole foundation is based on one or more assumptions or axioms - any truth that is derived is dependent on this or these assumptions.
The "truths" of Euclidean geometry are only true given the a priori assumptions (axioms) of Euclidean geometry - at the basis of which is a Euclidean "flat" space. The same is true of any other geometry.

MF

Truth is that which is the case, relative to this or that method of decision.

 

[Icebreaker]

Can you give some examples of what you consider to be "self-evident" axioms or conditions?

Take geometry for example. It is not "self-evident" that geometry-space is necessarily Euclidean. This is a subjective condition/axiom/assumption, and there are perfectly acceptable alternative geometries which are based on non-Euclidean spaces.

In Euclidean space, parallel lines never meet. That is self-evident.
In elliptic space, parallel lines always meet. That is also self-evident.

 

[BicycleTree]

No one can ever certainly say that something is true or not. If there is an undiscoverable flaw in their reason for saying that, then they are wrong. And the situation of there being an undiscoverable flaw is by definition indistinguishable from the situation of there being no such thing.

 

[phoenixthoth]

What truth could there possibly be about abortion that we don't already know? Things like "Abortion is wrong" or "Abortion is right" are subjective opinions, not truths. The only truth are those known scientific facts that we hold as such until proven otherwise. The only absolute proof is mathematics.

I agree. Additionally, the nature of truth in mathematics is that it is based on conventions and definitions. Things are that are true are true because of something that is true because of something that is true because of something that is true because of something that is true ... because of something that is true by definition; in short, things that are true are true by definition.

Words are to truth as (words describing a cup) are to a cup. In other words, words are not truth though they may describe it. The description may or may not be accurate. No matter how accurate the description is, words are still not truth.

I believe that my brain is not capable of discerning, by itself, how accurate a description of truth is, i.e., how true a statement is, in almost all cases.

Truth is silent, without words. Therefore, a being can only access truth when that being is him/her/itself is silent. As soon as one opens one's mouth, what comes out is not truth but a description of truth.

It is one thing to describe something. By absorbing a description of something, you can know about it. To truly know something, and not just know about something, one must be that something. Same applies to truth. You can know about it from a description. You only know it when you are it.

silence is silence

Truth is source

the source is God.

 

[moving finger]

Truth is that which is the case, relative to this or that method of decision.

Yep, I agree with this.

Truth rides on the back of the method of decision. And decisions are made by working on axioms (you need axioms to get started, otherwise you are working in a vacuum).

If you like, a nice analogy is that axioms are the raw material, methods of decision are the tools, and the truth that emerges is the finished product.

There is no absolute truth, just as there is no absolute finished product, it depends on the raw materials and the tools you use.

MF

 

[moving finger]

In Euclidean space, parallel lines never meet. That is self-evident.
In elliptic space, parallel lines always meet. That is also self-evident.

You have just given me an example of a subjective, not an absolute truth.

ie the truth of of the statement "parallel lines never meet" depends on the prior assumption or axiom of Euclidean or elliptic space.

If you wish to say (anticipating your reply) that the full true statement is in fact "parallel lines never meet in Euclidean space", then I can take the same approach to any subjective logically correct statement (it need not be a mathematical statement) and turn it into an objective (absolutely) true statement by "rolling up the assumptions" into the statement.

This does not allow you to get away from the fact that all truths are based on assumptions.

MF

 

[spicerack]

That's a good example - of a subjective (but not an absolute) truth

MF

Does unanimity on a subjective truth become absolute upon general consensus given that we all believe we live and exist or are we forbidden to know absolute truth and ultimate reality while alive ?

 

[moving finger]

Does unanimity on a subjective truth become absolute upon general consensus given that we all believe we live and exist or are we forbidden to know absolute truth and ultimate reality while alive ?

The road to Truth is unfortunately not a democratic road (in other words - Truth is based on consistency and logic alone, and not on popular opinion)

I know that I live and exist but, if I take the solipsist view, I have no certain knowledge of anyone else's existence

MF

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.
Rene Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637

 

[spicerack]

nice one MF, even if it does sound like a cop out but then again my truth is only my considered opinion so what do i know ?

 

[BicycleTree]

There is no absolute truth as my post earlier in this thread demonstrated. Also your brain is just a computer, and at any time you could suffer spectacularly unlikely system error, perhaps even though quantum effects, that prevents you from coming up with the right answer no matter how reliable your methods seem.

 

[Pensador]

Absolute truth exists, but it cannot be communicated in an absolute way. In order to prove that a sentence such as "I am typing" is absolutely true, you'd need to have everyone agree on the exact meaning of the words "I", "am", "typing" and, worst of all, "true" itself. That is just impossible.

On the other hand, it is a flawed proposition to think that because we cannot communicate facts about the world, that such facts do not exist. That would be ascribing to reality what is simply a limitation of the speakers who talk about reality. The real issue is that we are all alone, and most of our knowledge about the world cannot easily be shared with other people, despite the fact that it is absolutely true from the perspective of our own understanding of our language.

To me the sentence "I am typing" is absolutely true, and it's foolish to doubt it. I may, in the future, find out that "typing" is not the proper word to describe what I'm doing; that will never change the past, it will only change the way I talk about it.

 

[BicycleTree]

You're just making unsupported assertions, pensador. Your brain could become hopelessly confused at any time over what seems like the simplest of matters, simply because it is a physical computer and is subject to random physical effects.

 

[Icebreaker]

You have just given me an example of a subjective, not an absolute truth.

Then we simply have different definitions for "absolute truth".

 

[BicycleTree]

There is no absolute truth that any human can reasonably be sure of because of computational uncertainty within the human brain.

 

[Pensador]

You're just making unsupported assertions, pensador. Your brain could become hopelessly confused at any time over what seems like the simplest of matters, simply because it is a physical computer and is subject to random physical effects.

You can only become confused over the simplest of matters if you are in fact confused and the matters are really the simplest. In the absence of simple matters, there's nothing to be confused about. In the absence of absolute truths there cannot be illusions.

The best way I saw someone put it was, in order to discover your first lie, you must already know a lot of truths. You call that unsupported assertions, I call it simple logic.

 

[BicycleTree]

I don't understand what you're saying, pensador. How does it relate to the fact that quantum effects could result in your brain being in a totally different arrangement the next moment compared to this moment?

 

[Pensador]

I don't understand what you're saying, pensador. How does it relate to the fact that quantum effects could result in your brain being in a totally different arrangement the next moment compared to this moment?

Is it a fact that quantum effects could result in your brain being in a totally different arrangement the next moment compared to this moment?

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, from my popular science understanding of it every particle has a nonzero probability of being found anywhere at all. I'm no physicist but I think the physicists here would confirm that.

 

[Pensador]

Yes, from my popular science understanding of it every particle has a nonzero probability of being found anywhere at all.

Well, then congratulations, you found your first absolute truth.

Look, this has been discussed over and over, I just dropped by because no one had mentioned it. The claim that "absolute truth does not exist" is what is called a self-falsifying proposition. It can only be true if it is false. It's a philosophical dead-end.

 

[BicycleTree]

It's not an absolute truth, it's a scientific truth. To disagree with it you have to disagree with the science.

 

[Pensador]

It's not an absolute truth, it's a scientific truth. To disagree with it you have to disagree with the science.

I'm not disagreeing with anything, just trying to point out that your reasoning is incorrect. If your brain starts to rot it doesn't mean absolute truths don't exist, it only means you're losing your mind. For one thing, your brain cannot rot if it's not absolutely true that brains can rot.

 

[BicycleTree]

I'm not saying absolute truths don't exist, I'm saying we can't be sure of any of them.

If you ask yourself any question at all, your answer to your own question has a nonzero probability of being anything at all. So you can never say with 100% certainty that the answer you gave is the correct one.

 

[Jameson]

Hmm... It seems a bit of a contradiction to say "There are no absolute truths". Isn't that an absolute as well? I think many people are talking about different kinds of truths. I saw in the first topic "truth" was defined, but the definition still remains slightly unclear. Saying truth is "a fact that has been verified; reality - actuality" seems to me to be three different definitions.

Pensador mentioned this already:

Look, this has been discussed over and over, I just dropped by because no one had mentioned it. The claim that "absolute truth does not exist" is what is called a self-falsifying proposition. It can only be true if it is false. It's a philosophical dead-end.

Jameson

 

[BicycleTree]

You may not understand the logic behind it, but it is a well-recognized fact that any computer, including the human mind, can make virtually any computational error at all due to quantum effects. Call it a "Dead end" if you like, but it's the way the physical world works.

Jameson, I already said this:

I'm not saying absolute truths don't exist, I'm saying we can't be sure of any of them.

 

[moving finger]

Absolute truth exists, but it cannot be communicated in an absolute way. In order to prove that a sentence such as "I am typing" is absolutely true, you'd need to have everyone agree on the exact meaning of the words "I", "am", "typing" and, worst of all, "true" itself. That is just impossible.

Hmmmm. I'm not sure of the "reality" of truth if you say the statement "Absolute Truth Exists" can never be proven to be objectively true... that means the statement is an axiom or assumption at best.

MF

 

[IntellectIsStrength]

Any statement in reference to the non-existence or the possible existence of truth is contradictory within itself. Consider "absolute truth does not exist". This sentence is, in my opinion, the height of contradiction.

Absolute truth does exist. And it IS possible to discover and grasp it.