What do you mean by "corresponds"? And how do you know that they are "good ones"?
Then they are like recepies: if they tasted good when we tried them then the recepy was "tasty".
Are there absolute tasties?
-
Features
Does absolute truth exist?
- Thread starter none
- Start date
What do you mean by "corresponds"? And how do you know that they are "good ones"?
Then they are like recepies: if they tasted good when we tried them then the recepy was "tasty".
Are there absolute tasties?
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Thanks, that was helpful.
In terms of what you were trying to convey, the usual "true statement" would be much better. Your expression is only good if you are assuming that strickly speaking statements are not true but can effectively refer to truths, i.e. other things which may be true like perhaps, say, propositions. Personally I could use it in this sense but here I will keep to "true statements".
Your opinion.
You should give specific examples of contexts. Particularly obvious ones perhaps.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks, at least here is something constructive.
Now this view of context is effectively irrelevant to the ordinary notion of truth. The usual notion of truth is such that truth is conceived as independent of what human beings may understand about a statement or of their ability to assess it as true or not true. Truth is commonly understood to be a property of either the statements themselves or of something statements may refer to (propositions etc.). Sure, people will obviously entertain and express various opinions and beliefs about the truth or falsehood of any statement and these opinions and beliefs are indeed commonly understood as being strongly affected by context as you define it but that does not effect what people mean by "truth". Truth does not depend on context, only our beliefs about the truth of particular statements does.
EB
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
Yet some people clearly did see an absolute truth. So you must both be right.
Absolute and Relative Truths Both Exist---a no brainer
Abslute truths exist eternally as metpahysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Humans occassionally discover and rediscover these absolute truths via nervous system ergo brains ability to access complexities associated with metaphysical-1 abstract concepts. ex written language involving counting and non-counting symbolisms, icons,pictographs etc.......
Transcendental Pi is ratio of a perfect circle to that perfect circles diameter just a wee bit longer--- .1 ---- than say the 3 same length sides of a triangle having value 3.
These two are absolute, diametrically opposite case scearios of a 2D shape at its maximum and at its minimum.
Metaphysical-1, positive curvature, perfect circle of infinite angle, and
Metaphysical-1 Euclidean perfect triangle having the minimal 3 angles.
There exists a finite set of infinite absolute truths and finite set of relative truths. imho
Pi looks like this 3.141..........
3.1^3 = 29.791...................
3.1415^3 = 31.00 35 3...............
...takes 5 digits or integers to get the 31
Pi^3.1415926 = 31.00 62 7...............
...3rd powering is associated with and XYZ, Cartesian process of volumetric accounting.....
...takes 7 or 8 digits or integers to get the 62 7........
The regular icosa{20}hedron has 31 great circle or polygonal planes-- 6, 10 and 15 ----
The sum of the angles, of a Euclidean triangle, is eternally 180 degrees, when the base unity is 360 degees.
The sum of the angles, of a positive( Riemann } triangles is eternally more than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.
The sum of the angles, of a negative( Lobveskian? } triangle, is eternally less than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.
Still waiting for Max Tegmark to address this, tho obviously will affirm these absolute truths to his list. Thx Max
Someone mentioned goemetry and here is a perfect example of Universal absolute truth existing as metaphysical-1 concept that is complementary to any context of our finite, occupied space Universe.
Ex there exists qw metaphysical-1 mind/intellect, only 5 regular/symmetrical, polyhedra, that, may manifest as an occupied space.
1} icosa{20}hedron--- stably structural system,
2} octa{8}hedron--stably structural system,
3} tetra{4}hedron---stably structural system,
------------------------------------------------
4} pentagonal-dodeca{12}hedron--non-stable ergo non-structural system,
5} cube aka regular hexa{6}hedron---non-stabel ergo non-structural system.
Thank you Max Tegmark for your confirmation thereof.
r6
Abslute truths exist eternally as metpahysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Humans occassionally discover and rediscover these absolute truths via nervous system ergo brains ability to access complexities associated with metaphysical-1 abstract concepts. ex written language involving counting and non-counting symbolisms, icons,pictographs etc.......
Transcendental Pi is ratio of a perfect circle to that perfect circles diameter just a wee bit longer--- .1 ---- than say the 3 same length sides of a triangle having value 3.
These two are absolute, diametrically opposite case scearios of a 2D shape at its maximum and at its minimum.
Metaphysical-1, positive curvature, perfect circle of infinite angle, and
Metaphysical-1 Euclidean perfect triangle having the minimal 3 angles.
There exists a finite set of infinite absolute truths and finite set of relative truths. imho
Pi looks like this 3.141..........
3.1^3 = 29.791...................
3.1415^3 = 31.00 35 3...............
...takes 5 digits or integers to get the 31
Pi^3.1415926 = 31.00 62 7...............
...3rd powering is associated with and XYZ, Cartesian process of volumetric accounting.....
...takes 7 or 8 digits or integers to get the 62 7........
The regular icosa{20}hedron has 31 great circle or polygonal planes-- 6, 10 and 15 ----
The sum of the angles, of a Euclidean triangle, is eternally 180 degrees, when the base unity is 360 degees.
The sum of the angles, of a positive( Riemann } triangles is eternally more than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.
The sum of the angles, of a negative( Lobveskian? } triangle, is eternally less than 180 degrees, when base unity is 360 degrees.
Still waiting for Max Tegmark to address this, tho obviously will affirm these absolute truths to his list. Thx Max
Someone mentioned goemetry and here is a perfect example of Universal absolute truth existing as metaphysical-1 concept that is complementary to any context of our finite, occupied space Universe.
Ex there exists qw metaphysical-1 mind/intellect, only 5 regular/symmetrical, polyhedra, that, may manifest as an occupied space.
1} icosa{20}hedron--- stably structural system,
2} octa{8}hedron--stably structural system,
3} tetra{4}hedron---stably structural system,
------------------------------------------------
4} pentagonal-dodeca{12}hedron--non-stable ergo non-structural system,
5} cube aka regular hexa{6}hedron---non-stabel ergo non-structural system.
Thank you Max Tegmark for your confirmation thereof.
r6
Last edited:
untermensche
Contributor
That a ball falls to earth is an observation of how things work.
One ball, one fall. This has nothing to do with trying to make predictions about other falls.
In that you have one truth.
But as I said, it is a human truth from a human perspective. Those are the only truths available to us. But some of this type are available.
The day your father dies, that is a truth that most comprehend.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
You don't say where you got this idea of absolute knowledge but you should be aware that there are different notions of absolute knowledge. One is from Hegel for example, where absolute knowledge is "knowledge in the form of the complete self-consciousness and self-possession of spirit" and so really has nothing to do with what you seem to be referring to.
Another is from Kant (see for example http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/ABSOLUTE):
Again, nothing to do with what you say.
There is also Husserl, (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit), for whom absolute knowledge is knowledge regarded as fundamental to reality. Again nothing so specific as what you suggest here.
And the same is obvioulsy true of the notion of absolute truth.
Ok, it's what you mean by absolute truth but you give no source. You should be aware that your sense isn't at all the usual sense. It may be the sense used by some people but you would need to really start by specifying first what you mean by it.
That's your opinion but that not the usual meaning of absolute knowledge or absolute truth.
More importantly, I think you are probably confusing the usual concept of absolute knowledge, which I believe would be knowledge of something fundamental to reality, whatever that may mean, with some argument concocted by some Super Bright mind to the effect that, as you just explained here, no knowledge is possible without having all knowledge. That's an interesting idea. I know it to be false though. However, even without me saying anything about that, you should realise that you would need to prove what you say. The usual argument, that if you don't know absolutely everything of reality then you may be mistaken about what you think you know doesn't in fact apply to all knowledge. In effect, if you do know something, without knowing everything, then nothing that you don't know could possibly change the fact that you know this something, and that's a consequence of what we mean by "knowledge". So in effect, you are merely assuming first that you don't know if you know something. But, if you knew that you know something then you would know that your argument does not hold water. That being said, I in fact accept a restriction of your argument to a certain kind of knowledge, where in this case it is obviously true, at least as far as we know now.
Finally, given how none explained what he meant, it is no apparent to me that you two are really talking about the same kind of "absolute truth". So you may need to revisit that assumption as well.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Again, in the usual concept of truth, the truth of a statement is conceived as independent of our ability to know that the statement is true or our ability to justify our belief that it is true.
You would have to explain how a statement could not possibly be true of the real world. Your explanation would have to steer clear of anything to do with the ability of human beings to justify why or even know that a statement would be true. The question is: Why no statement could be possibly true of the real world. I haven't seen anything like an explanation of that so far.
EB
Why dont answer the question you cite?
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
The question is not to specify a truth or even to exibit one. The OP asserts that there are no absolute truths so if you thinks that's right you would need to explain why it is in terms of either the concept of truth or that of statement in relation to that of reality.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Yeah but those can kill you just the same.
EB
Eh? That was my answer to a specific post.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Because me I don't think there's any good argument for that view.
And if you don't what to justify your views, be my guest.
EB
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Sorry, I don't understand.
EB
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,676
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Oh goodness no! It's the TimeCube!!! Run!
They're good because they work for reasons that don't vary. For instance, if I hold a 10 lb iron ball six feet above the surface of an object with the mass of the Earth, it will fall to that surface at a constant speed every time. These are objective criteria which are very different from the subjective ones such as tastiness. It works for reasons completely unrelated to our opinions about it.
Speakpigeon, there is a context where there is something true and there is a context where something is false.
all contexts includes the context where there is something true and the context where something is false.
there, you got two contexts to work with.. use your imagination you might come up with more.
go back to the OP if you need to, which I think you do because you haven't really addressed it.
all contexts includes the context where there is something true and the context where something is false.
there, you got two contexts to work with.. use your imagination you might come up with more.
go back to the OP if you need to, which I think you do because you haven't really addressed it.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
LMAO. You know that site has been online since at least 1998? I'm impressed that he keeps the hosting bill paid and the domain renewed.
Objective? American or british pounds?
In the end it all goes back to man. There is a reality, but truth is not what you think.
It is you that believe in magical truth, not me
"Truth" and "knowledge" are properties of the human mind. Not reality.