• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Does absolute truth exist?

Kharakov said:
fromderinside said:
There still the mighty might or maybe whatever. Its a problem with Okham as well. There have to be sides to have decides.
Click to expand...

Are you criticizing the neutral position! It is the absolutely correct position to take in many circumstances.
Click to expand...

There are many positions for everything. A 'right position commands necessary agreement by those discussing the position that there are right and otherwise. My point was to remind of otherwise. Okham is just a rule of thumb, a first cut, a weed killer, if you will.
 
fromderinside said:
Kharakov said:
Are you criticizing the neutral position! It is the absolutely correct position to take in many circumstances.
Click to expand...

There are many positions for everything. A 'right position commands necessary agreement by those discussing the position that there are right and otherwise. My point was to remind of otherwise. Okham is just a rule of thumb, a first cut, a weed killer, if you will.
Click to expand...

It was a bit of a joke. To take the neutral position is to not take a definite position... at least sometimes that's what is meant by taking the neutral position.

Say that something is negative to one, and positive to another. Well, if you simply look at the magnitude of anything, you always have a positive number. It's when you define an origin from which to determine if something is positive, negative, y axis, z axis, w axiz, or what have you, that you end up judging something with magnitude as positive or negative compared to another event.

As conscious beings, the origin varies according to our perspective of neutrality- the original position. With a decided origin, from the origin, all things are positive, and the origin itself is negative in relation to all things. However, from the perspective of a negative one, the origin is positive. This is all bullshit though, because we can transcend deciding one is negative, and one is positive, and all behave in positive ways towards all, taking the absolute value of all creative acts...
 
Kharakov said:
fromderinside said:
There are many positions for everything. A 'right position commands necessary agreement by those discussing the position that there are right and otherwise. My point was to remind of otherwise. Okham is just a rule of thumb, a first cut, a weed killer, if you will.
Click to expand...

It was a bit of a joke. To take the neutral position is to not take a definite position... at least sometimes that's what is meant by taking the neutral position.

Say that something is negative to one, and positive to another. Well, if you simply look at the magnitude of anything, you always have a positive number. It's when you define an origin from which to determine if something is positive, negative, y axis, z axis, w axiz, or what have you, that you end up judging something with magnitude as positive or negative compared to another event.

As conscious beings, the origin varies according to our perspective of neutrality- the original position. With a decided origin, from the origin, all things are positive, and the origin itself is negative in relation to all things. However, from the perspective of a negative one, the origin is positive. This is all bullshit though, because we can transcend deciding one is negative, and one is positive, and all behave in positive ways towards all, taking the absolute value of all creative acts...
Click to expand...

The problem is with the notion of conscious. Its a subset of something. We have no idea whether that subset exists as a best estimate or as just another observation. I'm thinking more than one sentient being so just another sample.
 
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
A notion is not a categorical statement so it is neither true nor false.
Just saying.
EB
Click to expand...

Expressing a categorical opinion of an idea (notion) is a categorical statement.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I didn't say any different.

Still, that doesn't make a notion a categorical statement, as Philos' categorical statement clearly implied, and certainly it doesn't make a notion true of false. Maybe he meant that the notion of absolute proof didn't refer to anything, or that it was meaningless. However, that's bad form to put this view across using a meaningless statement to do it!

Also, his statement was therefore nonsensical and as such couldn't be true or false, even though apparently categorical. So, perhaps his statement wasn't in fact categorical. Meself, I would vote for categorical statements to be meaningful. Otherwise, the barbarians win.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
Meself, I would vote for categorical statements to be meaningful. Otherwise, the barbarians win.
EB
Click to expand...

Bait, then switch, repeat, spin, ......

A notion isn't meaningful because its a notion which isn't meaningful and the circle is complete. Scategorical (sic) statements are meaningful because there aren't barbarians at the door? The drum came rolling out of the machine and the was was left dirty. Notions may be categorical but they're notions so the can't be meaningful because there are notions that barbarians are at the door?

Interesting that barbarians proof./-nm
 
fromderinside said:
Kharakov said:
A categorical statement is not a categorical statement. Definitely speaking.
Click to expand...

Jury. I want judgement.
Click to expand...

I was talking specifically of the fact that all statements are also not statements (not really... it's a joke). From a certain perspective, a statement is just organized, but meaningless, data.

In fact, meaningless data can be interpreted as statements, in certain situations.

http://yosinski.com/media/papers/Nguyen__2015__CVPR__Deep_Neural_Networks_Are_Easily_Fooled.pdf
 
Kharakov said:
fromderinside said:
Jury. I want judgement.
Click to expand...

I was talking specifically of the fact that all statements are also not statements (not really... it's a joke). From a certain perspective, a statement is just organized, but meaningless, data.

In fact, meaningless data can be interpreted as statements, in certain situations.

http://yosinski.com/media/papers/Nguyen__2015__CVPR__Deep_Neural_Networks_Are_Easily_Fooled.pdf
Click to expand...

What a surprise ......  Flicker fusion  Visual masking  Auditory masking  Illusory continuity of tones
 
fromderinside said:
Kharakov said:
I was talking specifically of the fact that all statements are also not statements (not really... it's a joke). From a certain perspective, a statement is just organized, but meaningless, data.

In fact, meaningless data can be interpreted as statements, in certain situations.

http://yosinski.com/media/papers/Nguyen__2015__CVPR__Deep_Neural_Networks_Are_Easily_Fooled.pdf
Click to expand...

What a surprise ......  Flicker fusion  Visual masking  Auditory masking  Illusory continuity of tones
Click to expand...
Why, pray tell, did nobody jump on the opportunity to say that what I type can be interpreted as statements too... sheesh.
 
none said:
I know this is mostly theoretical but practically absolute truth doesn't seem to exist unless it exists practically as a theoretical proposition. ??
Click to expand...

For every individual the truth of a given proposition is a judgement call. I, for example, judge a statement "true" if my understanding of the meaning of that proposition matches my understanding of the state of reality. I hope you do the same. It would be logical.

Bayes' Theorem rules history. Not even nature itself, at the quantum level, knows history. According to Feynman, a detected photon took all paths weighted by probability.

Tom Sawyer said:
Yes, it does.

Either absolute truth exists, in which case it is an absolute truth to say that there is absolute truth or absolute truth does not exist, in which case it's an absolute truth to say that it does not.
Click to expand...
The adjective "absolute" adds nothing. One truth is that something is happening to you and me ... for now.

Either truth exists, in which case it is true to say that truth exists. (proof by tautology -- conclusion in premise) Or truth does not exist.

Either fairies exist, in which case it is true to say that fairies exist, or fairies do not exist.

If X exists, it is true to say that "X exists or X does not exist." <-- I judge this proposition true.

"Either absolute truth exists, in which case it is an absolute truth to say that there is absolute truth or absolute truth does not exist, in which case it's an absolute truth to say that it does not." <-- This proposition presupposes the concept of truth and so its conclusion ["Yes, it does."] is embedded in its presupposition of the existence of true statements.
 
Last edited:
The idea of absolute truth distinct from mere truth seems to exist in some sense. If only in the imagination where both the real and unreal play freely.
 
George S said:
For every individual the truth of a given proposition is a judgement call.
Click to expand...
No.

Obviously we can only have beliefs about the truth of sentences that are about the material world but what we mean by "truth" is something independent of our beliefs or any judgement call we want to make.


George S said:
I, for example, judge a statement "true" if my understanding of the meaning of that proposition matches my understanding of the state of reality.
Click to expand...
Quite impressive: understanding -> meaning -> proposition > reality! How many layers do you need to articulate your ideas? You need to use some razor here.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
No.

Obviously we can only have beliefs about the truth of sentences that are about the material world but what we mean by "truth" is something independent of our beliefs or any judgement call we want to make.


George S said:
I, for example, judge a statement "true" if my understanding of the meaning of that proposition matches my understanding of the state of reality.
Click to expand...
Quite impressive: understanding -> meaning -> proposition > reality! How many layers do you need to articulate your ideas? You need to use some razor here.
EB
Click to expand...
The idea is after Philosophy in the Flesh -- Lakoff and Johnson
 
digressing.

JST iff OU of M of P = OU of RSt

Simplifying

JST iff M of P = RSt

Get rid of judgement to get to nuts and bolts.

ST iff M of P = RSt

don't need meaning either

ST iff P = RSt

finally get rid of S and St

T iff P = R

How useless is that?

Its just a proposition ferchris......

ret rid of all the middle men.

T = R!

except we can't know reality for a variety of reasons so why waste time looking for truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom