Does absolute truth exist?

[Speakpigeon]

No. A fact is a fact is a fact.

What needs to be evidenced is a claim that something is a fact. It's our beliefs that need support, not the fact themselves. Whatever they are they are independent of us. You are confusing the epistemology and the ontology. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and if so necessarily independently of us. So a fact is always an absolute, just as a truth is always an absolute. People using useless modifiers like "absolute" just weaken their own message and show how much illiterate they are. A fact is a fact is a fact.
EB

But also the reverse is true: a fact needs evidense to be believed.

No. What needs to be evidenced is a claim that something is a fact.

But of course, ultimately, in cases about the material world, we can only at best be convinced by the evidence (argument etc.) so we can get to believe that something is a fact. So we need evidence to be convinced. The fact itself will fine without any evidence. That's how the word "fact" is normally used.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If absolute truth exists there is no reason to believe that any of us could discern it. If you have faith that it exists then you might have a hard time explaining how it would manifest it self.

I think therefore I am.
EB

 

[Saint_of_Me]

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.

No it doesn't. LOL

I do not see how anyone could define an absolute truth, or fact, if we were to take into account ALL of the Cosmos and the Known Universe.

And what about the "multiverse" theory? The Brane Theory with its 11 dimensions?

Surely if those things in fact existed then their laws of physics would be different from ours. Maybe even none of our currently held scientific laws, like E = MC^2 or M = F X A or the Hubble Constant or Avogrado's Number would apply. Who could say.

We have recently discovered that we do not know what type of matter composes a good 90% of the known Universe. That stuff known as Dark Energy. This, after all we have accomplished in the fields of astrophysics and cosmology. So what else are we gonna find out we don't know in the coming years? Probably a good deal.

Oh...I might be willing to concede there are absolute truths--but not morals!--in OUR given world. On Earth, that is. But beyond that, no.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

No it doesn't. LOL

I do not see how anyone could define an absolute truth, or fact, if we were to take into account ALL of the Cosmos and the Known Universe.

And what about the "multiverse" theory? The Brane Theory with its 11 dimensions?

Surely if those things in fact existed then their laws of physics would be different from ours. Maybe even none of our currently held scientific laws, like E = MC^2 or M = F X A or the Hubble Constant or Avogrado's Number would apply. Who could say.

We have recently discovered that we do not know what type of matter composes a good 90% of the known Universe. That stuff known as Dark Energy. This, after all we have accomplished in the fields of astrophysics and cosmology. So what else are we gonna find out we don't know in the coming years? Probably a good deal.

Oh...I might be willing to concede there are absolute truths--but not morals!--in OUR given world. On Earth, that is. But beyond that, no.

Yes it does...

The fact that there is a truth doesn't mean that we know what it is. If there is a multiverse, then it is true that there is a multiverse. The fact that we aren't sure is irrelevant to it being true. If there isn't a multiverse, then it is true that there isn't a multiverse. The fact that we aren't sure is irrelevant to the truth that there isn't a multiverse.

 

[Juma]

No it doesn't. LOL

I do not see how anyone could define an absolute truth, or fact, if we were to take into account ALL of the Cosmos and the Known Universe.

And what about the "multiverse" theory? The Brane Theory with its 11 dimensions?

Surely if those things in fact existed then their laws of physics would be different from ours. Maybe even none of our currently held scientific laws, like E = MC^2 or M = F X A or the Hubble Constant or Avogrado's Number would apply. Who could say.

We have recently discovered that we do not know what type of matter composes a good 90% of the known Universe. That stuff known as Dark Energy. This, after all we have accomplished in the fields of astrophysics and cosmology. So what else are we gonna find out we don't know in the coming years? Probably a good deal.

Oh...I might be willing to concede there are absolute truths--but not morals!--in OUR given world. On Earth, that is. But beyond that, no.

Yes it does...

The fact that there is a truth doesn't mean that we know what it is. If there is a multiverse, then it is true that there is a multiverse. The fact that we aren't sure is irrelevant to it being true. If there isn't a multiverse, then it is true that there isn't a multiverse. The fact that we aren't sure is irrelevant to the truth that there isn't a multiverse.

Before anyone can say anything in this matter they have to define "truth", "absolute truth" and "exist".

To me "truth" is not necessarily the same as the actual state of the reality. A "truth" is a statement about reality that somehow seems to convey the same information as if we had experienced reality directly.

"Truth" is a human concept that is part of how we handle information. It is a iddean vision of having correct information. Not a real thing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No it doesn't. LOL

I do not see how anyone could define an absolute truth, or fact, if we were to take into account ALL of the Cosmos and the Known Universe.

And what about the "multiverse" theory? The Brane Theory with its 11 dimensions?

Surely if those things in fact existed then their laws of physics would be different from ours. Maybe even none of our currently held scientific laws, like E = MC^2 or M = F X A or the Hubble Constant or Avogrado's Number would apply. Who could say.

We have recently discovered that we do not know what type of matter composes a good 90% of the known Universe. That stuff known as Dark Energy. This, after all we have accomplished in the fields of astrophysics and cosmology. So what else are we gonna find out we don't know in the coming years? Probably a good deal.

Oh...I might be willing to concede there are absolute truths--but not morals!--in OUR given world. On Earth, that is. But beyond that, no.

Why would different laws of physics affect the existence of absolute truth? If there are different rules in different universes, then it's absolutely true that those universes have those rules.

For instance, if the average temperature in Toronto today is 22 degrees Celsius, then that's absolutely true. The molecules in a given area are vibrating at a given speed and if you divide that by the number of molecules in the area, it's absolutely true that you get a given temperature. The fact that the average temperature in Prescott is the different value of 30 degrees doesn't affect that.

Similarly, if the speed of light is a constant value in Universe 3F345LLY74, which we live in, but varies in Universe 6T890234G, the different properties of that law of physics in a different place don't affect the absolute truth that the speed of light is constant in ours. If we don't know these laws of physics or the properties of the various universes, it doesn't affect the existence of those truths.

 

[beero1000]

If naive set theory has taught humanity anything, it is that you need to be really, really careful when dealing with 'absolute' or 'universal' statements. Especially so with the ones that make sense intuitively...

 

[Kharakov]

For instance, if the average temperature in Toronto today is 22 degrees Celsius, then that's absolutely true. The molecules in a given area are vibrating at a given speed and if you divide that by the number of molecules in the area, it's absolutely true that you get a given temperature. The fact that the average temperature in Prescott is the different value of 30 degrees doesn't affect that.

Relatively true according to Planck and Einstein... and since nothing has absolutely certain momentum, there is always a bit of variability in temperature.

In other words, almost every observer will measure a slightly different temperature (maybe a variation of about 10^-44 degrees for observers that appear stationary relative to the volume being measured), although theoretically 2 observers could get the exact same temperature measurement.

 

[skepticalbip]

For instance, if the average temperature in Toronto today is 22 degrees Celsius, then that's absolutely true. The molecules in a given area are vibrating at a given speed and if you divide that by the number of molecules in the area, it's absolutely true that you get a given temperature. The fact that the average temperature in Prescott is the different value of 30 degrees doesn't affect that.

Relatively true according to Planck and Einstein... and since nothing has absolutely certain momentum, there is always a bit of variability in temperature.

In other words, almost every observer will measure a slightly different temperature (maybe a variation of about 10^-44 degrees for observers that appear stationary relative to the volume being measured), although theoretically 2 observers could get the exact same temperature measurement.

Is that stated as an "absolute truth"?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For instance, if the average temperature in Toronto today is 22 degrees Celsius, then that's absolutely true. The molecules in a given area are vibrating at a given speed and if you divide that by the number of molecules in the area, it's absolutely true that you get a given temperature. The fact that the average temperature in Prescott is the different value of 30 degrees doesn't affect that.

Relatively true according to Planck and Einstein... and since nothing has absolutely certain momentum, there is always a bit of variability in temperature.

In other words, almost every observer will measure a slightly different temperature (maybe a variation of about 10^-44 degrees for observers that appear stationary relative to the volume being measured), although theoretically 2 observers could get the exact same temperature measurement.

Who cares what the observers get? We're talking about what the temperature is, not what it's observed to be.

 

[beero1000]

I'll try again. Before arguing about the existence of absolute truth, you need to be very careful about making sure the notion of absolute truth is sensible.

I know it seems completely intuitive but it can't be stressed enough that notions of universality and self-reference are fraught with paradox. You cannot rely on your intuition or the obvious and must be more careful...

You can say "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." and feel that it's a reasonable argument, but you can also say "Either the statement 'This statement is false' is true, in which case the statement is true, or the statement 'This statement is false' is false, in which case the statement is true."

If you think the first argument works, think hard about the second one...

 

[Kharakov]

Relatively true according to Planck and Einstein... and since nothing has absolutely certain momentum, there is always a bit of variability in temperature.

In other words, almost every observer will measure a slightly different temperature (maybe a variation of about 10^-44 degrees for observers that appear stationary relative to the volume being measured), although theoretically 2 observers could get the exact same temperature measurement.

Is that stated as an "absolute truth"?

Relatively speaking.

 

[Kharakov]

Who cares what the observers get? We're talking about what the temperature is, not what it's observed to be.

There is still uncertainty in the momentum.... absolute temperature is absolutely probably absolute or not. I'm relatively sure it might or might not be absolute, but I wouldn't avoid taking a stand on the issue.

 

[Kharakov]

You can say "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." and feel that it's a reasonable argument, but you can also say "Either the statement 'This statement is false' is true, in which case the statement is true, or the statement 'This statement is false' is false, in which case the statement is true."

If you think the first argument works, think hard about the second one...

It's duplicitous- there are more ways to evaluate truth than true and false. A duplicitous statement, when evaluated for truth, is evaluated as not true, and when a duplicitous statement is evaluated for falsehood, it evaluates as true.

A duplicitous statement evaluates as having a different value than what it is tested for. So when you find a statement like "this statement is not true", and you test it as true, and it's not, it's duplicitous.

This statement is duplicitous. Field goal?

 

[Juma]

I'll try again. Before arguing about the existence of absolute truth, you need to be very careful about making sure the notion of absolute truth is sensible.

I know it seems completely intuitive but it can't be stressed enough that notions of universality and self-reference are fraught with paradox. You cannot rely on your intuition or the obvious and must be more careful...

You can say "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." and feel that it's a reasonable argument, but you can also say "Either the statement 'This statement is false' is true, in which case the statement is true, or the statement 'This statement is false' is false, in which case the statement is true."

If you think the first argument works, think hard about the second one...

First you have to define what is ment by "absolute truth"? I would say that "absolute truth" is just gobblywook.

 

[beero1000]

You can say "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." and feel that it's a reasonable argument, but you can also say "Either the statement 'This statement is false' is true, in which case the statement is true, or the statement 'This statement is false' is false, in which case the statement is true."

If you think the first argument works, think hard about the second one...

It's duplicitous- there are more ways to evaluate truth than true and false. A duplicitous statement, when evaluated for truth, is evaluated as not true, and when a duplicitous statement is evaluated for falsehood, it evaluates as true.

A duplicitous statement evaluates as having a different value than what it is tested for. So when you find a statement like "this statement is not true", and you test it as true, and it's not, it's duplicitous.

This statement is duplicitous. Field goal?

You used the word duplicitous a lot...

The observation is that the statement 'this statement is false' is self-referencing in an ill-defined way. The statement 'absolute truth exists' is also self-referencing - how sure are we that it is well-defined?

I'll try again. Before arguing about the existence of absolute truth, you need to be very careful about making sure the notion of absolute truth is sensible.

I know it seems completely intuitive but it can't be stressed enough that notions of universality and self-reference are fraught with paradox. You cannot rely on your intuition or the obvious and must be more careful...

You can say "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." and feel that it's a reasonable argument, but you can also say "Either the statement 'This statement is false' is true, in which case the statement is true, or the statement 'This statement is false' is false, in which case the statement is true."

If you think the first argument works, think hard about the second one...

First you have to define what is ment by "absolute truth"? I would say that "absolute truth" is just gobblywook.

Not sure why this was a response to my post. I haven't actually specified whether or not I think absolute truth exists - my concern is the same as yours - we need to make sure it is well-defined before we can talk about existence.

 

[Kharakov]

The observation is that the statement 'this statement is false' is self-referencing in an ill-defined way.

ahh.. so the objective is not to show that the statement assumes only 2 possible truth values exist, and not one that is a superposition of the 2.

The statement 'absolute truth exists' is also self-referencing - how sure are we that it is well-defined?

I'm not thinking the statement has to be well defined in order to be true. In fact, being well defined makes the statement more likely to be misinterpreted.

Where is the left word.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh...I might be willing to concede there are absolute truths--but not morals!--in OUR given world.

Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

Any other non-absolute morals you feel should also be enforced by executions? What exactly does it take to make a moral truth absolute enough to kill people over but not absolute enough to be absolute?

 

[fast]

Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

Any other non-absolute morals you feel should also be enforced by executions? What exactly does it take to make a moral truth absolute enough to kill people over but not absolute enough to be absolute?

Soft drinks in coolers ... Cold enough to not be considered hot ... But warm enough to need ice ... Especially when there are advertisements are present reading, "ice cold drinks".

 

[tantric]

the truth of the matter is that there are no absolutes. notice that that is a self-contradicting statement, which is not to say that it's meaningless. it's a demonstration in itself of the nature of absolute truth, such that it exists, and how language will not capture it. it's also a koan, which are collections of such riddles.