Does absolute truth exist?

[none]

yeah it's everybody else....
seriously you can drop the ad hominen attacks and produce an absolute truth
YOU believe there is absolute truth, so for arguments sake provide a truth that is true in all contexts or peter out.

I asked you to give me a list of all the contexts you think exist:

@Speakpigeon, you do realize what you profess is not true in all contexts right?

I know of only one context so it seems good to me that what I say should be true in it.

But maybe you could help me by giving me the list of all the contexts?
EB

But you ignored this post and chose to answer my other post, which was not about truth but about existence.

So I inferred you needed to see a doctor.

Also it's a misrepresentation of what I said to claim that I believe in absolute truth. I told you this notion is misleading. I know of only one context and trivially any truth in it would be true in all contexts and you could call that absolute truth but that would still be misleading since it would suggest that the notion of non-absolute truth is meaningful but it isn't.
EB

alright, I don't remember reading your post
it is garbage anyways, you are just fucking with me there.
and you know of only one context, good fucking whoop tee doo.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So what did the doctor say?
EB

 

[untermensche]

A truth is a statement written or spoken, by a human, that describes accurately the way something, at a particular time, exists.

It involves human activity and has temporal as well as practical limitations.

So of course it will never be absolute.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A truth is a statement written or spoken, by a human, that describes accurately the way something, at a particular time, exists.

It involves human activity and has temporal as well as practical limitations.

So of course it will never be absolute.

How could a description be accurate and yet not absolute? If it's accurate, then the description is true of whatever it is meant to describe and this truth is necessarily absolute or else it wouldn't be accurate. How could it not be absolute?
EB

 

[untermensche]

A truth is a statement written or spoken, by a human, that describes accurately the way something, at a particular time, exists.

It involves human activity and has temporal as well as practical limitations.

So of course it will never be absolute.

How could a description be accurate and yet not absolute? If it's accurate, then the description is true of whatever it is meant to describe and this truth is necessarily absolute or else it wouldn't be accurate. How could it not be absolute?
EB

But absolute truth would be all possible truth statements.

Just the time constraint prevents this.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could a description be accurate and yet not absolute? If it's accurate, then the description is true of whatever it is meant to describe and this truth is necessarily absolute or else it wouldn't be accurate. How could it not be absolute?
EB

But absolute truth would be all possible truth statements.

Just the time constraint prevents this.

What do you mean "time constraints"? My great-grand father was born in 1882. It is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.
EB

 

[Juma]

But absolute truth would be all possible truth statements.

Just the time constraint prevents this.

What do you mean "time constraints"? My great-grand father was born in 1882. It is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.
EB

What 1882? Truth is the correspondence between the proposition and reality. Not the reality by itself.

 

[rrr6]

Diamtrically Opposite Concept--sMin - Max

Abstolute truths exist eternally as metpahysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Humans occassionaly 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 lenght sides of a triangle having value 3.

These two are absolute, diametrically opposite case scnearios 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

r6

Pi looks like this 3.141..........
Pi^3 looks like this 31.00 62 7...............
...3rd powering is associated with and XYZ, Cartesian process of volumetric accounting......

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

 

[none]

So what did the doctor say?
EB

she said there is no hope for you.
and:
any ( listen rrr6 ), any truth statement is false in a context where any truth statement is false therefor any truth statement is not absolute truth.
.
there are no absolute truths because there is a context where absolute truth is false.

 

[untermensche]

But absolute truth would be all possible truth statements.

Just the time constraint prevents this.

What do you mean "time constraints"? My great-grand father was born in 1882. It is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.
EB

A truth statement is something a human could possibly say. It is also something that could, in theory, be proven, since it is a statement about something that has existence. Although not all truth statements can be proven.

No human in 504 BC could make any truth statements about your grandfather.

But that is not what I am talking about.

There are too many possible truth statements for humans to express, within the potential remaining lifespan of the human species. There isn't enough time.

And of course this ignores the real problem. Knowing all possible truth statements.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What do you mean "time constraints"? My great-grand father was born in 1882. It is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.
EB

A truth statement is something a human could possibly say. It is also something that could, in theory, be proven, since it is a statement about something that has existence. Although not all truth statements can be proven.

I'm Ok with all that although I don't know what you mean by truth statement. Do you?

Anyway, here we don't care at all whether a true statement can be proven or even known. In effect, we can conceive of an automatic statement generator producing linguistically correct but random statements based on some good dictionary and grammar book. Providing that a statement made sense to a human being I don't see anything that would preclude in principle such a statement to be true. Here we are not asking that anyone knows that the statement is true, only that it should be true.

No human in 504 BC could make any truth statements about your grandfather.

Sure but a random statement could have been produced and it would have been true.

But that is not what I am talking about.

There are too many possible truth statements for humans to express, within the potential remaining lifespan of the human species. There isn't enough time.

Well, this is the bit I don't understand. You seem to be saying that we would need to tell the whole truth for any truth to be expressed. Personally, I know of a number of truths and I also accept that I don't know anything about the material world so presumably I don't know all truths. Yet, I still know some truths, and these are necessarily absolute. But probably I don't understand your point.

And of course this ignores the real problem. Knowing all possible truth statements.

Why is that a problem? We are not asking whether we know all true statements but whether there is at least one true statement. It doesn't matter that we don't know which it is. This is a question of principle. Given what we mean by "truth" is there a point of principle making any statement not true.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So what did the doctor say?
EB

she said there is no hope for you.
and:
any ( listen rrr6 ), any truth statement is false in a context where any truth statement is false therefor any truth statement is not absolute truth.
.
there are no absolute truths because there is a context where absolute truth is false.

If you want to have a conversation you need to be a little more forthcoming. I asked you something and if you can't deliver then there's no conversation possible simply because I can't make sense of what you say. What is a context exactly according to you? What are specific examples of contexts you know of?
Over to you.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What do you mean "time constraints"? My great-grand father was born in 1882. It is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.
EB

What 1882? Truth is the correspondence between the proposition and reality. Not the reality by itself.

My example reads like this:

My great-grand father was born in 1882. This statement is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.​

So I don't understand your reply. Are you prepared to explain your point?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

any truth statement is false in a context where any truth statement is false therefor any truth statement is not absolute truth.

What's a "truth statement"? I don't know what that is. Can you provide a bona fide definition? Real-life examples of use?
EB

 

[Juma]

What 1882? Truth is the correspondence between the proposition and reality. Not the reality by itself.

My example reads like this:

My great-grand father was born in 1882. This statement is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.​

So I don't understand your reply. Are you prepared to explain your point?
EB

There is a statement: "My great-grand father was born in 1882. This statement is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC."

To me that is wrong from the start. My great-grandfather was born about 1810.

So i have the problem of first get who the sentence is referring to.

You may think that this a joke but it is really an important point: what is the statement? It is a collection of cases that must be true.

There is no way you can refer to your reltives birthday in a absolute way. There are only relative adressing in the real world.

 

[untermensche]

Anyway, here we don't care at all whether a true statement can be proven or even known. In effect, we can conceive of an automatic statement generator producing linguistically correct but random statements based on some good dictionary and grammar book. Providing that a statement made sense to a human being I don't see anything that would preclude in principle such a statement to be true. Here we are not asking that anyone knows that the statement is true, only that it should be true.

For something to be considered a truth it must have correspondence to existence. It must describe accurately the way something exists.

The randomly generated: "The green cow growled", makes sense, but it is not a truth statement (a statement that accurately describes existence).

Truth is more than making sense.

No human in 504 BC could make any truth statements about your grandfather.

Sure but a random statement could have been produced and it would have been true.

Are you claiming a statement had been made or one might have been made?

Because no statement made was made about your grandfather.

Well, this is the bit I don't understand. You seem to be saying that we would need to tell the whole truth for any truth to be expressed. Personally, I know of a number of truths and I also accept that I don't know anything about the material world so presumably I don't know all truths. Yet, I still know some truths, and these are necessarily absolute. But probably I don't understand your point.

The name of the thread is "absolute" truth.

Absolute truth is the expression of all possible truth statements, not just the relatively few you can come up with.

And there is not enough time, even if we wildly exaggerate the possible time left for the human species to exist, for all possible truth statements to be expressed.

And of course this ignores the real problem. Knowing all possible truth statements.

We are not asking whether we know all true statements but whether there is at least one true statement.

That is not absolute truth. That is one absolute truth.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My example reads like this:

My great-grand father was born in 1882. This statement is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC.​

So I don't understand your reply. Are you prepared to explain your point?
EB

There is a statement: "My great-grand father was born in 1882. This statement is still true today. And it was already true in 504BC."

To me that is wrong from the start. My great-grandfather was born about 1810.

So i have the problem of first get who the sentence is referring to.

This is a very interesting point but that's only for people interested in how we could possibly justify that a statement is true or not but that's not the problem here. Here the problem is whether certain statements could be true or not. If they are true then they are absolutely true. If they are not absolutely true then they are not true at all.

So basically you are saying that your great-grandfather was born about 1810, so you're actually saying it's true that your great-grandfather was born about 1810, and so it is absolutely true that your great-grandfather was born about 1810, yet you also say that that's not really true at all because you just don't know, or you can't explain how you know or how to prove that it is true that your great-grandfather was born about 1810. I'm confused here as to what you are saying exactly.

Of course we have this problem of how to prove that a statement is true. But that's not the point. A statement is true independently of whether we know it is true or false or whether we can explain how we know it is true. It's just too bad we can't explain these things but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether there is any reason that no statement could possibly be true.

So for example the question of whom the sentence is referring to. Well, we say it is "your great-grand father". I don't know you so I wouldn't know who is your great-grand father but it is certainly true that either you had a great-grand father, or you didn't, or the expression "your great-grand father" is meaningless. Can you see any other alternative? If not, then one of these alternative statements has to be true and therefore there is a true statement. We don't know which one but one of them is true, which is the point.

You may think that this a joke but it is really an important point: what is the statement? It is a collection of cases that must be true.

Sorry I don't understand that. What is a collection of cases in this juncture?

There is no way you can refer to your reltives birthday in a absolute way. There are only relative adressing in the real world.

So that's all your problem is it? Your problem is that as long as you don't have a complete description of the world you don't accept that anything true can be said about it, is that it? Well, this is obviously not true. This is a confusion again between the problem of our inability to explain and justify our beliefs that a statement is true with the question of the reality of a true statements independently of whether we can explain anything.

I can say "I am here" and it's true and the fact that I am specifying a location relatively to me doesn't change the fact that I am here and not elsewhere. Of course two people located in different places and saying both "I am here" don't mean the same location so both statements are in fact correct. Of course it all depends what people mean exactly. Some statements are not true because people make them on the basis of erroneous beliefs and maybe all our beliefs are like this but this does not preclude the possibility of making true statements.

Or maybe I misunderstood your point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Absolute truth is the expression of all possible truth statements, not just the relatively few you can come up with.

Well, I don't understand what this means at all.

Why are you talking about "all possible truth statements"? One would be enough.

And there is not enough time, even if we wildly exaggerate the possible time left for the human species to exist, for all possible truth statements to be expressed.

What has this to do with "absolute truth"?

We are not asking whether we know all true statements but whether there is at least one true statement.

That is not absolute truth. That is one absolute truth.

I still don't understand. What difference do you make between "absolute truth" and "one absolute truth"?

One absolute truth would be good enough.

I start from the OP. As per the OP, absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts. But there is in fact just one context, which we call "reality". The concept of truth is based on the concept of reality so you can't ignore it and since the OP defines absolute truth in relation to truth so the OP cannot ignore the import of reality to truth and therefore to truth as absolute truth. So any true statement is necessarily an absolute truth.

Me I start from the OP. But you seem to talking about something else.
EB

 

[none]

Speakpigeon,
To clarify about truth statements, I was just trying to group any given expression that is understood to be true under the umbrella of "truth statement" and that may have been a mistake because you got confused.
and for your assertion there is only one context, you dismiss the obvious fact there is more than one context.
there is a context where reality is not the only context and that context is reality because there is a context where you make wild claims not founded in reality.
hope this helps you.
oh yeah...
from google dictionary: "context":
"the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed."
maybe you have a problem with that definition too.

 

[untermensche]

I still don't understand. What difference do you make between "absolute truth" and "one absolute truth"?

Do you know the difference between absolute knowledge and knowing one thing?

It is the same difference.

Absolute truth is all possible truth. If all I have is one truth I never know for certain it is the whole truth. I never know for certain it is absolute. It could be part of some trick.

The only way to have certainty is to have all truths, ultimate truth.