This is a very puzzling question primarily because a "truth" can be different for different people.

Following something like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

It then becomes near impossible to prove absolute certainty.



Thoughts?

an absolute truth is subjective. so you can call any personal experience absolute truth, but it will only be so to you. others may associate with your experience, but you cannot completely relay the truth of how it actually was to someone else; the explanation will always fall short of the actual experience.

So that's a "no" answer? I should add a poll.

Following something like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

This is a very simple question.
If you define the word, "sound" as a movement of air that could be detected by a listening device of some kind, organic or otherwise, then the tree makes a sound - that is, if a sound and a soundwave are synonymous terms in the language usage of the questioner, then a sound is made.
If you define the word "sound" as the interpretation of that type of movement of air, by a listener of any kind, then obviously no sound is made.
Also if you use the word, "falls" in the very outdated and awkward mode, and mean by that phrase - "if a tree has its place in the woods" then no sound need be made.

An older and wiser response than mine, to a similar question would be, "there is no tree, nor is there anyone to hear it even if someone is in the woods with the tree." Now that is puzzling.

If there is an absolute truth, I'd say it is far beyond the grasp of concepts and words.

It depends how you define truth

Is <b>truth</b> merely what the speaker knows or is it the world as it actually exists? For example if a person was educated that the world was a giant dodechedron is he lying when he tells people this?

This is a very simple question.
If you define the word, "sound" as a movement of air that could be detected by a listening device of some kind, organic or otherwise, then the tree makes a sound - that is, if a sound and a soundwave are synonymous terms in the language usage of the questioner, then a sound is made.
If you define the word "sound" as the interpretation of that type of movement of air, by a listener of any kind, then obviously no sound is made.
Also if you use the word, "falls" in the very outdated and awkward mode, and mean by that phrase - "if a tree has its place in the woods" then no sound need be made.

An older and wiser response than mine, to a similar question would be, "there is no tree, nor is there anyone to hear it even if someone is in the woods with the tree." Now that is puzzling.


Using the first definition, are you 100% that it would even make this sound? Sure, it seems logical --but does that been its absolutely true?

The ONLY thing I read in the thread is the title and then responded to the poll with an assertive "no." This is because there is NO way we could know the absolute truth, we can only prove that it MIGHT be the AT. And proof, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is weaker than AT. Because, proof uses lines of reasoning that stem traces back to at least one assumption, and we cannot prove that assumption. Case closed.

asdf

...
This is because there is NO way we could know the absolute truth, we can only prove that it MIGHT be the AT.



This is completely correct.
Well said.

My answer: the absolute truth is called the absolute truth. Recursive yes.

someone said: "the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.


Which of course is a contradiction....

Which of course is a contradiction....

Maybe "the only absolute truth is this statement" :p

But then again, how would we know? Proof tells us nothing. Man, I want to think about this :)

Which of course is a contradiction....

kind of, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

ROFL. That is hilarious. "It's a contradiction, but does not mean it is not true."

Well... we're starting to mix logic with the concept truth. Logically, there is no problem with the concept of absolute; it is a tautology, and nothing more. Assuming then that we wish to discuss the concept in some sort of ontological sense, what we then need is a definition....

kind of, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

No kind of about it; it's a contradiction, by definition without degree. Contradictions cannot be true or false; they are void of value.

I am sure there are some absolute truths... no one knows the nature of them and while alive, we will never know. I consider absolute truths to be axioms, just like in mathematics. Except, the difference with axioms in math is they are ASSUMED to be true. We do not know for a fact that x=x, but it seems to make sense. But is it really true? But axioms in math are used as the base for everything else that we wish to develop. The absolut truths are the base of everything else. Or something like that. Get it? Don't reply to this.. lol.

I am sure there are some absolute truths... no one knows the nature of them and while alive, we will never know. I consider absolute truths to be axioms, just like in mathematics. Except, the difference with axioms in math is they are ASSUMED to be true. We do not know for a fact that x=x, but it seems to make sense. But is it really true? But axioms in math are used as the base for everything else that we wish to develop. The absolut truths are the base of everything else. Or something like that. Get it? Don't reply to this.. lol.

I agree.
This is exactly where Descartes began from, are from there, the entire Rationalist tradition. They are useful fictions, nothing more. As you point out Absane, the problem is really an epistemological one: we can never know.

I was thinking like Descarte's, eh? Maybe I am not dumb after all :p

I wish I knew words like "epistemological" and a handful of "ism"s but I don't. It might help get my words out. That is why I was telling people not to reply to my post; I thought I was just making little sense. But you did anyway, bastard. hehe.

lol

Sorry man, but you've got some good lines of thought going on. Which is sadly rare around here these days...

Dictionary of Philosophy: Epistemology (http://www.ditext.com/runes/e.html)

A decent resource.

Man then it's best you did not come by a few years ago when I started out... I made the best out of my philosophy class and a few other that really made me think :) I disappeared, and now I have lots to say.. as some can see.

Thank you for the link.

Using the first definition, are you 100% that it would even make this sound? Sure, it seems logical --but does that been its absolutely true?
Again, we go back to the question itself. Are there special circumstances, A giant phase reversed speaker system which instantaneously detects the sound and cancels it before it can spread even far enough to - perhaps it even predicts the sound based on computer models and masks the sound before it even begins, so the sound is made by the speakers and then there is no sound at all as th tree falls. Fine, but if there are special circumstances, this is simply a trick question.

Re: absolute truth - If you define a truth as a thing provable to human beings within the system of their extremely limited but technologically expanded sense-fields - then perhaps there is no absolute truth.
A truth in my definition is not something that is necessarily known but is something that is - but I wouldn't knock someone else who defined a truth as a transmittable concept or thought, that definition is just as valid as mine I suppose, just as it is fair for someone to say that a soundwave unable to be translated by a perceiver is simply a rush of air. Once terms have been agreed upon, your question can be answered in some definitive way, until then, the arguments will be confusing, as we will be talking about different things.

No kind of about it; it's a contradiction, by definition without degree. Contradictions cannot be true or false; they are void of value.
people often think things are contradictions because they don't understand. what is a contradiction and what is not depends on the person.

This is a very puzzling question primarily because a "truth" can be different for different people.

Following something like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

It then becomes near impossible to prove absolute certainty.



Thoughts?Absolutely!!!!

It is also “correct” to call the one that does an idiot.

In fact the above is proof of both.

Is it correct to call something an absolute truth?

Absolutely.

<i>(also, according to part of the quantum "philosophy", the effect is defined by the existence of the observer. If a tree fall in the forest and there is(are gr?) absolute zero observers, then there can be no sound.)</i>
Hyp.

people often think things are contradictions because they don't understand. what is a contradiction and what is not depends on the person.

Not at all.
A contradiction, by definition, is a logical incongruity.
That is all.

So I think that we've come to a consensus of 'no,' correct? The only problem is whether or not this is an absolute truth. Are we as right as we are wrong? Do contradictions only exists through our interpretation of the world into words? Does the existence of a God lead to the existence of an absolute truth? Does the lack of a God lead to the non-exisistence of an absolute truth?

So I think that we've come to a consensus of 'no,' correct?
No.
A consensus of "no" has not been reached when 53% of the answerers say "no".

I have noticed that your original question was not , "is there an absolute truth", as opposed to "is it correct to call something the absolute truth". Two totally different questions, and yours has a possibility in my mind to be answered with a "no", while the other one does not, so there is a chance for a consensus to be reached, but I haven't seen any evidence brought forth in relation to the question, nor has there been any consensus on even the definition of the question.

Question - is a truth any less true if people think it is false? The non-flat earth, etc.

A contradiction, by definition, is a logical incongruity.

I guess so, but just because YOU think something is a contradiction doesn't mean it really is!

you shouldn't limit yourself by thinking logically. logic is often personal, and a person is a limitation.

I guess so, but just because YOU think something is a contradiction doesn't mean it really is!

Ok? If the statement is false either way, what else can it be?

No.
A consensus of "no" has not been reached when 53% of the answerers say "no".

I have noticed that your original question was not , "is there an absolute truth", as opposed to "is it correct to call something the absolute truth". Two totally different questions, and yours has a possibility in my mind to be answered with a "no", while the other one does not, so there is a chance for a consensus to be reached, but I haven't seen any evidence brought forth in relation to the question, nor has there been any consensus on even the definition of the question.

Question - is a truth any less true if people think it is false? The non-flat earth, etc.

I apologize. The 'consensus' I was referring to was from the posters --not from the poll. There have been many posts agreeing with the 'no' answer, but very few (if any) on for the 'yes' answer.

Also, the question in the title does not need a "definition" because any definition would warp the essence of the question. And please, explain to me how my question can answered 'no' without being oxymoronic?. I don't seem to understand.

I guess so, but just because YOU think something is a contradiction doesn't mean it really is!

you shouldn't limit yourself by thinking logically. logic is often personal, and a person is a limitation.

Wrong again.
A contradiction is defined . That means that its meaning is fixed; it's not a question of what I think, or what you think.

Logic is not limiting here. Given what we're trying to discuss, we must make use of logic. Just as we make use of the english language here on these threads. Logic is never personal; if it is, the person in question is being illogical.

I voted yes because an absolute truth is an absolute truth when when it's absolutely true that it's absolutely true, and probably can only be found in an observation of nature before we ruin its truth with our own drama. But we'll deal with that if it happens.

Silkworm... but here is the deal.

Is it ever correct to describe something as having a certain quality that we are unsure of? Calling all black people criminals, for example. Or saying Earth is flat hundreds of years ago?

The examples above can be debated and concluded with statements of "truth." But how do we REALLY know it's true? Maybe the Earth really is flat, only our perception is warped by experience that says "what I see with my eyes must be true and what I experience must be true." Perhaps there does not even exist a planet called "Earth" so there are not even qualities to describe it. To steal from Swordfish: "what the eye see and the ears hear, the mind believes."

The only abolute truth I can think of off the top of my head is "this statement is an absolute truth." If it were false, then that statement is not an absolute truth. So we can re-write it as "this statement is not an absolute truth," which must be true because it's negation was assumed false. Wouldn't the first statement's negation produce the second statement which is true, but not an absolute truth? That makes no sense. The only way it can go is true.

Blah blah blah :)

"infinity" is absolutely true...

"infinity" is absolutely true...

But does "infinity" truly exist as anything but a concept? If all concepts are personal, does this mean that there isn't even a true concept of "infinity"?

"infinity" is absolutely true...

Umm... I wish I knew how to respond to that.

"infinity" is absolutely true...

Actually there is a philosphy of math that denies the existance of infinity.. saying it is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism

Actually there is a philosphy of math that denies the existance of infinity.. saying it is absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism

that's good, because it shows that infinity is absolutely true. i mean... there are no absolutes... there are infinite viewpoints, infinite opinions... so infinity... is absolute...

so if someone now argues "no it is not so, only finite is true!" it just shows a bit more of that infinity...

sorry, it's a bit hard to explain what i mean. but i've realized that infinity is the law of the world. the law is "no laws", so there can be whatever laws. there is nothing, so there can be whatever...

But does "infinity" truly exist as anything but a concept? If all concepts are personal, does this mean that there isn't even a true concept of "infinity"?

yeah... infinite personal concepts...

that's good, because it shows that infinity is absolutely true. i mean... there are no absolutes... there are infinite viewpoints, infinite opinions... so infinity... is absolute...

so if someone now argues "no it is not so, only finite is true!" it just shows a bit more of that infinity...

sorry, it's a bit hard to explain what i mean. but i've realized that infinity is the law of the world. the law is "no laws", so there can be whatever laws. there is nothing, so there can be whatever...

Yes, work on it. You made little sense at all.. much less so than I do when I explain things... and my friends say I am horrible :p

that's good, because it shows that infinity is absolutely true. i mean... there are no absolutes... there are infinite viewpoints, infinite opinions... so infinity... is absolute...

so if someone now argues "no it is not so, only finite is true!" it just shows a bit more of that infinity...

sorry, it's a bit hard to explain what i mean. but i've realized that infinity is the law of the world. the law is "no laws", so there can be whatever laws. there is nothing, so there can be whatever...



yeah... infinite personal concepts...


I see what your saying and where you are coming from. However, is there really an infinite amount of viewpoints when there are a finite amount of sentient creatures? Maybe there are an infinite number of possible viewpoints,--but that still makes infinity just a concept.

Also, its hard to describe "infinity" as absolutely true. What's true about it? The fact that every possible "not true personal belief" exists in it? Its still as equally un-true as just two differing viewpoints.

How cna infinity be "absolutely true?" It's a thing.. it's not true or false.

This is a very puzzling question primarily because a "truth" can be different for different people.

To me, an absolute truth is what is, what actually exists. A truth is simply what I believe to be true, as opposed to a lie.

When a doctor examines a patient with chest pains, the patient is either having a heart attack or he isn't. The doctor puts the patient through a series of tests to determine what the truth is. If he is wrong in his assessment of reality and sends the patient home with an antacid, absolute truth will kick in and the patient will die.

Absolute truth is simply objective reality. We can not always determine what it is, but it's out there, and if we guess wrong, we pay the price.

To me, an absolute truth is what is, what actually exists. A truth is simply what I believe to be true, as opposed to a lie.

When a doctor examines a patient with chest pains, the patient is either having a heart attack or he isn't. The doctor puts the patient through a series of tests to determine what the truth is. If he is wrong in his assessment of reality and sends the patient home with an antacid, absolute truth will kick in and the patient will die.

Absolute truth is simply objective reality. We can not always determine what it is, but it's out there, and if we guess wrong, we pay the price.

Or, could it be that our mind interprets it as being 'out there.' I think what it all boils down to is that we all have the word 'truth' tied to that feeling of 'something is out there that is correct' but we cannot properly define this feeling in words. Nevertheless, the little feeling that we all have may not be correct. For example, It seems to be that the world is flat -yet I know that it isn't. Maybe its the same way for 'truth.' -> I feel that an absolute truth must exist, while at the same time I know that it might not.

Does anyone see what I am saying?


--Its also very hard to wrap your mind around the "non-existing" absolute truth, being that even in discussing 'truth' we are debating on "what's the truth" about absolute truth. I use words like 'correct', 'real', and 'not true', even when I'm debating the existence of a real (there I go again) truth.

I apologize. The 'consensus' I was referring to was from the posters --not from the poll. There have been many posts agreeing with the 'no' answer, but very few (if any) on for the 'yes' answer.

Also, the question in the title does not need a "definition" because any definition would warp the essence of the question. And please, explain to me how my question can answered 'no' without being oxymoronic?. I don't seem to understand.
There is obviously no consensus - now it stands 8 to 9 yes to no. Does it matter? Not really.
I suppose one could say that you should never call something the absolute truth because you don't really know, whether something is or is not absolutely true

And here we come back to definitions you think will warp your question, what is "correct"? If by correct you mean, "is it true", then yes, you are sometimes correct when you say "x is absolutely true" if even by pure chance, especially if you set forth the system in which the question is asked, but you can say it is not correct to say such a thing, because you cannot be sure and therfore have no authority to say say such a thing, and so you could answer no - it depends on your definitions.
Maybe a definition will "warp" the answer you wish to receive, but a definition does not warp a question, unless the definitions are not in line with the questioner's, and that is impossible to know without knowing the questoiner's definitions.

Following in the footsteps of a giant - if you define the system you can say anything you want is the absolute truth.
If in my system or representation, an "orange" is the fruit that grows from banana trees then stating that most oranges will turn black and be good for making bread after a few days, would be true.

It is all about the system.

To me, an absolute truth is what is, what actually exists.

And since you don't know what actually is, based on your extremely limited understanding of the set of all things and what they actually are...

A truth is simply what I believe to be true, as opposed to a lie.
Is a horrible statement.
this is the basic problem of human cognition, in my opinion.
An obviously untrue bias that nobody cares to do anything about.
It is just accepted.
I weep.

Yes, work on it. You made little sense at all.. much less so than I do when I explain things... and my friends say I am horrible :p

i was just trying to explain "the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

nothing is absolutely true, so infinity is true.

how bout stop trying to be catchy and say, "the truth is that there are no absolute truths." The statement could be a conditional truth, or a relative truth, an "ideal world" truth...

I don't agree with this statement anyway, even when it is cleansed of paradox.

"The absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths" is an amusing little saying, let's not pretend it can say something meaningful when put in this way.

cole grey, you're just showing that the statement is true.

i was just trying to explain "the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

nothing is absolutely true, so infinity is true.

Ok, two things. Your first statement is a contradiction.

Two, how in the hell can infinity be true? It's a thing, not a statement.

infinity is impossible. it can't exist. if it existed, it would not be infinite. so infinity is a limit. a potential revealing itself bit by bit.

nothing is absolutely true, so everything is absolutely true. for me, this is true, for you, it is not true.

Absolute Truth exists.

The statement above is absolute truth in itself. Other than this exception, the answer to the poll is NO. We can't prove that anything is absolutely true. You may be eating what you perceive is a balony sandwich -- even you eating is a perception. But one thing is for sure is that if it's not a balony sandwich, it MUST be something. And if it is not absolutely true that you are eating, then something must be happening.

Something MUST exist. And that "something", however it is perceived, is Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth exists.

The statement above is absolute truth in itself.


Welll.. that all depends on your definition of "truth", as well as "absolute".



Something MUST exist.


What makes you think this?
There's no implicit necessity in existence. It could very well have been (or even 'be') the case that nothing exist.

And bringing perception into the equation will muddy things up. As all good empiricists know, esse est percipi; indeed, to perceive necessarily implies a lack of absolute.

This is a very puzzling question primarily because a "truth" can be different for different people.

Following something like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

It then becomes near impossible to prove absolute certainty.



Thoughts?

Nope. It is never correct.

Why? Because a proposition can be neither true nor false under some contexts.

A fictional story itself can have such realistic elements that the fictional story may be more coherent than reality.

All coherent sturctures are "meta-states".

If a structure is complex enough it will give rise to MIND.

Coherence is the one and only thing in the universe that matters.

EX:

"I f*cked yah mudda", is absolutely true enough.

Getting shot in the face is also an absolute truth.

"Another" absolute truth is that "I am".

Welll.. that all depends on your definition of "truth", as well as "absolute".

Absolute is the opposite of relative. If something is relative, it is an illusion, if something is absolute, it exists in reality.

There's no implicit necessity in existence. It could very well have been (or even 'be') the case that nothing exist.

Then nothingness is the absolute truth/reality.

Is it an old lady or a freak of nature?

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_thompson-thatcher/index.html

"Another" absolute truth is that "I am".



Nope.
You are contingent.


Absolute is the opposite of relative. If something is relative, it is an illusion, if something is absolute, it exists in reality.



Nope.
'Opposition' is an artificial structure created by humans.




Then nothingness is the absolute truth/reality.


Could be, but then, it would be unknowable.

Nope.
You are contingent.

I have no reason to doubt my existence.

Could be, but then, it would be unknowable.

No... nothingness is the only thing that can be known... it can be understood because it is an absolute... things like matter... they can't be understood because they're relative, illusions, nothing. Only nothing can be understood.

I mean... no one knows what matter is... it can't be known unless it is nothing... nothing is the only thing that is self-explanatory... the universe can't consist of anything else, because everything else is "something" (unknown, ie. nothing in disguise)

Matter is made of atoms. but what are atoms made of... other small particles, what are those made of, etc... what is visible it's not explanatory, it is illusion.

Human minds are more complex than those of all other animals. Yet the complexity of our mind is far from being able to percieve each and every nuance of reality. The only truths that we come to is based on the complexity of our own individual mind. But this in no way means that intelligence is the only aspect of that complexity. It is but one of a number that all interact to contruct our perceptions of reality. Extracting and constructing reality via perceptual intelligence to create a coherent view of it is for all intents and purposes sufficient for our needs as a relatively intelligent species.

Originally Posted by dsdsds
Something MUST exist. What makes you think this?
There's no implicit necessity in existence. It could very well have been (or even 'be') the case that nothing exist.

And bringing perception into the equation will muddy things up. As all good empiricists know, esse est percipi; indeed, to perceive necessarily implies a lack of absolute.

Reality... A Reality, must exist, therefore something must exist. What are these words that I'm typing? What is this keyboard I’m touching? There is an absolute reality behind any perception. How can it be “nothing”? Even a dream or a thought is “something” Just because we can not identify the reality does not mean it does not exist. I find it tremendously presumptuous that we humans try to define existence and realities by our perceptions. We don’t see or hear a tree, it (or a sound) doesn’t exist? Reality is not exclusive to humans.

No... nothingness is the only thing that can be known... it can be understood because it is an absolute... things like matter... they can't be understood because they're relative, illusions, nothing. Only nothing can be understood.

I mean... no one knows what matter is... it can't be known unless it is nothing... nothing is the only thing that is self-explanatory... the universe can't consist of anything else, because everything else is "something" (unknown, ie. nothing in disguise)

Matter is made of atoms. but what are atoms made of... other small particles, what are those made of, etc... what is visible it's not explanatory, it is illusion.

I would argue that "nothingness" is imposiible to define or "known", or "understood". As soon as you identify it, it becomes something. If you define a block of empty space, then it exists as a block with dimensions. What we perceive as matter, exists somehow, maybe as an olive or maybe as an atom or maybe as an illusion (which is still something inside a brain). Even Illusions exist as absolute reality.

:bugeye:

Reality... A Reality, must exist, therefore something must exist. What are these words that I'm typing?

Wavelengths.

What is this keyboard I’m touching? There is an absolute reality behind any perception. How can it be “nothing”?

All things are the building blocks of strings - texture, color, etc are mathematical constructs. Texture, color, etc is only what a mind makes it. All things being equal, each human mind is approximately the same with the exception of brain injury, mutation, genetic advantage or disadvantage, etc.

Even a dream or a thought is “something”

Yes, the interplay of neurons and synapses. You seem to be clouding the reality of these things with wishful thinking.

Just because we can not identify the reality does not mean it does not exist.

Well, existence exists. If it didn't exist, then reality is but a word and words do not exists outside human minds. If you were the only thing that existed then you would be the universe and the only absolute truth.

I find it tremendously presumptuous that we humans try to define existence and realities by our perceptions. We don’t see or hear a tree, it (or a sound) doesn’t exist? Reality is not exclusive to humans.

If it were exclusive to humans then humans would be the creators, sustainers and the only reality of reality.

:bugeye:
I was trying to repond to your post that said that only "nothingness" is absolute. You can not even perceive "nothingness" and it can only be defined by RELATING it to the absence of things.

Is it just me or has this thread got the point that it's hard to understand where anyone is coming from? I started to get lost on page 2.

I was trying to repond to your post that said that only "nothingness" is absolute. You can not even perceive "nothingness" and it can only be defined by RELATING it to the absence of things.

Yes, all things seem to be relative.

These are examples of why humans can never declare a thing as absolutely true:

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/illusion/illusions.htm

I would argue that "nothingness" is imposiible to define or "known", or "understood". As soon as you identify it, it becomes something.

stop trying to understand it and you will understand it.

If you define a block of empty space, then it exists as a block with dimensions. What we perceive as matter, exists somehow, maybe as an olive or maybe as an atom or maybe as an illusion (which is still something inside a brain). Even Illusions exist as absolute reality.

what are illusions made of? you can't say that matter is made of atoms if you don't know what an atom is made of. if you don't know, then the word atom is "empty". every visible thing raises a new question.

the universe is made of matter.
what is matter made of?
atoms.
what are atoms made of.
waves, strings?
what are they made of?
...
nothing.

i think "something" cannot be defined or known. when you dive into it, you'll just find more "somethingness" and you find no answer to what that "something" is. tell me, what is something (ultimately)?

"something" is a word we use for what we don't understand. if we knew what it was, we wouldn't use the word "something", because something is an empty word, it's not an explanation.

Wavelengths.

what are those waves made of?

what are those waves made of?

Whatever they're made of we will never know. Aside from positing abstract theories like strings.

Btw, waves are of no form. They are whatever material they happen to propagate through.

Whatever they're made of we will never know.

I know what they are made of.
Everything is made of nothing.

:confused: :m:

I know what they are made of.
Everything is made of nothing.

Self-contradiction is not some mystical paradox worthy of one's time and exploration. Trees for example are not made of horse manure. Its properties are distinct.

Even so, you might as well call nothing ackledungs since the word is meaningless. Which probably says more about the state of where this discussion is heading.

It is possible that there is a such thing as an absolute truth. But we do not know these things. It is possible that an absolute truth is also an apriori concept. It is also possible that there is much BS (as in my BS thread I said), in this thread; that's about my input. I think that it is ever correct to call something an absolute truth, what about 1+1?---what about 1 + 1 is not real; the absolute truth is that that exists or nothing exists, and this is a concept made up by me, it is absolute in the sence that it can be defined.

The absolute truth is that the world needs to be better and crap.

Here is an absolute truth. We exist.

It doesn't matter how true something is if it's not true for you.

Self-contradiction is not some mystical paradox worthy of one's time and exploration.

The contradictions exist only because of your limited mind, for me there is no contradiction.

Trees for example are not made of horse manure. Its properties are distinct.

Colors are also distinct, yet they're all parts of one light. The universe is made of light, consciousness.

That's why God says in the Bible: Let there be light.

Even so, you might as well call nothing ackledungs since the word is meaningless. Which probably says more about the state of where this discussion is heading.

No, because the word nothing is the only word which is not empty. It is an explanation. Everyone knows what nothing is.

Even consciousness needs an explanation. What is consciousness? It's a separation between "me" and "the universe", between nothing and its infinity.

The absolute truth is that the world needs to be better and crap.

The question you should ask is: "why does the world need to be better and crap?" The answer will give you another question. Answer them all and you will find nothing, the goal, the cause, the absolute truth.

c7ityi i dont think you undertsand nothing. nothing is empty of everything. infact nothing has never existed. becuase if it had we wouldnt be here. from nothing, nothing comes.
there is no nothing. atleast not by my definition of nothing.

c7ityi i dont think you undertsand nothing
I agree more than you do, probably.. :D
The question you should ask is: "why does the world need to be better and crap?" The answer will give you another question. Answer them all and you will find nothing, the goal, the cause, the absolute truth.
I disagree, or, rather "you're wrong", as Glaucon (the great) would probably say. IMO, you haven't followed my logic. MY. And by that, you are a fool. You are saying things I do not already know?---sorry buddy, but I know them.

I don't "should" ask anything. And you, disagreeing with my words, is simply following away from my LOT (line of thought FYI (fyi if you got that fool! hehe); anywho's who, my ultimate truth was based more on personal preferance, something you probably haven't thes lightest clue about; not only, but that you are disagreeing with, btw... wait... wtf... what you're saying, "what you will find"... wtf dude; seriously, i think i'm dumbo and all, butyou... are dumber! kinda like dumb and dumber, or dumbjafu... wtf... my bad, just saying, that ...did you even read my post? Damn.

How about, if I answer that question it would only lead me to my premise, which was... do you know?

c7ityi i dont think you undertsand nothing. nothing is empty of everything. infact nothing has never existed. becuase if it had we wouldnt be here. from nothing, nothing comes.
there is no nothing. atleast not by my definition of nothing.
Nice one.

There is obviously no consensus - now it stands 8 to 9 yes to no. Does it matter? Not really.
I suppose one could say that you should never call something the absolute truth because you don't really know, whether something is or is not absolutely true

And here we come back to definitions you think will warp your question, what is "correct"? If by correct you mean, "is it true", then yes, you are sometimes correct when you say "x is absolutely true" if even by pure chance, especially if you set forth the system in which the question is asked, but you can say it is not correct to say such a thing, because you cannot be sure and therfore have no authority to say say such a thing, and so you could answer no - it depends on your definitions.
Maybe a definition will "warp" the answer you wish to receive, but a definition does not warp a question, unless the definitions are not in line with the questioner's, and that is impossible to know without knowing the questoiner's definitions.

Following in the footsteps of a giant - if you define the system you can say anything you want is the absolute truth.
If in my system or representation, an "orange" is the fruit that grows from banana trees then stating that most oranges will turn black and be good for making bread after a few days, would be true.

It is all about the system.


My question then ponders the notion of whether or not it is correct to call your system and its definitions correct. Because there is the possibility of someone disagreeing with your system, it disallows the system to be absolutely true. What if the rigid definitions that you give are tied to different concepts in different people? What if when you say "grows on" people imagine an orange growing on top of the tree? If you replace that with "from the banana tree," what if someone ties that to the concept of an orange growing out of the middle of the tree? Therefore, even your system isn't absolutely true.

There is obviously no consensus - now it stands 8 to 9 yes to no. Does it matter? Not really.
I suppose one could say that you should never call something the absolute truth because you don't really know, whether something is or is not absolutely true

And here we come back to definitions you think will warp your question, what is "correct"? If by correct you mean, "is it true", then yes, you are sometimes correct when you say "x is absolutely true" if even by pure chance, especially if you set forth the system in which the question is asked, but you can say it is not correct to say such a thing, because you cannot be sure and therfore have no authority to say say such a thing, and so you could answer no - it depends on your definitions.
Maybe a definition will "warp" the answer you wish to receive, but a definition does not warp a question, unless the definitions are not in line with the questioner's, and that is impossible to know without knowing the questoiner's definitions.

Following in the footsteps of a giant - if you define the system you can say anything you want is the absolute truth.
If in my system or representation, an "orange" is the fruit that grows from banana trees then stating that most oranges will turn black and be good for making bread after a few days, would be true.

It is all about the system.


My question then ponders the notion of whether or not it is ALWAYS correct to call your system absolutely true. Because there is the possibility of someone disagreeing with your system, it disallows the system to be absolutely true. What if the rigid definitions that you give are tied to different concepts in different people? What if when you say "grows on" people imagine an orange growing on top of the tree? If you replace that with "from the banana tree," what if someone ties that to the concept of an orange growing out of the middle of the tree? Therefore, even your system isn't absolutely true.

There is no way to prove anything beyond all doubt, therefore we can never be absolutlely certain what the truth is.
That does not mean, however, that the truth does not exist.
In fact, I would argue that the truth absolutlely MUST exist, regardless of our ability to discern it.

What is reasonable, however, is to be concerned with what makes up the reality of the world and system around us that we can interract with and ascertain predictable cause and effect relationships from those interractions.

Pragmatic truth, is absolute truth, for all intents and purposes.
An example of absolute, pragmatic truth...
I am typing on this keyboard and the results of this action is that I will be able to place my thoughts into words and communicate them to others.

My question then ponders the notion of whether or not it is ALWAYS correct to call your system absolutely true. Because there is the possibility of someone disagreeing with your system, it disallows the system to be absolutely true. What if the rigid definitions that you give are tied to different concepts in different people? What if when you say "grows on" people imagine an orange growing on top of the tree? If you replace that with "from the banana tree," what if someone ties that to the concept of an orange growing out of the middle of the tree? Therefore, even your system isn't absolutely true.
If my system is consistent with itself, it is ABSOLUTELY true. You are talking about my system lining up with and agreeing with another system, but if the other system disagrees with my system it is just an easy way to see - that ain't in the system. I never said my truth is consistent with another system - I have been saying that the conflicts between systems is the problem, from the start -asking you to define a functional system, i.e. not a vague one.
My system being absolutely true, does not mean mean that the system lines up with whatever the absolute truth is in a different system. Especially not the system which contains all systems - this is a system we are too deeply nested inside of to prove what consistency would even be within that hypothesized system.

Is there a truth that is consistent in all systems? Absolutely. Yes. Can we prove what it is? No.Can we even get our system of notationi and language to be consistent with that greatest system? I don't know.

P.S. C7 said, "cole grey, you're just showing that the statement is true. "
No, I show that your wording of the paradox is what makes it a paradox.

It doesn't matter how true something is if it's not true for you.

I'll pretend you don't mean by that that opinion is greater than truth for the sake of discussion.

The contradictions exist only because of your limited mind, for me there is no contradiction.

You're right, even the brightest mind could become a genius at but a few things. Hence, "the only difference between genius and stupidity, is that genius is limited."-Unknown.

Seriously though, unless you provide a definition of "nothing" and if possible, provide referrences to this then it is only fair that your claim be taken with incredulity. Otherwise, you cannot expect to go out without a whimper and a bang.


Colors are also distinct, yet they're all parts of one light. The universe is made of light, consciousness.

Ignoring your enigmatic, yet nonchalant, effort to describe consciousness and light in the same sentence, I must point out that the wavelengths of colors are only what the eyes of the animal receiving them make it out to be.

The ability to see is not a passive recording of the external world, it is an active process where the visual intelligence contructs depth, color, size, distance and all that good stuff. This explains why there is even a such thing as delerium tremens, where the mind constructs things that aren't there, such as a red Hippo in a living room. But when on goes to touch it, they find that the Hippo is merely a phenomenal (mental figment) construct and not relational (senstional, interactive).

That's why God says in the Bible: Let there be light.

Not that I'm not a believer in the Almighty God/Allah/Yaweh, but I must respond with, "could you refrain from making this a religious debate?"


No, because the word nothing is the only word which is not empty. It is an explanation. Everyone knows what nothing is.

Even consciousness needs an explanation. What is consciousness? It's a separation between "me" and "the universe", between nothing and its infinity.

No, consciousness is not a separation.

There is no way to prove anything beyond all doubt, therefore we can never be absolutlely certain what the truth is.
That does not mean, however, that the truth does not exist.
In fact, I would argue that the truth absolutlely MUST exist, regardless of our ability to discern it.

How about my statement from a few posts ago?

"This statement is an absolute truth." :cool:

perhaps it's been said..

you said "truth is subjective"...

is that true?

absolutely?

is the truth an idea, an abstract, something represented in a pattern in a brain?

what is the truth of that pattern? what is its "absolute" meaning?

does an idea "exist" in the same sense that this computer does?

is it true that it does?

true exists of mind.

is it more than a shadow?

truth is the shape of the shadow?

how do we meaure it? how do we define it? what units do we apply to the equation?

gah I'm out of my mind tired atm.

How about my statement from a few posts ago?

"This statement is an absolute truth." :cool:
What about it?
It doesn't actually make any verifiable or falsifiable claims at all.
Such as "this statement is a lie".
What truth does it proclaim?
It is simple linguistic prestidigitation, therefore practically meaningless.

wes,
Are you posting high again?:m:

Evading the questions eh? Hehe.

Yeah I might too.

But I didn't.

I thought of them at least.

Truthfully.

I suppose to evade such philosophical meanderings, "truth", and the criteria that qualify as it, must be perfectly defined. Maybe someone did that.

I skim.

*shames self*

Perception and perspective are certainly subjective, but that would be subjective truth, not objective or absolute truth.
"Liz is a pretty girl" is a subjective truth.
"Liz was not born on the moon" is an objective truth.
Regardless of your own personal perspactive, Liz was not born on the moon. If you say she was, you are simply wrong.

When you speak of "the truth" such as in:
"is the truth an idea, an abstract, something represented in a pattern in a brain?"
You must define whether you are talkig about objective truth (fact) or subjective truth (opinion).

To not make that distinction, makes the discusssion pointless because you are speaking of two entirely different things that people tend to use the single term "truth" for.

On reconsideration, we are really talking about three things that need to be distinguished.
Opinion, Perception and Fact.

Opinion - Liz is pretty
Perception - Thr dress Liz is wearing is red
Fact - Liz was not born on the moon

personal truth is illusion (infinity), absolute truth is nothing.

c7ityi i dont think you undertsand nothing. nothing is empty of everything. infact nothing has never existed. becuase if it had we wouldnt be here. from nothing, nothing comes.

i think everything comes from nothing and everything is an illusion (nothing in disguise)

But when on goes to touch it, they find that the Hippo is merely a phenomenal (mental figment) construct and not relational (senstional, interactive).

not in dreams though. in dreams you can also touch things, and everything will feel as real as in the real world.

No, consciousness is not a separation.

if it isn't, then tell me what it is.

personal truth is illusion (infinity), absolute truth is nothing.



i think everything comes from nothing and everything is an illusion (nothing in disguise)



not in dreams though. in dreams you can also touch things, and everything will feel as real as in the real world.



if it isn't, then tell me what it is.
Yep you dont understand what nothing is. Nothing is infinite and if had existed we wouldnt exist. Everything to be an illusion than something other than nothing would have to be cuasing the illusion since nothing is absolute nothiness and can do nothing. That emplys the existance of something which makes nothing impossible.

if it isn't, then tell me what it is.

The verisimilitude of separation is strictly of the ego, not the consciousness, which is a range of functions. Both are two independent things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Nothing is infinite and if had existed we wouldnt exist.

the universe wasn't created in the past, it is created in the presence where nothing exists. nothing can exist in the presence because the present moment has no duration. there is no place or time for anything to exist here.

Everything to be an illusion than something other than nothing would have to be cuasing the illusion since nothing is absolute nothiness and can do nothing.

i have never seen anything but nothing cause anything. visible effects can't cause anything, causes generate effects. there can be no visible cause, because everything that is visible is caused. so the only thing that can cause something is that which is not really something: nothing.

That emplys the existance of something which makes nothing impossible.

nothing includes everything. nothing doesn't mean just emptiness, it also means "infinite possibilities".

Is it correct to ever call something the absolute truth?
Are you God? If not, then no. :eek:

I think matters here have been complicated unnecessarily by bad arguments and the jumbling of concepts. The key to Philosophy is clarity, both in terms of logical argument and how it is expressed; if these are not present you get Hegelian sort of logic which makes little sense. Saying things like 'The One is conciousness' or 'This is absolute truth - I exist' don't help us analyse the original question. Dragging infinity into the issue only makes it more complex (since there is already a great deal of disagreement over what infinity is, whether or not it exists, and how to conceptualise it).

Clearly we have a concept, Truth. We want to predicate existence onto Truth, and onto existence we want to predicate absolute. It would help if we could define 'Truth', 'Absolute' and 'Existence.' What theory of truth are we using? By 'truth' do we mean accordance with observed facts, non-contradiction (A cannot be A and not-A at the same time), or obvious to our reason based on a few axioms? What do we mean by 'absolute?' Its truth is obvious to any rational being or observer? That it is true in all possible situations and cases? What do we mean by 'existence?' Do we mean an independent being in itself, without needing a human mind to exist? Do we mean some kind of empirical existence, or ideal existence dependent on the mind? What sorts of truth are we talking about? Are we talking about mathematical truth? (For example 2+2 = 4) Are we talking about a metaphysical truth? (God exists, the soul is immortal)? Are we talking about a moral truth? (It is wrong to murder someone). Is it absolutely true that 2+2 = 4? In what sense? When we say 2+2=4 is a truth which exists, and exists absolutely, do we mean that 2+2 = 4 in all possible cases?

Sometimes before making assumptions it is better to ask questions, if we are to get to the bottom of a philosophical issue.