[rufsketch1]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, you can say whatever you want while you are "probing", but when you reach a conclusion you are limited to a statement that is either true or false. Cats cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time. That is a direct contradiction, which means it is false, it "definitely is not."

Well yes, but you can reach a conclusion that allows for both possibilities. "There might be cats" will always return true. You haven't come to a direct conclusion about cats, but you have come to an absolute truth about the possibility of their existence, because your statement encompasses all options.

[Googamanga]

Originally Posted by UserName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I state that the idea of there not existing an absolute truth is contradicted by A.-the idea its self and B.- the human experience. A.- If there were no absolute truths then the statement "there are no absolute truths" would be absolutely true, at which point an absolute would exist and the statement becomes false, at which point it becomes true, then false, then true, and circular reasoning appears. B.-"I think therefor I am." I absolutely know that I exist, but I do not absolutely know in what form I exist.

We interpret the world through our own abstractions. We see the world through an interface that in effect causes us to be dissattached from reality. There is absolutely no way for us to experience "reality" except through this interface. The whole notion of a truth only exists in our interpretation of what we see through the interface. Reality on its own is not true/false/real/fake/existent these terms are only different interpretations of what we see through the interface

For this post i see at least two practical ways to define "absolute truth".

1. There are "absolute true/false statements that have no chance of being wrong" eg: there are no square circles, cats are not mice, all bachelors are single. We can get to these by using deductive logic and 100% solid definitions.

However a supporter of the "there is no absolute truth" theory might say that these "absolute true statements" are true/false because of their definitions. These are man made abstractions and have no place in reality. they don't count as "absolute 'real' truths". Nature didn't define squares/circles/cats/mice/... our minds do.

So whats missing?

2. There are "absolute true/false statements that have a chance of being wrong" these entities exist when definitions are uncertain.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I think therefore I [exist]" (i'm assuming "am" is meant to be "exist")

to me the definitions of "I", and "think" is uncertain,

"I" can be the stuff encased in my skin, my physical body, my mind. according to some theories, the "I" doesn't exist, there is only a single "abstraction" that acts through different agents (like having the same software in different hardware, [same meaning mostly same, there is some variation])

"Think" - i don't believe our mind is anything more than an evolved electrical network. This network is made up stuff (i'll call them particulars, but i guess atoms/strings/blah works well too) that is abundant in reality. The only difference that exists is how the particulars are grouped together. these particulars tended to group themselves in patterned ways. very complex groupings started to exist fast forward to our brain... aka evolved electrical network

however particulars don't make a distinction between "thinking" and "nonthinking" groups, they just group.... in other words for reality, a "thinking" group is the same as "nonthinking" group. The only thing that is shared between these two groups is that they exist. so to me
Thinking = existence

so

"I think therefore I [exist]" = "blank exists therefore blank exists"=

this is just repetition

="blank exists" = "What ever I am exists" = and to show that there's a chance of being wrong

="What ever I am, exists????????" Lets talk about that!!!

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"There might be cats" will always return true.

That's because that's not a conclusion. That's the lack of a conclusion. It's null. The way you know it is a conclusion is that it is falsifiable. If it's so open it can't possibly be false, it's not a conclusion.

[PunkinA]

Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But this can still be absolutely true in the context of its axioms. The peano arithmetic has been proven consistent (using set theory, which has been proven inconsistent, so feel free to argue with me on that, lol), so in your assumptions that "1" is a valid concept which can stack on top of its self, and that you can give different names to stacks of every size, then 1+1=2 is indeed true. So that "if 1 can stack and you add it to 1, you get 1 and 1 (which you call 2)" is an absolute truth, simply because of that if.

In its historical/philosophical sense, Absolute Truth is something independent of assumptions. It is true with or without axiom. Your statement requires a dependence on something else being true. It is not Absolute. The concept of Absolute Truth represents bedrock, from which all other truths may be derived. '1 + 1 = 2' is true provisionally. The symbols represent a truth, but not an absolute.

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"I think therefore I am" is definitely an absolute truth, even from the extreme nihilist point of view. The reasoning is simply 'If I were not then I couldn't be thinking, for there is no I'.

Descartes' cogito has its detractors. I can't say that I understand its terms to argue either way. I strongly believe that if it even is true, it is likely not true absolutely. Mostly I favor systems that indicate existence does not predicate, which would rule out Descartes statement as a truth.

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The statement "There are no absolute truths" is elegant more than it is wrong. The fact that it causes a paradox simply strengthens its point. It's a neat short way of saying 'there are no absolute truths, and this statement is a wonderful example'. Here I have defined "true" as any statement which can be known and which can't possibly be false.

The statement "There are no absolute truths" does not commit paradox. One can interpret the symbolic sentence as provisionally true, without claiming of itself absoluteness. It is true within context, as opposed to absolutely. "There are no absolute truths." extends meaning to a specific class of things, in this case truths, as opposed to describing the absolute nature of everything.

Universal statements are not absolute statements. I can talk about all those boys, or all those sentences, or even all ideas without making an absolute claim.

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Someone was speaking before of "cats are false" and "cats are true". To not mean anything. These need to be rephrased. True would mean "it definitely is" false means "it definitely is not". So "Cats are", and "Cats are not" are both logically valid statements probing the existence of the entity "cat".

I was the author of "cats are false." These statements do not need to be rephrased. Your new proposals are not rephrasings at all. Instead you have proposed different sentences with different meanings. Your new sentence does not compare to "cats are false" in context.

You instead wish to substitute each instance of 'cats' in my sentences, with "Cats exist." which then becomes:

"Cats are." is true.
-or-
"Cats are not." is true.

This only serves to illustrate my point that some things can be shown to have truth values, and some things cannot.

"Cats are.", as an example of an english sentence, can obtain a truth value; while,
'cats', as a general class of things which are not sentences, do not obtain truth values.
Seeing that your proposed rephrasing alters the intended meaning of my words, your words do not suffice as a usable translation. Changing my words and then arguing against your poor translation does not invalidate my argument. (see Straw Man)

[NoOne]

True to what?

Can one thing in of itself be true?

Is "5 =" a complete sentence?

[nocturne]

If a true statement has no false consequences, then it must be absolutely true. In other words, since a statement that is not absolutely true is false, a true statement must be absolutely so. The issue of whether such truth can be known is a whole other matter.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by nocturne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a true statement has no false consequences, then it must be absolutely true. In other words, since a statement that is not absolutely true is false, a true statement must be absolutely so. The issue of whether such truth can be known is a whole other matter.

Some statements are not true all of the time. This does not mean the statement is false. A statement may be true some of the time and false some of the time. These 'sometimes' statements are true, but not absolutely.

Given: "The person thinking this statement is a man."

I can think of one instance where the given is true. I can think of one instance where the same statement is false. It is necessarily not absolute (sometimes its false), but it is also not necessarily false (sometimes its true).

[Googamanga]

"Absolute truth either exists or it doesn't"

Oh wait....

[NoOne]

"The person thinking this statement is a man."
This is another example of the liars paradox construction, do you know why? What is grammatically wrong with the sentence? Hint: What is self-referential?

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by NoOne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"The person thinking this statement is a man." This is another example of the liars paradox construction, do you know why? What is grammatically wrong with the sentence? Hint: What is self-referential?

Excluding self reference does not eliminate the core of the issue. If instead we create a couplet:

A- "There is a cat on the fence."
B- "The last person to read sentence A was a man."

Both sentences fulfill requirements of English grammar. Neither is self referencing. Sentence B still illustrates one sentence that can be true sometimes and false sometimes. That's kind of a weak example of a couplet, but perhaps someone else can see a better phrasing to illustrate the type.

In a single sentence, I can bypass the liars paradox by simply saying:

"I am a woman."

This non-self referential statement still can be true, without being absolutely true.

[NoOne]

I see you don't get it. In the original example given, what is the word "this" used for? Does the rest of the sentence yet exist by the tiime "this" is written?

"This" is present tense. hello. Relation to self is created because that which is referred to is in the future.

[nocturne]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some statements are not true all of the time. This does not mean the statement is false. A statement may be true some of the time and false some of the time. These 'sometimes' statements are true, but not absolutely.

A statement which is only true "some of the time" is false. However, to avoid possible semantic quibbles, replace the word "statement" with "proposition."

In the case of a statement that appears to be true "some of the time," the issue is one of mutually inconsistent possible interpretations. Once a statement is interpreted into a proposition, i.e. a description of possible facts, there are no truths that are only true "some of the time."

Lots of statements of natural language employ variable-like terms. Among the most common are pronouns like I, you, it, he, etc. When these terms go unspecified, a statement does not express a proposition. In other words, the statement "I like pizza" is not a proposition until the I is interpreted as a specific person.

One problem is that specifics of time and space often go unstated, because 99% of the time such specifics are obvious given context, and we would be just wasintg our breath or ink including them. For example, the statement "Bill Gates is a billionaire" is literally false, but usually we interpret a statement like this to include an implicit coordinate: "Bill Gates [on the day I write this statement] is a billionaire."

Whenever there is truth, it is absolute.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Absolute truth either exists or it doesn't" Oh wait....

Is the above sentence true? Are the letters, as organized, true? I believe you will agree that to someone who only speaks French, or only reads ancient Greek that the above letters will not be true, or indicate truth. Only within the context of the limits of one specific language, (English) does the sentence represent the possibility of being true. I think we will agree the letters, or the English representation of our thoughts are not what is true.

I suspect then that you will argue, the letters are not true, but rather the ideas they represent are the truth. But without our symbols, how can we have certainty that our ideas are shared? Your interpretation, even within English, may differ from my interpretation of letters to ideas. Language offers no certainty that we both experience the same constructed objects within our minds. Even as I write, this thread contains different assumed properties of 'Absolute', 'True', and 'Existence'. Which version of 'True' is right? Which is most consistent with English? Which among us knows 'True' truly? The truthfulness of any of our thoughts depends, subjectively, upon the thinker. Your version of Absolute Truth depends upon your thinking it.

For a thing to be an Absolute Truth, it must have the quality of Absoluteness. Neither the letters as words, nor the thoughts you experience are absolute. What sort of thing are you presenting to be evaluated?

On a different line of arguing, your sentence demonstrates a tautology. Tautologies are true within the logical system they occur, but have no truth value outside of the system. Our logical systems develop from certain assumptions (axioms). Our axioms represent human conveniences to conceptualize what makes up truth. They are not true in-and-of-themselves, but better become true because we demand they are what truth is. Without our assumption the axioms do not occur in the context of truth. They are not Absolute.

When I say there are no Absolutes, I speak of the very limits of language, and knowledge. Language and knowledge do not encompass absolutely all there is though, so while my statement is universal, it is not absolute.





PunkinA added to this post, 39 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Originally Posted by nocturne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A statement which is only true "some of the time" is false. However, to avoid possible semantic quibbles, replace the word "statement" with "proposition." In the case of a statement that appears to be true "some of the time," the issue is one of mutually inconsistent possible interpretations. Once a statement is interpreted into a proposition, i.e. a description of possible facts, there are no truths that are only true "some of the time." For example, the statement "Bill Gates is a billionaire" is literally false, but usually we interpret a statement like this to include an implicit coordinate: "Bill Gates [on the day I write this statement] is a billionaire." Whenever there is truth, it is absolute.

I must concede your point about propositions. As unique elements, they may not have occasional truth. They are always true or never. On the other hand, I could continue the discussion to probe the nature of propositions. I assert they unravel in the context of absoluteness. Even a proposition is made up of parts. Typically subject-predicate, but there are other valid formulations. In any case, the elements that make up a subject, and elements that make up a predicate occur only as constructs of a speaker. Truth value of propositions still depends on some outside factor. No proposition is absolute.

If you are to intend truth and absolute to indicate synonyms, then I wonder why we need all this additional discussion. You can continue by saying truth means absolute over and over. In fact by your usage, absolute truth is redundant. You keep arguing the nature of truth, and concluding it is absolute, without qualifying terms. I have offered many paragraphs as to what philosophical writers intend by Absolute Truth, perhaps someone else can provide what they mean by Absolute and illustrate how they intend it. I suspect many of us are arguing past each other, with different notions of Absolute.

"Bill Gates is a millionaire, at the time of this writing.", does not qualify as an Absolute Truth as Hume, Kant or Nietschze would discuss the idea. The term is trivial, and non-transcendent.

[Googamanga]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is the above sentence true? Are the letters, as organized, true? I believe you will agree that to someone who only speaks French, or only reads ancient Greek that the above letters will not be true, or indicate truth. Only within the context of the limits of one specific language, (English) does the sentence represent the possibility of being true. I think we will agree the letters, or the English representation of our thoughts are not what is true. I suspect then that you will argue, the letters are not true, but rather the ideas they represent are the truth. But without our symbols, how can we have certainty that our ideas are shared? Your interpretation, even within English, may differ from my interpretation of letters to ideas. Language offers no certainty that we both experience the same constructed objects within our minds. Even as I write, this thread contains different assumed properties of 'Absolute', 'True', and 'Existence'. Which version of 'True' is right? Which is most consistent with English? Which among us knows 'True' truly? The truthfulness of any of our thoughts depends, subjectively, upon the thinker. Your version of Absolute Truth depends upon your thinking it. For a thing to be an Absolute Truth, it must have the quality of Absoluteness. Neither the letters as words, nor the thoughts you experience are absolute. What sort of thing are you presenting to be evaluated? On a different line of arguing, your sentence demonstrates a tautology. Tautologies are true within the logical system they occur, but have no truth value outside of the system. Our logical systems develop from certain assumptions (axioms). Our axioms represent human conveniences to conceptualize what makes up truth. They are not true in-and-of-themselves, but better become true because we demand they are what truth is. Without our assumption the axioms do not occur in the context of truth. They are not Absolute. When I say there are no Absolutes, I speak of the very limits of language, and knowledge. Language and knowledge do not encompass absolutely all there is though, so while my statement is universal, it is not absolute.

I agree that language as a whole is not interpreted the same by different individuals. However it is possible to share a close enough meaning (possibly 100% correct) of a word. (Not a whole language but individual "important" words) All we have to do is.. share our definitions...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My Definition: ""Absolute Truth" is True always, in any dimension, any anything...

There is a difference between Ideas and the Symbols-that-try-to-replicate-the-ideas (thoughts vs language)

If an "Absolute True" idea exists why is the burden on "Absolute Truth" to let others know about its existence through symbols that the truth had nothing to do with???? If an "Absolute Truth" exists, but we don't know about it... then "Absolute Truth" still exists. Written in English or French or Alien

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But without our symbols, how can we have certainty that our ideas are shared?

a sharing of "Absolute truth" is not a perquisite for its existence

I thought we were arguing on the existence of "Absolute truths" not if we know about them... If a flamingo exists in a zoo but we've never seen it... it still exists...

Tautology.... Why should "Absolute Truth" have to add something to our knowledge? I thought an "Absolute Truth" just had to be True always, in any dimension, any anything...

The form [argument/statement/question/...] of an "Absolute truth" is not a perquisite for its existence

So, why is the following not an "Absolute truth"?

"Absolute truth either exists or it doesn't"
Questions:
What is not included in the logical system of my Tautology?
Can you give examples of Universal and Absolute statements? i'm not seeing the difference...

Edit
If "Absolute truth" exists as ideas but we can't explain them to others because of limitations of language, then Absolute truth still exists.

[PunkinA]

Googamanga, you bring up a number of valid points.

The symbols-that-try-to-replicate-the-ideas are separate from the ideas themselves. What may also be observed is that the ideas-that-try-to-replicate-a-reality are not reality itself. My thought of a cat is not the same as an actual cat. My thought of a dollar will not satisfy the salesman to release my goods. I need a 'real' dollar.

Symbols >< Thoughts >< Reality

In which domain does true fall? We will agree that the symbols do not constitute a truth. I have stated that other objects of reality: cats, red, running... do not obtain truth values. To our benefit, great philosophers (Hume, Kant, Nietzsche...) have already expended the great efforts to explain why our thoughts can never achieve reality. In some way, our objects we think will always fall short of the thing-in-itself. A permanent disjunct separates noumenon from phenomenon.

This is all important in that reality as a thing in itself, is not true. Instead what becomes true is something about reality. Cats are not true and red is not true, but rather the extension "Some cats are red." becomes true. The constructed thought-of-the-thing, as it applies to the thing-in-itself, has truth value.

There are no absolute thoughts. All thoughts occur in relation to an observer.

In reference to Absolute vs. Universal:
Philosophical Absolutes refer to the transcendent reality. The nature of the Absolute extends across every domain. Absolute statements refer to this nature of everything.

Universals apply to all members of a domain. Universal statements include every member of a class, but not to everything all the time.

Examples of Absolutes:

All that is, is one.
God is reality.
The world is dual. Its natures are mental and physical.

Examples of Universals:

All cats are red.
Every girl on the drill team is easy.

All absolute statements are universal, but not all universal statements are absolute.

[Googamanga]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Googamanga, you bring up a number of valid points. The symbols-that-try-to-replicate-the-ideas are separate from the ideas themselves. What may also be observed is that the ideas-that-try-to-replicate-a-reality are not reality itself. My thought of a cat is not the same as an actual cat. My thought of a dollar will not satisfy the salesman to release my goods. I need a 'real' dollar. Symbols >< Thoughts >< Reality In which domain does true fall? We will agree that the symbols do not constitute a truth. I have stated that other objects of reality: cats, red, running... do not obtain truth values. To our benefit, great philosophers (Hume, Kant, Nietzsche...) have already expended the great efforts to explain why our thoughts can never achieve reality. In some way, our objects we think will always fall short of the thing-in-itself. A permanent disjunct separates noumenon from phenomenon. This is all important in that reality as a thing in itself, is not true. Instead what becomes true is something about reality. Cats are not true and red is not true, but rather the extension "Some cats are red." becomes true. The constructed thought-of-the-thing, as it applies to the thing-in-itself, has truth value. There are no absolute thoughts. All thoughts occur in relation to an observer. In reference to Absolute vs. Universal: Philosophical Absolutes refer to the transcendent reality. The nature of the Absolute extends across every domain. Absolute statements refer to this nature of everything. Universals apply to all members of a domain. Universal statements include every member of a class, but not to everything all the time. Examples of Absolutes: All that is, is one. God is reality. The world is dual. Its natures are mental and physical. Examples of Universals: All cats are red. Every girl on the drill team is easy. All absolute statements are universal, but not all universal statements are absolute.

ok so lets separate everything into reality, thoughts, and symbols.

Reality is not true or false it just is.
>>>eg. a "real" dollar is a piece of green paper, the thought/belief that the dollar is worth >>>something makes it important
Thoughts are about something, either about reality or other thoughts.
>>>True or false does not exist in reality but does exist in thoughts
Symbols is a way to communicate thoughts
>>>There are symbols for true and false, (of course the symbols themselves mean nothing but the thought the represent can be true or false.)

Our only contact to reality is through our thoughts. When our finger touches a table, we get a thought/signal to our head that we are touching a table. Also our thoughts are able to imagine things that are not part of reality unicorns, zombies, ....

Weather reality is finite or infinite, our thoughts are able to imagine it, or at least we are able to use symbols to convey an idea even though we may not completely understand it. (the words/symbols "all-possible-domains" / "infinity" / "square circles" symbolize specific things that might not even exist, and are hard or impossible to imagine)

so reality can be encased in thoughts, which can be encased in symbols

From what I understand, your definition of Absolute is something that transcends all of these domains. I believe that truth/false only exists in our thoughts/minds. So for "Absolute truth" not to exist this domain must not cross with thoughts, at any point, ever. but since symbols can encase thoughts you may talk about it.

So the task is to find something that is not real and cannot be imagined.

Hmmm... The following can't exist and I can't imagine it.

( Show Spoiler )

"the unreal... and unimaginable"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

but.. if i write it i'm able to think about it... and am able to create a thought about it ---> "the unreal... and unimaginable exists or it doesn't" which would equate to true.... or "%&($&!@() either means something or it doesn't"

so maybe as soon as i write \ read something i can think about it and create a true statement such as above.

but since my only connection to reality is through thoughts and according to some guy that proved "we don't know that we are not dreaming" i don't know which thoughts are coming from reality and which are not.

so if we have no connection with reality and everything we can write we can think and logic has the same domain as thought then If we can write about "absoluteness" then we can think about it which encases it into the same domain as logic. so now we can make logical statements about "absoluteness" such as "Absoluteness either exists or it doesn't" which equate to true,

So "Absolute truth" exists, in our thoughts. and there is no certain way to know if it exists in reality. Furthermore there is no way to know if anything exists in reality since all we can do is think.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Questions
Why can't an Absolute truth be a Tautology?
Why isn't the following an absolute truth?
Absolute truth either exists or it doesn't
All that is, is one. (I'll take this with certain definitions)
God is reality (This too)
The world is dual. Its natures are mental and physical. (Seems like contradiction to your first thing but I'll take this with certain definitions)





Googamanga added to this post, 1202 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Imagine 2 venn diagrams

Domain A and Domain B

The Absolute Truth exists when A and B totaly overlap.
>>>>there is no way to create Domain C such that it is not part of A and B.

Shared Truth exists when A and B share a space in common, but Domain C can still be created.
>>>>If A is bigger than B then C would be A-B

No Truth exists when A and B share no space.
>>>>This can also happen Between B and C in previous statment


eg: If Domain A is all of 2D space, and Domain B is an infinate plain. Then everything that is true in Domain A or B is true in all given domains - Absolute Truth.

eg: If Domain A is all of 2D space, and Domain B is an infinate line. There is shared space, but not equal space. Everything that is in 2d space that is not on a straight line can be "Shared Truth"

eg: If Domain A is all of 2D space and Domain B is void, then there is no possible Truth relative to these two domains.

A counter to this in relation to our world would be <We live in a world where there are mulitple Dimensions. Thus if Domain A is everything... and Domain B is things-that-could-be-true, i think there is a possible space that is between "everything" and "things-that-could-be-true". Thus shared truth is possilbe, but not absolute truth.>

If you want to prove that there is "Absolute truth in our world" then you have to show that everything is encased in things-that-could-be-true

If you want to prove that there isn't Absolute truth in our world" then you have to show that there exists at least 1 space that is outside of things-that-could-be-true but inside "everything"

Don't forget that there is a 3rd option of, we can't know...

[Googamanga]

back to my older post
If i can think about something i can create a logical true statement about it
If i can write about something I can think about it
Thus if I'm writing about everything then i can create a logical statement about it

"Domain of Everything is the grouping of all other Domains"
Domain A = "Domain of everything"; Domain B = "the grouping of all other Domains"
Domain A completely equals Domain B... i hope...

I was tempted to say "Everything is Everything" but that would just point at the same, domain, Tautologies are always true but not fun. With the previous statement I'm creating two separate domains. and comparing them, making them fit the "Absolute Truth" criteria.

Hmmmmm but perhaps The definition of Everything is "the grouping of all other Domains", so perhaps it is a totology...

I guess the only question remains---> are there "Absolute truths" that are not Tautologies? I think not because the moment we find a Domain A and Domain B that are 100% overlapping they automatically fuse to create definitions of each other....

So "Absolute truth" = fusing Domains = defining domains = logically connecting domains = sharing knowledge = Tautology = no new knowledge haaaahahahaaahaha

cool stuff





Googamanga added to this post, 1178 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Ok so "Absolute Truth" exists when two Domains equal each other.

I want to explore the Domains of Reality vs Thought.

Reality to me is everything that is tangible. But my belief that everything stems from matter makes a distinction between Reality and Thoughts difficult...

Reality is everything that is tangible.
Thought is....

i give up....

OOh thought is not tangible! But if thought is not tangible but stems from matter, then..... matter is not tangible
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
@#$%@#^@$#!!!

HELP!!!

I'm making a new thread...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PunkinA]

Tautologies do not represent absolute truths, because they do not encompass the concept of 'Absolute' in their meaning.

A tautology represents one of two things in use, (actually only one mode in logic.)

A tautological statement describes how symbols are used. Either we express how a symbol is intended in use by the author, or we express the coherence of how symbols are to be used.

The former type of tautology is a definition. Example:

A circle is the locus of all points equidistant from a center point on a plane.

The latter type of tautology represents the formal nature of how symbols can be used logically. Example:

{(P implies Q) and (P)} implies (Q).

Definitions do not actually say anything about the subject, but rather relate to the symbols and what they indicate. Defining the symbol {Absolute Truth] does not imply what the symbol signifies actually exists. We can define round-square copulas, but they may not exist.

Formal tautologies also do not require of the nature of its constituents. The formula you suggest is synonymous with:

For <All>(n) : Either (n)<Exists> or (n)<does not Exist>.

Placing dogs, cats or unicorns in place of n does not extend any knowledge about them as classes or individuals. Using the symbol {Absolute Truth} in this context does not make the tautology absolute. It remains an everyday, ordinary type of true.

[Taluric]

Originally Posted by UserName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I state that the idea of there not existing an absolute truth is contradicted by A.-the idea its self and B.- the human experience. A.- If there were no absolute truths then the statement "there are no absolute truths" would be absolutely true, at which point an absolute would exist and the statement becomes false, at which point it becomes true, then false, then true, and circular reasoning appears. B.-"I think therefor I am." I absolutely know that I exist, but I do not absolutely know in what form I exist.

A more mild (intellectually) response then some but....

Personally, I do not hold that manipulation of a limited system (language) allows to prove or disprove anything as absolute. We are limited in terms of our definable thoughts to language, but that does not mean the reality must conform to our ability to explain it.

I do believe in absolute truths of reality. I do not assume that it is within the ability of humanity to be able to define them (completely) due to the limitations of our minds and senses. I do not even take "I think therefore I am" as a truth, even within the context of allowing for discrepancy of form (though I find it much closer to valid with it).

I believe I think therefore I believe I am. I do not fully understand the concept of "I" in a dynamic, often misinterpreted existence. Most people will admit to the intrigue of the concept that since I cant experience being anyone else, they may or may not exist, most people are not willing to take that a step further to realize that our own minds are probably the single most subjective basis we could ever use as proof of anything.

Am I a single entity? Am I a reactionary system without true free will or thought that is simply floating by and existing for that sake alone? Does a calculator believe it has no choice but to say that 1+1=2? Are we all just figments of the imagination of some greater being unrestrained by the rules and laws of physics as we know them? Or all we all so far from what we think that our consciousness cannot even begin to grasp the faintest hint of it?

You may not personally care one way or another and indeed, I'm uncertain it's central to the logic of if it is true or if it is not, but I cannot consent to the fact that "I" am until I know what, specific, is I.

[Googamanga]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A tautological statement describes how symbols are used .................................................. Formal tautologies also do not require of the nature of its constituents. The formula you suggest is synonymous with: For <All>(n) : Either (n)<Exists> or (n)<does not Exist>. Placing dogs, cats or unicorns in place of n does not extend any knowledge about them as classes or individuals. Using the symbol {Absolute Truth} in this context does not make the tautology absolute. It remains an everyday, ordinary type of true.

	Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Tautology.... Why should "Absolute Truth" have to add something to our knowledge? I thought an "Absolute Truth" just had to be True always, in any dimension, any anything...

Why can't a tautological statement describes how ideas are used? If your going to say that understanding is influenced by interpretation of symbols, then tell me where different interpretation may be. "Everything that exists, exists"
...........................................

This is straight out of Wiki
Tautology (logic), is true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables.

This is from: myswizard.com/2005/12/31/absolute-truth-definition:
“What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity’s ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth.”

If you believe Absolute truth doesn't exist then... that is an absolute truth...
................................................

If for you the only difference between "Absolute Truth" adds knowledge and a "Tautology" doesn't, then we've just found an agreement. For me an "Absolute Truth" doesn't have to add knowledge.

Knowledge is a subjective thing. If I know about something but others don't know about it, then that something still exists.

Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If an "Absolute True" idea exists why is the burden on "Absolute Truth" to let others know about its existence through symbols that the truth had nothing to do with???? If an "Absolute Truth" exists, but we don't know about it... then "Absolute Truth" still exists. Written in English or French or Alien a sharing of "Absolute truth" is not a perquisite for its existence I thought we were arguing on the existence of "Absolute truths" not if we know about them... If a flamingo exists in a zoo but we've never seen it... it still exists...

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is straight out of Wiki Tautology (logic), is true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables

In this way, a tautology is the product of a logic. It occurs of its axioms. Axioms are assumed, though not absolute. In this context, tautologies are not true absolutely, but universally. All {propositions of such-and-such form} provided {these axioms} are true. They are always true within context.

Absolutes are true in all contexts.

	Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is from: myswizard.com/2005/12/31/absolute-truth-definition: “What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity’s ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth.”

I have mentioned this above, but for something to be 'correct' it requires an evaluator. An entity's ability to discern is a necessary condition for 'correctness.'

	Originally Posted by Googamanga To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If for you the only difference between "Absolute Truth" adds knowledge and a "Tautology" doesn't, then we've just found an agreement. For me an "Absolute Truth" doesn't have to add knowledge.

This is not my position at all. Tautologies are structures that illustrate the nature of a language (or logic). They are true in context. They require an evaluator. "Absolute Truth" on the other hand, transcends language.

Tautologies, as features of a logic, are language dependent. (By language I don't mean English, French, Russian... but rather the use of symbols and thoughts to interpret the world.) Different types of logic occur after certain linguistic rules have been adopted. All truths require some relationship with a language. All language requires an evaluator. Language does not occur in-and-of itself. In that way all truths as we construct them require an evaluator and therefore fail the quality of "Absolute Truth" as you define it.

[Googamanga]

For me there is only reality, it encapsulates everything that can be, everything outside of reality cannot be.

There is a way that reality functions, whether we can make models about it is irrelevant to to the way reality functions.

To me there is nothing outside of reality. Reality vs Absolute = Reality

There is nothing outside of reality, to my knowledge there are no ghosts, there is no magic, there are no miracles. If for some reason i do start believing in ghosts then reality doesn't change, my model of reality changes.

This whole discussion is analogous to domains in mathematics.

me: all Numbers are between -infinity and positive infinity
you: you're not including infinity+1!
me: infinity+1 = infinity
you: you're not including infinity+1!
me: infinity+1 = infinity
....
you: your not including imaginary numbers
me: infinity + domain of imaginary = infinity
....

Just by definition the tautology "Reality is everything there is" is an "Absolute truth". You talk about symbols misleading us into thinking things exist, such as "square circles exist" To someone that is brand new to this world, that statement sounds just as correct as "Our senses are not perfect". Same way "Domains outside of reality exist" or "Universal does not equal Absolute" may be written and even understood as an idea but doesn't make it so.