[Vermillion]

"Absolute truth" is just a human term, constrained by human perceptional limitations. The concept itself is therefore also subject to such limitations. Does the "absolute truth" from a caterpillar's point of view exist? If there is an intelligence 100 million times that of a human, does the term "absolute truth" have meaning to it?

I think that when we speak of things such as absolute truth we do so from a position of arrogance and assumption. The question "is there absolute truth"? is in and of itself null and void due to the fact that it is being asked and answered by a very limited range of perceptional ability. An inadequate range of perception unable to even comprehend the full implications of the question itself, thus robbing it of any meaning.

What does a 158 dimensional object look like?

What does green smell like?

What is behind space?

What happened before the universe?

What happens when time ends?

Is there absolute truth?

[peppersasen]

My true reality is not the same as your true reality. Besides, I personally don't think I could live my life convinced that a fact/reality is the "truth" until I come accross a black swan. I live my life expecting for that black swan to come...

[Vermillion]

^Well if there is ever an oil spill onto some swans I guess your dream will come true.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[N0c7urn3]

I think there are different levels of 'truth'. You can describe the physical world as you see it, but there is a deeper reality (level of atoms or even deeper) you can't see and can't describe. You can describe what you have experienced, but not all levels of that experience is available to your consciousness. It's not a lie, or at least it's not a deliberate lie, but I also think it is probably humanly impossible to tell the absolute truth, because that will require a certain level of omniscience.

There probably is some mathematical truth to the universe, but even if we can elucidate that eventually, there are levels it is formed into would be too much for any one mind to comprehend. if only because there is simply too much information. Truth is relative unless you understand the entire system, but you will never understand the entire system.

[Straylight]

Descartes said the only absolute truth is that you yourself exist. I tend to agree with him.

[JC22]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."



This quote is unrelated.

[Vermillion]

	Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Descartes said the only absolute truth is that you yourself exist. I tend to agree with him.

"I think, therefor I am." - Descartes

The statement flawed because it is circular logic.

btw, I want to see what those of you who are citing mathematics, such as 1+1 = 2, as truth think about this:

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

-or-

In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently strong to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system.

[Straylight]

	Originally Posted by Vermillion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"I think, therefor I am." - Descartes

You can't think you exist without existing. An absolute truth.

[Sniped Soul]

I accept the laws of thermodynamics as absolutely true when applied to macroscopic systems. The universe would be fucked up if they could ever be broken.

[UltraIncredible]

This question is asking whether it's true that truth exists.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by peppersasen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My true reality is not the same as your true reality.

You mean you don't have things like gravity, oxygen, the scientific method, formal logic, cell phones, transistors, cars or other humans in your reality? That must be weird.

I think in this case you're using the term "reality" to refer to "subjective experiences, values and beliefs", which is not the same thing. Reality encompasses everyone's subjective experiences, values and beliefs (as in, it's true that person A believes this, it's true that person B believes that, even though A and B are contradictory).

[TheDubhlainn]

Nope.

[Straylight]

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

So its absolutely true that 'Absolute truth doesn't exist' ... eh?

[Othesemo]

Only in terms of mathematics and its ilk.

[Straylight]

	Originally Posted by Othesemo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only in terms of mathematics and its ilk.

I don't think it matters, because as Ultra points out ..

	Originally Posted by UltraIncredible To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This question is asking whether it's true that truth exists. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you say absolute truth doesn't exist, that in itself would be an absolute truth. Leading you to conclude that some things at least must be considered true.

[Tactical Panda]

The ultimate and best answer to that question is irrelevant to our agreement or awareness.

Just because a person treats an idea as truth doesn't make the idea truth any more than a person treating the sun like a safe holiday house to visit makes it any less of a deathtrap. Sometimes opinions are futile, self-important distractions.

[MysteriousGnome]

It all depends on what absolute truth means. If it refers to evaluation of fact by some absolute evaluator, then I'd say it can exist. The problem is if absolute evaluator exists. Another possibility is if there exists a fact that is evaluated true by everyone. The main problem here is that it requires that the perception of the fact is the same by everyone for it to be truly absolute. I don't think this is possible. It may seem close, but there are fine differences in meaning between observers even with the simplest facts.

[XV44]

I think there is an objective truth, but as it is interconnected to everything that exists it is impossible to express, whether through language or mathematics, because they both involve interpreting only "parts" of that whole for the sake of expression and practical transference of knowledge through concepts, and in so "cutting" that particular part, you are necessarily excluding everything else related to it and therefore "corrupting" what it really is in its entirety.

So with this in mind, do I think there is an objective truth? Yes, but in terms of the references that we can use as guidelines to direct our lives (truth in the sense that is practical and relevant to humans) we will forever be at the mercy of the relativity/approximation of the interpretations of that truth.-

[Bevan]

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
--Niels Bohr

"An essential feature of quantum mechanics is that it is generally impossible, even in principle, to measure a system without disturbing it; the detailed nature of this disturbance and the exact point at which it occurs are obscure and controversial."
--Encyclopaedia Britannica

The act of measurement on the atomic scale disturbs or distorts the result obtained? What is disturbing to our ordinary way of thinking about phenomena is the implication that the participation of the observer must be taken into account, blurring the line between the subjective and the objective.

If you accept quantum mechanics as a valid way to describe the world at the scale of electrons, protons and neutrons then there is no way to locate an absolute.

No, there cannot be absolute truth at the present time. When absolute truth is apprehended and revealed I would like to be among the first to know.

[Backslash]

no, everything in life is circumstantial.

[Zodd]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have no doubt that absolute truth exists. I doubt our ability to perceive absolute truth.

Ding, ding, ding, you win. I don't think truth has anything to do with perception.

I think. But thinking about eternity gets me confused, there can always be something on the outside of our universe, and so we don't know if what rules there are in our universe are true universal (out of our box). But I don't think that is an argument against absolute truth?

[Straylight]

	Originally Posted by Zodd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ding, ding, ding, you win. I don't think truth has anything to do with perception. I think. But thinking about eternity gets me confused, there can always be something on the outside of our universe, and so we don't know if what rules there are in our universe are true universal (out of our box). But I don't think that is an argument against absolute truth?

If space-time came into existence with our universe how can there be anything on the outside of space and time?, but then again, if space-time came into existence with the big bang, where did the big bang .. bang?. You're right it is fucked up.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If space-time came into existence with our universe how can there be anything on the outside of space and time?, but then again, if space-time came into existence with the big bang, where did the big bang .. bang?. You're right it is fucked up.

'Space-time' in your usage is the first mistake. You don't recognize it (Physical Matter Reality) correctly. Thus all further statements are incorrect.

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

[Bevan]

	Originally Posted by Straylight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't think you exist without existing. An absolute truth.

Then let's take up the subject of thought and perception. The thought of an object is not the object itself. It is simple to understand: if you lose the keys to your car you still believe they exist though you cannot see them. Are you a physical object? If so, thinking about your body cannot be the body itself, therefore you do not exist.

If you are not a physical object, only an identity with a name, you must exist only as a thought, as thinking, with no point of reference corresponding to the physical world, and your thoughts cannot be contained within a body. Then where are your thoughts? Can you locate them? There is no entity identified as Straylight to be found. You do not exist.

Thinking cannot be equated with existing, therefore no absolute truth has been proved.

[ScottH]

Absolute truth exists. I would like to think there is such a thing in the objective world, but on that point I cannot be so certain. However, on subjective matters, there can be absolute truth:
"That hurt."
"I feel happy."
"I believe that..."

There are clearly statements of fact that are absolutely true. Note that this is notwithstanding external tests for truth: I could be lieing. But I can still utter statements that are in fact absolute truth.

I think this is what Protagoras was getting at in the example that Monte suggests. Socrates last statement missed that point, as he seemed to be missing the idea that Protagoras means "absolute truth _for you_" with regard to one's opinion, and not universal (what I call "objective") truth.

[Straylight]

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

Then let's take up the subject of thought and perception. The thought of an object is not the object itself. It is simple to understand: if you lose the keys to your car you still believe they exist though you cannot see them. Are you a physical object? If so, thinking about your body cannot be the body itself, therefore you do not exist. If you are not a physical object, only an identity with a name, you must exist only as a thought, as thinking, with no point of reference corresponding to the physical world, and your thoughts cannot be contained within a body. Then where are your thoughts? Can you locate them? There is no entity identified as Straylight to be found. You do not exist. Thinking cannot be equated with existing, therefore no absolute truth has been proved.

Why on earth would you have to have a physical presence to exist. It's like saying triangles aren't physical therefore triangles don't exist.

Thinking is evidence for the thing that is thinking. It would be totally bizarre to think otherwise.