Absolute truth

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:22 pm

All our "truths" are inherent in, through mathematics, our conceptions. All our conceptions are built upon our subjective experience. So all our truths are dependent upon our subjective experience.

All my above claims are based on my own subjective conceptions, etc, ad infinitum.

How can you claim that there are any absolute truths?

I had to agree with the guy you interviewed in episode one of The Reasoning Show.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:01 pm

So, there are no absolutes? Is this true for everyone? Why? And how many such truths do you think you uttered in:

All our "truths" are inherent in, through mathematics, our conceptions. All our conceptions are built upon our subjective experience. So all our truths are dependent upon our subjective experience.

Lykaios · Post by **Lykaios** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:27 am

WhorlyWhelk wrote:How can you claim that there are any absolute truths?

Oh, simple, because to claim that there are no absolute truths is self-contradictory. Look: If there are no absolute truths then absolutely nothing is absolute, with no exceptions - or, everything is subjective, always, without any exceptions. But if this holds true always in all cases and without any exceptions, then it is an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. So because assuming that there are no absolute truths leads to a contradiction, this proves the opposite to be true: There are absolute truths.

(The devil's in figuring out what the hell they are.)

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:35 am

WhorlyWhelk wrote:How can you claim that there are any absolute truths?

I had to agree with the guy you interviewed in episode one of The Reasoning Show.

Was he speaking the truth?

-

average · Post by **average** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:54 am

Truth exists in a dimension beyond the reach of thought.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:49 am

average wrote:Truth exists in a dimension beyond the reach of thought.

Do you regard this conclusion as true? How did you come to it?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:13 pm

It is certainly beyond the reach of average thought.

-

illrod · Post by **illrod** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:52 pm

Lykaios wrote:Oh, simple, because to claim that there are no absolute truths is self-contradictory. Look: If there are no absolute truths then absolutely nothing is absolute, with no exceptions - or, everything is subjective, always, without any exceptions. But if this holds true always in all cases and without any exceptions, then it is an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. So because assuming that there are no absolute truths leads to a contradiction, this proves the opposite to be true: There are absolute truths.

agreed, although we don't know all of them. Maybe real/higher truth is beyond our grasp, as someone else stated, since there are obvious limitations of the human mind, but to question the validity of everything because it only exists in one's mind won't get you anywhere. And I think something is an absolute truth if it holds true against physical experiment and mathematics - which is why we have yet to come to an absolute truth on everything.

average · Post by **average** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:23 am

The reason people think that saying "there are no absolute truths - is self contradictory" is because they have not considered what they mean by truths, and the type of ontology truths exhibit.

What exactly is a truth and in what sense is it absolute? A truth is a relationship, and it is as absolute as any other relationship, which is to say, not very absolute at all.

In an external sense truth is a statement, a proposition. In an internal sense it is an idea, a conception.
Do truths exist in a vacuum? Independent of everything else, including time? That wouldn't make much sense.
Truths have to refer to something in particular.

What we call truths, is the equivalence of an idea to a corresponding state of reality. So when we have an equality between relationships, we call this truth. A=A.

So the idea or statement of an observer (A) has to equal the state of reality (A).

Unfortunately, ideas and statements don't last forever. Neither do the things they refer to. So in what sense could a truth be absolute? No sense.

Also a psychological twist happens when someone says "no truths are absolute", they automatically ask, is that true?
And then they think, if it is true always, and you apply it to itself then it must be false.
But it is true, it just won't be true forever. Which isn't to say it will be false in the future. It will just have no truth value at all, eventually, when there is no conceiver conceiving it, and world containing it.
Its people's habit to assume the opposite that makes that statement seem self-contradictory.

So is "no truths are absolute" true? yes.
WIll it be true forever? No.
Will it be false? No.
It will lack truth value, eventually, very soon actually.

--fundamentally we are just corresponding two ideas to each other, and calling this relationship truth...instead of comparing an idea to an objective state of reality. But thats a different matter.

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:17 am

Conceivers come and go. The nature of truth remains the same. Think about what that means Average.

is because they have not considered what they mean by truths, and the type of ontology truths exhibit.

So you're asking 'What is the truth about truth?' right? And then making your pronouncements as though they hold water.

Again, think hard about the constancy (truth) of the nature of truth that you have tried to describe here; and what that must mean about truth. We could all die out tomorrow in a cataclysm and the Earth might recover to spawn conscious life again. They would conceive truth in the very same way, by the very same nature.

skipair · Post by **skipair** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:11 am

Dave Toast wrote:We could all die out tomorrow in a cataclysm and the Earth might recover to spawn conscious life again. They would conceive truth in the very same way, by the very same nature.

How do you know?

average · Post by **average** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:26 am

Dave Toast truth has no place to exist constantly. It is another mental construct, which is just as transient and empty as sticks and stones, beauty, and love and the idea of false.
The only "Nature" truth has is No-Nature; just like everything else, empty, transient, dependent, lacking.

And it makes no difference how many times a statement is true, or that its true in all possible worlds. Or that whenever it is observed it is necessarily true.

It makes no difference, because all possible worlds will end, and all possible observers will end. And thus the conditions of the statement being ture are changed, and its value of being true is gone.
This doesn't mean true statements will become false - it means they eventually will have no truth value at all, neither true nor false.

There is nothing constant to grasp onto, not even truths.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:45 am

average wrote:... truth has no place to exist constantly. It is another mental construct, which is just as transient and empty as sticks and stones, beauty, and love and the idea of false.

A mental construct as opposed to what other kind of constructs? And if no other kind of construct exists, or this construct has no relation to anything we know, what is there non-absolute about the experience of 'construct' itself?

True and False don't float around in some vacuum in nature existing constantly. They are just expressions of thought, constructs we think about, propositions, ideas --- these things come and go.

Sure. What not?

The only "Nature" truth has is No-Nature; just like everything else, empty, transient, dependent, lacking.

If really everything has No-Nature, then you just declared an absolute! It doesn't stand in relation to something that has nature, or is not empty, unless in appearance. If you don't want to call it truth, then don't call it that way.

There is nothing constant to grasp onto, not even truths.

The moment you realize this is so, you've found at least something absolute, because it doesn't allow for something constant to grasp onto in any possible circumstance. The moment someone can relate to this absolute through deep understanding and experience, one could speak of absolute truth - a relation to an absolute. the subjectivity of the experience will result in different expressions of it: wisdom.

average · Post by **average** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:51 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If really everything has No-Nature, then you just declared an absolute! It doesn't stand in relation to something that has nature, or is not empty, unless in appearance. If you don't want to call it truth, then don't call it that way.

&

The moment you realize this is so, you've found at least something absolute,

Yes yes, a good observation but not complete. In what sense is it absolute? In no sense at all.
Its another idea. A sentence, a statement. How can any of these things be absolute?
WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? I WANT SOME!!!!

All my statements will be destroyed somehow, they will change, the text will be gone, the statement erased, the meanings broken and misinterpreted, the idea will be forgotten then lost. The world will be lost, the observer will be gone, that which the truth refers to will change and end, and then it will have no truth value at all.

When I say all things are subject to change, are empty, lacking and dependent. I mean it. Even this sentence, and its meaning.

The idea that things have no nature, that there is no absolute truth. Is true.
But will not be true forever. Because it will not endure long enough to enjoy such a lofty position.

Then you could say, but that which it points to is the truth, not the statement itself or its linguistic meaning. And that thing, or nature, or whatever is absolute.

And in that case I will agree, only the vague undefined is absolute. Which is to say, nothing is absolute.

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:31 am

skipair wrote:
Dave Toast wrote:We could all die out tomorrow in a cataclysm and the Earth might recover to spawn conscious life again. They would conceive truth in the very same way, by the very same nature.
How do you know?

Because it is inherent in the nature of consciousness.

average · Post by **average** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:15 am

lol ^

skipair · Post by **skipair** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:07 am

DT: We could all die out tomorrow in a cataclysm and the Earth might recover to spawn conscious life again. They would conceive truth in the very same way, by the very same nature.

S: How do you know?

DT: Because it is inherent in the nature of consciousness.

Fair enough. What your basically saying, though, is "its true because its true", or "thats just how it is".

How do you know specifically this is true?

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:51 am

That's not really what I'm saying at all skipair. Please see here for a basic outline of my conception of consciousness and why truth is fundamental to its very nature:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3336&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... =25#p52175

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:01 pm

average wrote:Dave Toast truth has no place to exist constantly. It is another mental construct, which is just as transient and empty as sticks and stones, beauty, and love and the idea of false.

Transient eh!

You mean it's transient in nature? And is its transient nature transient in nature?

The only "Nature" truth has is No-Nature; just like everything else, empty, transient, dependent, lacking.

What ridiculous nihilistic nonsense. No-nature is not the ONLY nature anything has. Look around you and show me some no-nature - deny all experience. Things are only things by merit of their nature.

And it makes no difference how many times a statement is true, or that its true in all possible worlds. Or that whenever it is observed it is necessarily true.

It makes no difference, because all possible worlds will end, and all possible observers will end. And thus the conditions of the statement being ture are changed, and its value of being true is gone.

I see you've changed your mind about the nature of consciousness then. A few short weeks ago you claimed that consciousness has no limits, beginnings or ends. Obviously this doesn't tally with what you've said above.

More pertinently, the elegant truth you are trying to state is that existence is contingent upon experience. Again, this doesn't tally with your previously stated conception of consciousness. You make it very hard to form a consistent picture of your world view. But it's good that you acknowledge these things now - the existence of truth or indeed anything is contingent upon experience. However this does not mean that truth cannot be absolute, simply on the grounds that there might not be any consciousness around to experience it, as absoluteness does not and cannot refer to somehow being supernaturally beyond contingency upon experience.

Since the only existence anything can have is contingent upon experience, it then follows that the only existence absoluteness can have is contingent upon experience. There is no other sense for truth to exist in, nor for the absoluteness of said truth to exist in.

As to your assertions which are tantamount to the end of causality, and everything this entails (like a tacitly implied first cause), on what do you base this certainty?

This doesn't mean true statements will become false - it means they eventually will have no truth value at all, neither true nor false.

Not at all, that makes no sense whatsoever. It means that nothing would exist, including true statements

There is nothing constant to grasp onto, not even truths.

Youâ€™re denying experience again. There are loads of things to grasp on to, knives and forks, money, memories, nettles, badly formulated world views, and truths; they donâ€™t need to be somehow inherently constant in order to grasp onto them (just ask yourself what constancy is â€“ might it be a function of time and might time be a function of experience? There is no such thing as this constancy-without-experience which you insist constancy must be in order to be truly constant). Itâ€™s just that itâ€™s better not to emotionally grasp onto things as though things (like the self) were anything other than completely lacking in inherent existence. Thatâ€™s what grasping is about.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

That sounds eerily familiar.

The absoluteness of truth has no inherent existence and you cannot sensibly insist it has this impossible quality of existing inherently in order to truly exist. This is, quite clearly, self-contradictory. On the one hand you imply the fact that existence is non-inherent and contingent upon experience. But clearly you haven't truly absorbed this fact as then you try to make out that things like truth and absoluteness must exist inherently in order to be truly true and absolute. That is just plain crazy.

skipair · Post by **skipair** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:22 pm

Mr. Toast, I meant nothing philsophical about that, just that I hadn't seen a real explantion yet. Thanks for the link.

DT wrote:Sooner or later this consciousness reaches the point where it is sophisticated enough to contemplate its place in the universe and the fact that there is a rather obvious and seemingly final limit to its continuation.

But consciousness will continue to evolve and change too in humans as it has always done. I don't see a reason yet that another intelligent species would follow along the same evolutionary lines or "come to rest" in similar places as we might. The causal consequences in their evolution would be different from our own. And while your example of A or B or C may (debately) be the foundation of our minds, how do you know they wouldn't run a different system?

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:38 pm

It's all there in what I said mate. Truth is fundamental to consciousness. There can be no consciousness without truth.

divine focus · Post by **divine focus** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:10 pm

I would say consciousness is fundamental to truth.

Dave Toast wrote:
average wrote:
The only "Nature" truth has is No-Nature; just like everything else, empty, transient, dependent, lacking.
What ridiculous nihilistic nonsense. No-nature is not the ONLY nature anything has. Look around you and show me some no-nature - deny all experience. Things are only things by merit of their nature.

What average is saying is that the abstract representations we have of things aren't those things. The chair you're sitting in isn't a concept, but the concept is useful.

Imadrongo · Post by **Imadrongo** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:21 pm

skipair wrote:
DT: We could all die out tomorrow in a cataclysm and the Earth might recover to spawn conscious life again. They would conceive truth in the very same way, by the very same nature.

S: How do you know?

DT: Because it is inherent in the nature of consciousness.
Fair enough. What your basically saying, though, is "its true because its true", or "thats just how it is".

How do you know specifically this is true?

It's inherent in the definition of "truth". :)

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:20 pm

Neil,

It's inherent in the definition of "truth".

Define truth, please.

Dave Toast · Post by **Dave Toast** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:49 pm

divine focus wrote:I would say consciousness is fundamental to truth.

In what sense do you mean fundamental and how so?

What average is saying is that the abstract representations we have of things aren't those things. The chair you're sitting in isn't a concept, but the concept is useful.

Everything is a concept. This is the only thingness there is. Without the conception of the thing, the thing does not exist and therefore has no thingness.

GENIUS FORUMS

Absolute truth

Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth

Re: Absolute truth