GENIUS FORUMS

I am thinking about certain ideas that some people on this forum hold to be absolute, timeless, that is to say...permanent and always true.

Some of the ones I hear quite often, are the typical :

1. all things are transient and subject to change
2. all things lack inherent existance
3. all things exist conditionally, or causally?

I was wondering if anyone can provide strict dialectical reasoning to explain and support these claims, without appealing to empirical devices and examples, as well as blind faith or claims of them being self-evident.

If there are more, can you please add them to the list, and also doesn't the very first "truth" contradict the very notion of an absolute permanent truth? The truth value of a concept is a thing of some sort, and if all things are subject to change, then at some point in time the truth value of absolute-concepts will necessarily have to change, right?

Those three are all derived from the same absolute truth, which I express thus: "there is no change without a cause".

I accept this as a maxim because the sole alternative belief results in an unthinkable world, not because the alternative is impossible.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Those three are all derived from the same absolute truth, which I express thus: "there is no change without a cause".

I accept this as a maxim because the sole alternative belief results in an unthinkable world, not because the alternative is impossible.

Your maxim doesn't include the idea that all things eventually change, and are impermanent.

And what makes you believe there is only one alternative and that alternative is an unthinkable world? This doesn't sound like a good foundation for your idea, it just shows that you are mentally incapable of analyzing any alternatives, which is simply your own fault.

Your maxim doesn't include the idea that all things eventually change, and are impermanent.

I said all three were derived from it. They also require a definition of "things". If you would be so kind as to provide a definition of the word "thing", I highly doubt it would be difficult to show you how to apply the maxim to the definition, and hence arrive at the results.

And what makes you believe there is only one alternative and that alternative is an unthinkable world?

The only alternative is that the maxim is false, based on how logic works, in which case there can be changes without causes. It may be weakness on the part of my intelligence that I can't see any reason to take that option seriously. If you honestly believe that there is a way to make a world with uncaused changes intelligible, please elaborate.

Otherwise, you are not providing an alternative, only an empty insult.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I said all three were derived from it.

When I said your maxim doesn't include the first principle, I meant to say that the first principle is not derived from it. How do you derive "all things are transient/impermanent", the first principle, from "there is no change without a cause" ?

One is referring to how things are (impermanent), while the other refers to the function of change - and that it is causal.

Let me simplify it a bit, one is saying "all things are black".
You are saying "there is no black thing without a cause"....

The only alternative is that the maxim is false, based on how logic works, in which case there can be changes without causes.

What system of logic are you using, and what is its foundation?
Because you didn't use any logic to support your "maxim" you just said you are mentally incapable of thinking up an alternative.

It may be weakness on the part of my intelligence that I can't see any reason to take that option seriously. If you honestly believe that there is a way to make a world with uncaused changes intelligible, please elaborate.

Cause and effect is a process we imagine when we experience the sensory world. There is no logical basis for causality. It belongs to metaphysics.
Change, again is in the same category.

Asking me to come up with a world without cause and effect would be like asking me to come up with a world lacking trees. I can imagine it, I can imagine a world with no causes, just effects(changes). Or a static one, where there is no change. I'm not sure why you can't. And even if you can't, that shouldn't be your reason for accepting your previous view.

And this isn't really the issue, anything that relates to some sort of perceivable or sensory world of 'things' isn't gonna be absolute. Its just gonna be another notion in the empirical category, the category science and religion like to deal with.

Otherwise, you are not providing an alternative, only an empty insult.

I'm not interested in insulting anyone.

When I said your maxim doesn't include the first principle, I meant to say that the first principle is not derived from it. How do you derive "all things are transient/impermanent", the first principle, from "there is no change without a cause" ?

One is referring to how things are (impermanent), while the other refers to the function of change - and that it is causal.

Impermanance is the word for something that changes.
If no change implies no cause, then a cause implies change.
Therefore, if all things have a cause, then all things are impermanent.

I asked you to define things, so as to clearly show how all things are necessarily caused (by definition); once that is established, it requires only the maxim to establish that all things must also be impermanent.

What system of logic are you using, and what is its foundation?

Binary, Aristotelian, logic. A proposition must be either true or false. It is all that is necessary for this explanation. I see no reason to use anything more complicated.

Because you didn't use any logic to support your "maxim" you just said you are mentally incapable of thinking up an alternative.

That wasn't the reason I said I was mentally incapable of thinking of the alternative. I said there is one and only one alternative to "all changes have a cause", and the world it implies is unintelligible. I don't mean unintelligible for me. I mean unintelligible... period. By definition. It is an irrational world, one that has no order whatsoever.

I am confident that you cannot actually conceive of such a world in anything more than an academic way. And, thus conceived, you will be able to do nothing more than say "this world is unpredictable in every sense of the word."

Asking me to come up with a world without cause and effect would be like asking me to come up with a world lacking trees.

This is a false analogy.

I can imagine it, I can imagine a world with no causes, just effects(changes). Or a static one, where there is no change. I'm not sure why you can't. And even if you can't, that shouldn't be your reason for accepting your previous view.

I am quite sure you are lying, and have not actually come up with a world with no causes. Saying that you can is a far cry from actually doing it.

I would say that a better analogy than the one you used involves cartesian doubt: if you don't believe that you can doubt, you have performed an absurdity.

And this isn't really the issue, anything that relates to some sort of perceivable or sensory world of 'things' isn't gonna be absolute. Its just gonna be another notion in the empirical category, the category science and religion like to deal with.

I have not been resorting to empiricism. I am awaiting your definition of "things", in fact, which makes this approach the opposite of the empirical one. By the way, I believe that if you had a clear and correct definition of "things", I am quite sure you would have very little to argue against. It follows analytically, from only a scarse few definitions and the bare minimum of intuitive maxims.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

I asked you to define things, so as to clearly show how all things are necessarily caused (by definition); once that is established, it requires only the maxim to establish that all things must also be impermanent.

Theres no reason for me to define "things".

I'm interested in these notions of absolute truth I keep hearing on this forum. Its up to the people who subscribe to them, to define their own terms, not me.

Binary, Aristotelian, logic. A proposition must be either true or false.

Thats a horribly limited system of logic. It is riddled with internal paradoxes and contradictions.

Not only that, you haven't demonstrated how you deduce your "maxim" through any sort of logical derivation...you just you know..can't imagine the opposite.

That wasn't the reason I said I was mentally incapable of thinking of the alternative. I said there is one and only one alternative to "all changes have a cause", and the world it implies is unintelligible. I don't mean unintelligible for me. I mean unintelligible... period. By definition. It is an irrational world, one that has no order whatsoever.

So its unintelligible to everyone, not just you. Another absolute-universal claim. Care to back it up, or is it true because you can't imagine its opposite?

I am confident that you cannot actually conceive of such a world in anything more than an academic way. And, thus conceived, you will be able to do nothing more than say "this world is unpredictable in every sense of the word."

I already have. I'm sorry you can't. And this is irrelevant anyway.

This is a false analogy.

Its a fine analogy. Both change and causality are appearances that operate in the sensory world, we imagine causality and perceive change via our senses. The same way we perceive trees, and then label them and have general ideas about them.

I have not been resorting to empiricism. I am awaiting your definition of "things", in fact, which makes this approach the opposite of the empirical one. By the way, I believe that if you had a clear and correct definition of "things", I am quite sure you would have very little to argue against. It follows analytically, from only a scarse few definitions and the bare minimum of intuitive maxims.

Its not up to me to define "things". I don't subscribe to those universal statements.

hades,

Theres no reason for me to define "things".

I'm interested in these notions of absolute truth I keep hearing on this forum. Its up to the people who subscribe to them, to define their own terms, not me.

It is ultimately up to you to know at what point your understanding fails. This entire conversation would have been unnecessary had you initially checked if you knew what all the terms meant.

This can go on forever. I'm not going to hold your hand and define one of the most elementary philosophic concepts, when I know your problem is the fact that you didn't define it earlier.

Thats a horribly limited system of logic. It is riddled with internal paradoxes and contradictions.

It's perfectly fine for all but the most esoteric riddles. There's no reason to use an overly complicated logical system when you're dealing with definitions and basic propositions. Aristotelian logic is still taught in schools, because it is still valid in the majority of cases.

Not only that, you haven't demonstrated how you deduce your "maxim" through any sort of logical derivation...you just you know..can't imagine the opposite.

I hope you are aware that a maxim is, by definition, not something that is deduced through logical derivation. Maxims are the building blocks. It is, rather, the impossibility of the alternative that makes a maxim sound.

So its unintelligible to everyone, not just you. Another absolute-universal claim. Care to back it up, or is it true because you can't imagine its opposite?

I have backed it up by saying that it is impossible for you to provide an alternative. You haven't provided an alternative.

Its a fine analogy. Both change and causality are appearances that operate in the sensory world, we imagine causality and perceive change via our senses. The same way we perceive trees, and then label them and have general ideas about them.

Causality is a process. Trees are objects. They are not comparable, except with the most careful analogies.

Its not up to me to define "things". I don't subscribe to those universal statements.

Okay, fine. It's not up to you to determine for yourself how reality works. Have a fun time in samsara.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:


I have backed it up by saying that it is impossible for you to provide an alternative. You haven't provided an alternative.

I have, you don't accept it. Thats a different matter.
You can't imagine a world without trees. Not my fault.

Causality is a process. Trees are objects. They are not comparable, except with the most careful analogies.

They are comparable. Causality, and trees, their existence is derived from sensory or perceivable phenomena.
One is a process, the other is an object? Hardly.
A tree is another sort of "process". Its not a static entity. Its growing and decaying. Change.
You see? Change, and causality are empirical phenomena, hardly relevant to absolute truth.

Oh, if you don't like trees, then how about sex? Maybe its easier for you to think about sex as a process I guess...

Okay, fine. It's not up to you to determine for yourself how reality works. Have a fun time in samsara.

What is samsara?

Don't worry about me, I try to discover reality, as opposed to fabricating my own version of it using vague misguided concepts.

From the Tao Te Ching, verse fourteen:

"Look, it cannot be seen- it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard- it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held- it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

"From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

"Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.

"Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao."

Absolute truths are fingers, pointing to Ultimate Reality. The fingers are all on the same hand, and are of the same flesh and blood. The above verse is about Ultimate Reality and perception of it. Absolute truths are the eternal signposts announcing the path, being on the same path they share the same root and in one Absolute truth we find all Absolute truths reflected.

For instance: "All things lack inherent existence," is another way of saying "All things are transient and subject to change," or "all things exist causally." Any one of these truths precipitates the other. The link between these is causality. All things lack inherent existence because they are but momentary expressions of the causal process, and so all things exist causally.

Bryan McGilly wrote:
For instance: "All things lack inherent existence," is another way of saying "All things are transient and subject to change," or "all things exist causally." Any one of these truths precipitates the other. The link between these is causality. All things lack inherent existence because they are but momentary expressions of the causal process, and so all things exist causally.

Things, change and causality, are part of the phenomenal world.
They are like cars, birth, and gravity.

They belong to science, or metaphysics.

So to reason about them requires empirical knowledge. In which case we can't derive absolute principles from them.

Also like I said before, the notion that : all things are impermanent, changing,transient etc...is self-defeating.

If it were true, then that means at some point in time its truth-value must necessarily change, and to change would mean to turn untrue. So a statement like that by its very nature predicts its own relativity and impermanence!

And if we look at the other principles, we find that they actually destroy themselves as well.

All things are caused / All things lack inherent existence. Well this would mean that every principle or "truth" (including this one) has various causes that give rise to it. So those principles rely on certain conditions. And those conditions rely on other conditions and causes, and so forth. And what do we have at the end? An infinite regress, and an infinite subset of conditions that your "fundamental principle" relies on. Which makes it not very "fundamental" at all...

That something is part of the phenomenal world does not preclude the possibility of gleaning absolute truth from it. That is foolish, as all experience involves one form or another of the phenomenal world, be it your body, the thoughts in your brain, a cup of coffee or the very object of your sense perceptions.

It comes down to how one reasons about the world, one may choose to reason inductively, through the empirical model of observation and calculation, or one may reason deductively, through applying reason directly to the things experienced. The former involves probabilities and flaws, whereas the latter relies upon conclusions inferred from particulars that necessarily follows from the universal. For instance, if I define a thing as that which has a beginning and an end, than it automatically follows that anything encountered which has a beginning and an end is a thing. I am a little rusty on my logic, which I need to bone up on, but the point I am trying to convey is that just because something is of the world does not limit our options in reasoning about them.

Bryan McGilly wrote:That something is part of the phenomenal world does not preclude the possibility of gleaning absolute truth from it. That is foolish, as all experience involves one form or another of the phenomenal world, be it your body, the thoughts in your brain, a cup of coffee or the very object of your sense perceptions.

Then we must forfeit any claims to having absolute knowledge if we rely on our experiences and senses as support.
*refer to the problems of empiricism and personal-experience

It comes down to how one reasons about the world, one may choose to reason inductively, through the empirical model of observation and calculation, or one may reason deductively, through applying reason directly to the things experienced. The former involves probabilities and flaws, whereas the latter relies upon conclusions inferred from particulars that necessarily follows from the universal. For instance, if I define a thing as that which has a beginning and an end, than it automatically follows that anything encountered which has a beginning and an end is a thing. I am a little rusty on my logic, which I need to bone up on, but the point I am trying to convey is that just because something is of the world does not limit our options in reasoning about them.

Your reason is still based on your experience of the phenomenal world, beginning and end, are spacial concepts you conceived of through sensation. Anything you "encounter" and put into that category is again, another thing sensed or perceived in which case it is uncertain and not absolute.

hades wrote:Then we must forfeit any claims to having absolute knowledge if we rely on our experiences and senses as support. *refer to the problems of empiricism and personal-experience

Not true if we rely upon deductive reasoning. If we rely upon empiricism to gain knowledge, than yes- but that cannot be considered absolute knowledge. I observe a thing, a 'thing' defined as something that has a beginning and an end, be it spatially, temporally, or causally. I assume you mean to say that the very act of observing is empirical? That is incorrect. How I go about arriving at conclusions from the moment of perception will determine how flawed that information is.

Getting back to the thing I observe. Let's say I define Ultimate Reality as the Totality of all there is. Having done so, I can deduce that the thing I am observing is not the Totality as it is finite, it does not extend infinitely. Ergo, any thing is not Ultimate Reality. Now, if I observe that 99 times out of 100 this thing floats up into space when released, I can say with reasonable probability that this thing will float up into space when I release it from my grasp.

Through observing a phenomenal object, I was able to glean Absolute knowledge, namely: by defining a thing as that which has some kind of beginning or end, I absolutely know that Ultimate Reality is not a thing as by definition it is infinite.

Your reason is still based on your experience of the phenomenal world, beginning and end, are spacial concepts you conceived of through sensation. Anything you "encounter" and put into that category is again, another thing sensed or perceived in which case it is uncertain and not absolute.

Your very argument is based upon your experience of the world (i.e. your computer, the words I typed that ended up on your screen...etc.), by your reasoning you cannot arrive at absolute knowledge through our conversation. Yet this is a claim to a form of absolute knowledge: All phenomenally observed phenomena cannot yield absolute knowledge is inherently self-contradicting. You are making the common fallacy of making an absolute claim that absolute claims cannot be had from phenomena.

hades,

I have, you don't accept it. Thats a different matter.

I don't accept it because you didn't provide an acceptable answer. You gave a false analogy. Regardless, even were your analogy appropriate, analogies are not in the domain of "strict dialectical reasoning" (a strange request in an non-academic forum like this one) -- they never prove anything.

Furthermore, your claim that you can imagine something that I do not believe comprehensible was not backed up with any evidence -- analytical, empirical, or otherwise -- that you had actually imagined such a thing, and its real consequences. I have said quite specifically that a non-causal universe would be incomprehensible. There simply is no possibility of structure in such a universe. Without structure, there could be no way to make any coherent, predictable model of the universe at any level -- hence, no logic could ever be accurate -- hence, the universe would be totally incomprehensible.

I have no reason to accept your answer.

You can't imagine a world without trees. Not my fault.

A world without trees is of an entirely different order than a world without causality. Sorry, you will need a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

(Keep in mind that I read Hume and found his attempt shoddy.)

They are comparable. Causality, and trees, their existence is derived from sensory or perceivable phenomena.

Causality does not exist in the same way that a tree exists. Here's a pair of sentences that should shock and befuddle you, but you will more likely ignore:

A tree is caused to exist.
A cause is not treed to exist.

What is samsara?

Samsara is ignorance of reality.

Don't worry about me, I try to discover reality, as opposed to fabricating my own version of it using vague misguided concepts.

That's very good. I have discovered reality, so I'm sure that I can help you discover it.

A tree is an appearance that you perceive, its a process of various conditions that is changing continuously.

Causality is the same, you describe it in relation to sense-objects, ideas, and things, and how they are connected.

Its a way of describing the empirical world. So in no way does it transcend the relative world that science and religion deal with...of cars and trains and gravity...and trees.

Its like evolution, or sex, or running, or working, a word we use to connect certain events together.
Alcohol caused his intoxication. Etc.... The tree caused the land-slide....

Talk to me about causality without appealing to sense-perception or ideas derived from past sense experience or worldly phenomena...can you?

Is it really purely logical, or actually a simple empirical observation.

And I already deconstructed the main ideas about absolutes, they are incoherent in themselves...

--->

like I said before, the notion that : all things are impermanent, changing,transient etc...is self-defeating.

If it were true, then that means at some point in time its truth-value must necessarily change, and to change would mean to turn untrue. So a statement like that by its very nature predicts its own relativity and impermanence!

This is the same sort of error other dogmatic ways of thinking suffer from, like: "we can NEVER know anything for certain".
Its self-defeating, it implicitly holds a sense of certainty and universality, while claiming that such things are impossible!

And if we look at the other principles, we find that they actually destroy themselves as well.

All things are caused / All things lack inherent existence. Well this would mean that every principle or "truth" (including this one) has various causes that give rise to it. So those principles rely on certain conditions. And those conditions rely on other conditions and causes, and so forth. And what do we have at the end? An infinite regress, and an infinite subset of conditions that your "fundamental principle" relies on. Which makes it not very "fundamental" at all...and rather incoherent.

Hades, you are defining Absolute truth as a thing. Tell me, where does it begin and where does it end?

Answer: There is no answer as it is an unaskable question- it is an unaskable question because Absolute truth is eternally true and beyond the realm of things.

hades wrote:like I said before, the notion that : all things are impermanent, changing,transient etc...is self-defeating.

If it were true, then that means at some point in time its truth-value must necessarily change, and to change would mean to turn untrue. So a statement like that by its very nature predicts its own relativity and impermanence!

"All things are impermanent" is a tautological statement, possessed of internal and external integrity. Eternal and universally applicable, true in and of itself.

This is the same sort of error other dogmatic ways of thinking suffer from, like: "we can NEVER know anything for certain".
Its self-defeating, it implicitly holds a sense of certainty and universality, while claiming that such things are impossible!

If someone says we can never know anything for certain, that is self-contradictory. However, this is an isolated instance because it is the only Absolute truth listed so far where the premise contradicts the argument.

"All things are impermanent," that has internal and external integrity.

"There are no Absolute truths," states an Absolute truth that contradicts the argument that there are no Absolute truths!

And if we look at the other principles, we find that they actually destroy themselves as well. All things are caused / All things lack inherent existence. Well this would mean that every principle or "truth" (including this one) has various causes that give rise to it. So those principles rely on certain conditions. And those conditions rely on other conditions and causes, and so forth. And what do we have at the end? An infinite regress, and an infinite subset of conditions that your "fundamental principle" relies on. Which makes it not very "fundamental" at all...and rather incoherent.

The truth is not caused, it is revealed. In the sense that one may arrive at it, or write it down, in that sense it may appear as a thing, but a thing it is not. An Absolute truth is true in and of itself, ab solus. One may be caused to reveal truth, or one may be caused not to. One may be caused to reason and arrive at the truth, or one may be caused not to.

Absolute truth is not created as is an automobile; it is axiomatic, self-evident and applicable in all places and at all times. Because the causal conditions that come together so as to promote in one the valuing of reason so that they arrive at truth, and choose to write it down on a piece of paper does not make it as causally conditioned as the paper that bears it, nor as conditioned as the voice that speaks it.


note: edited opening sentence.

"All things are impermanent" is a tautological statement, possessed of internal and external integrity. Eternal and universally applicable, true in and of itself.

Apply it to itself, and it falls apart.

All things are impermanent <--- including the truth value of that statement. Including the truth of any statement, principle, or idea....

If you subscribe to that idea, then everything is impermanent which means, nothing is absolute. So there can't be any absolute statements, so the idea itself can't be true by virtue of its own meaning.

So its contradictory. It must be thrown out because it defeats itself.

Just like "We can never know anything for certain" falls apart when you apply its meaning, to itself.


Now about Causation. We can never know for certain if A caused B in the physical world, because we are appealing to our senses somehow, and those are naturally uncertain.
So if we can never prove the causation between any events with certainty, what grounds do we have to assume that causation actually exists? Beyond the physical world, what is causation, and what does it do? Its an incoherent idea.
Useful for the scientists, lawyers, artists and carpenters...but for the philosopher in search of real wisdom? Its a worthless artifact.


What else is there, everything lacks inherent existence?
This means everything requires certain conditions in order to exist. Again this relates to the physical world where things "exist"...Where things are perceivable, and sensational, in the phenomenal world. This is just another way of saying everything is caused by something else, or is dependent on something else.
This isn't wisdom, this is another description of a possible physical world we all play in, this is the scientist's realm, the toy maker's realm, the carpenter's realm and the lawyer's realm....

All things lack inherent existence <-- including the truth of that statement. It must rely on more fundamental truths.

What are they? This forum doesn't have them.

hades,

Talk to me about causality without appealing to sense-perception or ideas derived from past sense experience or worldly phenomena...can you?

I haven't talked about it using sense experience at all thus far. In fact, I'm talking using only definitions, maxims, and logical necessities. I really can't see what more you want me to do. Do you want me to start appealing to sense perception so you can go "hah! I caught you!" ?

Is it really purely logical, or actually a simple empirical observation.

There is no reason for me to answer this question. You won't consider the answer I want to give as a genuine possibility; even were I to offer the complete proof, at this point in the debate your ego would require you to ignore it.

I honestly don't think you'd understand a purely logical proof if it smacked you three times across the face.

And I already deconstructed the main ideas about absolutes, they are incoherent in themselves...

If you already did this, your arguments would be far more convincing.

like I said before, the notion that : all things are impermanent, changing,transient etc...is self-defeating.

If it were true, then that means at some point in time its truth-value must necessarily change, and to change would mean to turn untrue. So a statement like that by its very nature predicts its own relativity and impermanence!

I told you to define the word "thing". Go ahead, define it. You will see that what you just said is wrong. (Hint: truth-values are not things.)

This is the same sort of error other dogmatic ways of thinking suffer from, like: "we can NEVER know anything for certain".
Its self-defeating, it implicitly holds a sense of certainty and universality, while claiming that such things are impossible!

That example is self-defeating, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone in this forum who does not agree with you on that point. However, it is not the same as the others; and is, in fact, a good example of why absolute truths must exist.

It is dissimilar from the earlier examples because it denies absolute truth while talking absolutely, while the others do not, in any way, deny absolute truth.

All things are caused / All things lack inherent existence. Well this would mean that every principle or "truth" (including this one) has various causes that give rise to it.

Define the word "thing" and get back to me.

...and while you're at it, define the word "principle", since you just added that term to support your argument, implicitly suggesting both that a principle is a type of thing, and that you already know what a thing is.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

There is no reason for me to answer this question. You won't consider the answer I want to give as a genuine possibility; even were I to offer the complete proof, at this point in the debate your ego would require you to ignore it.

You can't give me an answer because Causality can't be defined purely by logic, or coherently without appealing to particulars, things, and temporality, all aspects of a phenomenal empirical world. It belongs to METAPHYSICS, it belongs to speculation, it belongs to the Sciences and other relative practices that DESCRIBE the empirical world tentatively.

You even asked me to imagine a "world" without it... No different than a physicist who can't imagine a possible world without gravity!
This directly makes it into a describer of "worlds", its an empirical observation...one that is limiting your thought.

You know it. I understand.

I told you to define the word "thing". Go ahead, define it. You will see that what you just said is wrong. (Hint: truth-values are not things.)

This doesn't address the main problem, you are dodging the issue: the idea of everything being impermanent and inherently empty renders its own validity, its own truth impermanent and inherently empty!

JUST LIKE HOW the statement "we can't know anything for certain" RENDERS its own truth uncertain - thereby creating a contradiction!

Some could say well that idea isn't a 'thing', it is excluded from its own meaning, but this is utterly baseless, they are attached to their dogma so much, that they give it special treatment, they don't want to think of all the implications the meaning produces!

As for your definition of a thing, I'm sure you know what I mean, but you want to play semantics and avoid the real issue.

Thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality, that is or may become an object of thought. (this includes values, such as True and False)

Principles, ideas, including truth-values are THINGS. They are not nothing. We conceive of them.
True and False are things, yes they are conceptual, but nonetheless they exist as things....
I think you can't comprehend this due to your limited imaginary skills, like how you can't imagine a world without trees or causation, pity.

That example is self-defeating, and you will be hard-pressed to find someone in this forum who does not agree with you on that point. However, it is not the same as the others; and is, in fact, a good example of why absolute truths must exist.

It is dissimilar from the earlier examples because it denies absolute truth while talking absolutely, while the others do not, in any way, deny absolute truth.

1. Yes, absolute truths must exist.
2. Unfortunately they don't include any of the principles or ideas expressed in this forum.

Causation is not one of them, it belongs to metaphysics and science, things describing the empirical world.

Emptiness and Impermanence are self-defeating ideas that render themselves totally EMPTY and IMPERMANENT (whats so hard to understand? Just be honest with yourself and apply their meanings to themselves) if they are true, we get a contradiction, the same way we get a contradiction when we try and say "We may never know anything for certain"...

It works in all cases, but when you apply its meaning to itself, it falls apart. Maybe if I repeat this enough you will get it?

By my definition, anything we conceive falls into the category of a "thing". There are only 2 categories.
That which exists, mentally or phenomenally. someTHING
That which doesn't exist, mentally or phenomenally. noThing

All ideas are things, all principles are things, true and false are things, they are not nothing.

If you are intellectually honest, you would apply the meaning of these so called "absolute truths" to themselves, and you will find that internally they do not work, at all. They are self-defeating.

Causation, you haven't defined it, you haven't said how it works, you haven't told me what it is, and you know that if you try, you will have to appeal to the empirical world of things, dogs, ideas, trees, etc.

Causation is the principle whereby y follows necessarily from x, and where all y implies x. (Temporally: if y occurs, then x must happen; and if x occured, then y must have happened.)

x <-> y

If a thing exists, then that thing must have this exact relationship to another thing (or, at the very least, to the Totality). It's unavoidable.

Usually causality is expressed with the addition of a spatial or temporal element, but neither is actually necessary.

It belongs to METAPHYSICS, it belongs to speculation, it belongs to the sciences and other relative practices that DESCRIBE the empirical world.

What definition of "empirical" are you using whereby metaphysics is empirical?

...and since when was metaphysics a science? I thought Kant's attempt failed.

This doesn't address the main problem, you are dodging the issue: the idea of everything being impermanent and inherently empty renders its own validity, its own truth impermanent and inherently empty!

Everything is not impermanant. All things are, however.

You are being inconsistent with your words and grammar. It makes your point mercurial.

Thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality, that is or may become an object of thought. (this includes values, such as True and False)

Notice that even in this rather arbitrary definition, you had to add truth values as an afterthought.

The finite vessel that holds a value can be a thing, but truth is ultimately syncronized with the Infinite (being its perfect expression), so it is Infinite, and not a thing.

Principles, ideas, including truth-values are THINGS. They are not nothing. We conceive of them.

The alternative to a thing is not necessarily nothing, although nothing is an example of a concept that lacks thing-ness. The Totality, for instance, also is not a thing. But the Totality is not nothing.

True and False are things, yes they are conceptual, but nonetheless they exist as things....

Yes, they exist as things, but the truth itself is not a thing. It is Infinite.

1. Yes, absolute truths must exist.
2. Unfortunately they don't include any of the principles or ideas expressed in this forum.

This doesn't read like a proper deduction. Was it meant to be a bullet-point list?

If you want to tell me they are not things, you will have to give me a great explanation, a criteria of THING and Nothing, and why you believe these ideas are exempt from their own meanings, why do you give them special dogmatic treatment?

I believe I have answered this question in the above post.

Oh, and your example is flawed. You added this sometime while I was typing my post:

In which case the truth-value of any proposition becomes permanent, and thus everything should become STATIC, nothing that is true now, can change into being false later.

I am 22 years old. - must always true, otherwise the truth value of that statment will change.....So when I'm 23, what happens is that still true or false? In your world, it must be true..which is absurd.

It is true that you are 22 years old at this point in time. This will always be true. When you turn 23, it will still be true that you were 22 at this point in time. The truth never changes, because it is not a thing.

Ok, let me try to organize my thoughts here, see if you can help me.

Here are the two problems.

#1
According to the dogma : All things are impermanent.

Is the truth of a proposition permanent or impermanent?

Sounds to me like it says ALL THINGS are impermanent, including the truth of propositions.

In this case, all propositions work and so do our observations of the world.


My dog is alive, this is true now, but eventually it will become false.
George Bush is the president of America, true now, but this proposition will be false eventually.


Unfortunately if this is the case, then the truth of the proposition All things are impermanent must also be impermanent, by virtue of its meaning. And so it is self-defeating.


#2

Lets assume truth is not a thing, and is infinite, and it is exempt from the dogma of All things are impermanent

What does this mean? It makes the statement coherent in itself, because its truth isn't touched by the idea that every thing is impermanent.

But what happens to other propositions?

For example, I am 22 years old. This is true now, but in a year from now, its truth must be permanent so I will never age.
My dog is alive, this is true now, and must always be true, it can not turn false later on, so my dog is immortal.
George Bush is the president of America, true now, and will never become false, because the truth of a proposition is exempt from impermanence. So bush will always rule America.

Do you see the problems? I don't know if I can simplify them anymore. Either way you look at it, "all things are impermanent" dogma, dogma doesn't work.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: It is true that you are 22 years old at this point in time. This will always be true. When you turn 23, it will still be true that you were 22 at this point in time. The truth never changes, because it is not a thing.

This is inaccurate. If I am 23, and I say "I am 22 years old at this point in time", it is false!

If I am 22, and I say "I am 22 years old at this point in time" it is true!

So the truth of the proposition: I am 22 years old at this point in time: is relative, it is impermanent, it changes with time.

edit: ooo, nevermind I see what you're saying, if I were to specify which point in time, then that statement would always be true.

hades,
[edit: just caught your edit. i'll leave this here anyway. :)]

Sounds to me like it says ALL THINGS are impermanent, including the truth of propositions.

If the truth of a proposition were a thing, you would be correct. Again, I am well aware that the truth of this proposition rests entirely on what constitutes a thing: therefore, I emphasized that definition.

The definition used here is more along the lines of, "a bounded (finite) portion of the Totality". Since Truth is a perfect expression of the Totality, it is not bounded -- and hence, is not a thing. ...although any finite representation of Truth would be.

Unfortunately if this is the case, then the truth of the proposition All things are impermanent must also be impermanent, by virtue of its meaning. And so it is self-defeating.

...by virtue of an imprecise notion of the word "thing". Actually, it entirely depends on what you consider a thing to be... the usual complaint (once a person knows exactly what is being said) is that it's tautologically true... so obviously true that it's stupid and irrelevant.

But what happens to other propositions?

It depends if the proposition is absolutely true or not. What follows is you double-checking which truths can be absolute... for instance:

If I am 23, and I say "I am 22 years old at this point in time", it is false!

You answered your own question. It does not remain true: it is not an eternal truth.

You now can be certain that that proposition is not an absolute truth (which should not be surprising, because it requires empirical verification).

However, there will be a case when it is true, based on certain empirical assumptions (such as the duration of the orbit of our planet around a star and the count of completed orbits around the sun, relative to the date of your birth and time the statement is uttered); if all such observations are considered valid, then it would be a perfect expression of reality.

But I prefer sticking to non-empirical truths, since it's much easier to determine if they are eternal and absolute.