Is truth actually truth? Absolute truth is impossible.
If I say that I would never not tell the truth, would you believe me? Just because someone says they are telling the truth does not necessarily mean what they say is truth. "I never lie." is untrue, because there will always be someone who doesn't agree with you(Not to mention that white lie you told). When you tell the 'truth' it is more of a percentage of truth, rather than the whole truth. An example would be: Plants need soil to survive. Is that true? No, not completely. Rather it is about 90% true, because some plants grow in amongst rocks or in the sand. This discourse in its self is only a percentage of truth. If the world could all agree (on everything) there would be what I would call 'absolute truth'. This would be the climax of truth, a world that it based upon and is nothing, but truth. However, this is merely a fantasy. Disagreement leads to everything being only partially true, and over all I think that finding someone, or something that holds an absolute value of truth is impossible, unless you believe in the Christian God, who is supposedly 'perfect'.
Comments (68)
If so Idon't think objective reality is possible even if you include the concept of god.
God couldn't know what it was like to be a starving person in a poor part of the world, or know what it was like to be a rich person living in Beverly Hills...so he would just be an observer with his subjective reality in a similar way that other beings were.
So I would say that truth was always subjective and arrived at based upon person reference frames.
A set of abstract rules can be constructed to produce an absolute truth. How these abstract truths apply to experienced reality is another matter altogether, I’ll grant you that!
I disagree with your statement about God. If such a being exists, it would have infinite knowledge and intelligence. If this being were the creator of all things like the Judeo-Christian/Islamic Gods are credited as, then it seems to me that an understanding of how someone feels based on their experience should be easy for God to understand, as He (theoretically, at least) created the neurological systems that cause those feelings.
Yea but a starving person isn't God, so how could God understand that perspective?
I think where we're having a problem is in our definition of the word "understand". If what you're saying is that "understanding" occurs when one has had an equivalent experience to that of another, then you're right. My view on this is that one needn't NECESSARILY experience something in order to understand it. It should also be noted that we cannot hold a being of infinite power and knowledge like a God, to the same standard as human beings. As God would be maximally great, He could easily grasp things that we never could. It could also be fun to toy with the idea that if God is infinitely more knowledgeable than us, and we are at least somewhat capable of understanding feelings that we, personally never have had, then it follows that God is capable of understanding those feelings fully. I kinda made that up on the fly, but we should be understanding of what a tricky concept "infinity" can be, as well as how it plays a role in reality. In theory, at least.
To add to that ... “subjectivity” and “objectivity” have certain kinds of values of opposition depending upon the conext in which they are used. Language has a limit, because it’s limited.
There are different kinds of antonyms and “subject” and “object” don’t sit neatly in any particular place.
Here are some of the different types: https://medium.com/@hdi.prateek/what-are-the-different-types-of-antonyms-in-english-language-3a19db18504a
I think you're just re-affirming what I said, that experience is required to understand a feeling pertaining to that experience. Which is OK, I just disagree.
oh yea you can have some understanding of a feeling pertaining to an experience, but that doesn't really give you any certainty that you are right. I would say we can be fairly sure about our own feelings and experiences.....including for the starving person,...well more sure than someone who just tries to understand.
I don't think that God can possibly be wrong about anything because His knowledge is infinite. Logically, if God says that something is true and believes it, it therefore must be true. You and I are finite humans, so your logic fits perfectly with us. You can't draw false equivalency between God and Men and expect to reach a logically accurate conclusion to the nature of either.
2. If 1. is true, it is impossible that it is absolutely true.
3. 2. is absolutely true.
4. 1. is absolutely false.
God's knowledge could be infinite, but that wouldn't necessarily mean he knows everything..he could just know all the digits of the number pi.
I understand what you're saying, but in the case of God, He must be maximally great, else not be worthy of the title. He can, in no way, be limited in his ability. You gave an example of knowing all of the digits of pi. Because pi is an infinite decimal sequence, to know all of the digits is an example of knowledge that, when quantified, equals infinity. But to do this is just to show infinity in relative terms.
Suppose that I have an infinite number of coins, each labeled with a number starting at 1 going up infinitely. You take away all the coins labeled with odd numbers. Now we both have an infinite number of coins. Mine are labeled with even numbers, yours with odd.
NOW suppose that instead of the odd numbered coins, you take away all of the coins labeled a number greater than 3. Now you have an infinite number of evens and of odds. Even though in both cases you're left with an infinite number of coins, it can be argued that you have more in the second example because you have an infinite number of 2 different things. I reiterate: God's knowledge cannot be limited in any way. Period. Lest he not be a true God.
I don't like to ask this question, but suppose that God has thoughts, and exists in a kind of time sequence dimension.....does he know what he will think in his future?
I think the answer is that we just can't know the answer to this question, but it shows that our ideas about what God knows and doesn't know are all so limited to the human experience....
Time is relative to matter which is relative to space. God exists outside of space, as He must preexist that which He creates (which is a limitation of space, not God). So, if God exists outside of space and time, which He must if He created them, then they have no hold over Him. From His perspective, time is only meaningful in his interaction with us. There, he is inserting his presence into a point in time, from the perspective of man. But in his reality, time is utterly meaningless, there are no thoughts he's yet to have, unless he chooses not to have them. We're getting into pretty dicey territory here, as it's difficult to explain scientifically how something works non-scientifically but still realistically. Basically, we can't apply our own experiential knowledge to our understanding of God's intellectual ability. That must be done through hypothesis and other forms of philosophy.
P.S. In answer to your question, I'd say that a "God" that exists in a time sequence dimension is not an actual God. Like I said, the creator of time logically cannot be subject to time.
obviously I didn't mean out time dimension, but another sort of time-like sequence or order of thoughts...
Like I said, we can;t know what the answer would be, or even if the question is relevant, and like I said we are limited to the human experience.....so I would apply that to statements that you were making, about god having infinite knowledge etc...it's all guesswork really.
I agree. It's pretty much all speculation and I certainly wouldn't say that any of this shows whether God more plausibly exists or doesn't. I see this as just a fun thought exercise between colleagues. That said, you've been an excellent sparring partner! Cheers!
Quoting I like sushi
But who made those rules? 1+1=2 could also be 1+1=II. It is not always true, we could symbolize two with objects, or use another numerical language to show what we mean. Like I said, it is only ever a percentage of truth.
They are ABSTRACT rules. I stated quite clearly the difference between the real and the abstract in my post.
We cannot have an opinion about 1+1=2. Universally abstract terms are not the same as saying one apple and another apple making two apples.
Another way to think of this is to refer to Wittgenstein. If we’re playing a game of chess and you make an illegal move, then you’ve ceased to play chess ... obviously in life we’re neither sure if there are any set rules or whether we can come to understand them if there are. We can, and do, create any number of abstract rules that produce absolute answers.
It is by these abstract rules that we’ve come to explore the world and apply them as best as we can. Our application of these abstract rules is limit by our understanding of the universe and the technology with which we’re able to measure.
To repeat, 1+1=2 by the rules of arithmetic NOT as applied to dogs, cats or monkeys as they are not universal terms (cats, dogs and monkeys differ in both spacial and temporal positions in and of themselves).
Note: “universal” terms are always the same, whereas a “dog” can mean different dogs not the same dog. Terms like “and” and “five” are universal terms.
Truth/falsehood have to do with whether a proposition has a specific relation, such as correspondence, to the way the world is (facts).
Honesty/dishonesty have to do with whether someone is accurately reporting what they believe, what they feel, etc. If they're accurately reporting this, they're being honest.
If your neighbor believes that he's really Count Dracula, he's being honest with you when he tells you as much--"I'm really Count Dracula."
But most people are not going to think that it's true that he's Count Dracula. So honesty and truth are different.
You have good reasoning, this was definitely the kind of response I would have considered myself. Still, do we even have such thing as an absolute? Whether honesty or truth?
I'm a relativist in general, so . . .
Also, re a term like "absolute honesty," I'd want to even clarify just what that's supposed to amount to.
I would think it would be something that is honest to a point in which we could consider it a truth. Whether or not the truth in question is absolute, the honesty could become truth.
Example:
Sam: Hey, Buck! I believe that when I walk around without floating into space, it's called gravity.
Buck: Oh, really, how can you prove that?
Sam: I'm being honest, I swear! I can prove it by stating Newton's Law of Gravity.
Buck: Oh yeah! Well than, it must be true.
1 + 1 = 2
if x = 1
and
y = 1
then
1 + 1 = x + y
i hope this helps
If you have a proposition X and also propositions Y and ~Y then you can prove X is absolutely false if you can show:
X AND Y = false
X AND ~Y = false
Then by exhaustion of the probability space, we can absolutely conclude that X is false. Note that we have not used any axioms to prove that X is false so it is 'absolute knowledge'.
The actual process of proving X AND Y = false, X AND ~Y = false might introduce other axioms though so we might not end up with pure 'absolute knowledge'.
"If you have a proposition X and also propositions Y and ~Y then you can prove X is absolutely false if you can show:
X AND Y = false
X AND ~Y = false
Then by exhaustion of the probability space, we can absolutely conclude that X is false. Note that we have not used any axioms to prove that X is false so it is 'absolute knowledge'."
Makes sense to me, but i'm sure you know if you were in a control tower at an airport even though you are required to make good judgements, those judgements must be made quickly and fairly accurately in a short period of time, in other words out in public there are alot of variables.
yeah i agree with the exception that i believe having spiritual beliefs is important.
Something can be true, and believed. Something can be true, and yet not believed. Something can be false, and yet not believed. And something can be false, yet believed.
Truth is independent of belief.
What's the difference between it being absolutely true and true?
Nutn' really. It's not like it becomes less true without "absolutely".
Suppose I uttered "There was snow at the peak of Mount Everest the other day".
What, then, would it take for my utterance to hold?
Snow up there of course, regardless of what you or I may think.
Because there are only a finite number of things that can be known.
See how these arguments quickly become absurd.
But I am not sure if there is a point here, or just a misunderstanding.
Did you see Un's post?
What the fuck is "absolutely" doing here? It wasn't anywhere in the argument.
God only has to know all the digits of pi, for his knowledge to be infinite....there are many other things to know as well.
so... it's an assumption?
If we want to know about X, if we can show:
X & Y = false
X & ~Y = false
Then we know absolutely that X is false irrespective of the value of Y. So no premises/assumptions/axioms are introduced to establish the falsity of X.
If we can't ever know the truth, then how is it true that we know that? Is that not a truth that we know? Isn't that a contradiction? It seems to me that truth (and knowledge) need to be redefined.
Is knowledge the same as truth? If no, then what makes them different?
I think it's funny how you basically solved the question right there and everyone just keeps talking like you didn't say anything.
- All statements including 'Absolute truth is impossible' are unverifiable
or
- All statements apart from 'Absolute truth is impossible' are unverifiable
I think it probably is meant to mean the 2nd. In which case 2 does not follow from 1
The cleverness shows that the statement "there is no absolute truth" is self-contradictory.
1. there is no absolute truth apart from this statement
2. there is no absolute truth including this statement
So 2 is as you say self-contradictory. 1 is not contradictory.
1. Is the same as saying that there IS absolute truth.
- The statement 'there is no absolute truth apart from this statement' is absolutely true
- All other statements are not absolutely true
That seems the only way to make sense of it.
See my complaining counter thread.
- true!=false
- 1 + 1 = 2
- 'I think therefore I am'
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/271054
Contrast 'absolute truth' with other types of truth:
- Deductive truth. Depends on the truth of the underlying axioms. Is therefore not absolute truth
- Inductive truth. Depends on the reliability of the statistics. Not absolute truth.
So the qualifier 'absolute' is needed in some cases when talking of truth. I agree when it's used casually/inappropriately it can be redundant.
No it doesn't. Arguments are deductive or inductive, Their conclusions are either true or false.
Our knowledge can be certain or uncertain, but propositions are true or false. There is no difference between the truth that my pockets are empty. and the absolute truth that my pockets are empty.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes there is. You may know inductively that your pockets are empty (because you checked a second ago), but what if a tiny pixie has crept into your pocket since then? So 'my pockets are empty' is inductive knowledge whereas 'its absolutely true my pockets are empty' is claiming absolute knowledge about the contents of your pockets (which is impossible).
Quoting OpinionsMatter
The fact that someone says "I am telling the truth" does not entail that they are telling the truth.
The fact that we believe (or don't believe) that someone is telling the truth does not entail that they are (or are not) telling the truth.
People can lie, and people can utter falsehoods without lying. What is that supposed to tell me about "truth"?
How do we know the difference between lying and telling the truth, or between erroneous judgment and correct judgment? Such distinctions take a reliable concept of truth for granted. We compare the false to the true.
Quoting OpinionsMatter
The fact that someone agrees (or disagrees) with a statement does not entail that the statement is true (or false).
The truth of the assertion "I never lie" is not determined by the agreement or disagreement of other people. It is determined by the agreement or disagreement of the assertion with the facts involved in the assertion. It is determined by the fact of the matter: Does the speaker ever lie?
Quoting OpinionsMatter
I'll assume that your botany is correct: In that case, I should say the statement "Plants need soil to survive" is inaccurate and incomplete. If it means "All plants need soil to survive", then it is false. If it means "Some plants need soil to survive" then it is true.
If it means neither, then I suppose it is not a complete assertion. This is one sort of ambiguity that is ruled out of the act of asserting when we learn to speak in conformity with the conventions of predicate logic.
Quoting OpinionsMatter
It seems to me as though you are absolutely conflating the concept of truth and the concept of agreement.
Why do you say that disagreement leads to a statement being only partly true? How does disagreement about the truth of a statement reduce or impinge or otherwise offset the "truth" of that statement, on your view?
Quoting OpinionsMatter
I don't say that anything "is truth", only that well-formed assertions are true or false.
I agree there is a concept of truth, and perhaps that truth is essentially conceptual in nature -- like quantity and modality, for instance. Much as we use the concept of number to make correct or incorrect judgments about objective states of affairs concerning the number of objects that fall under a concept, so we use the concept of truth to make correct or incorrect judgments about the truth or falsity of statements. But to all appearances, numbers and truth don't exist or emerge in the world apart from their role in minds like ours and in the work of minds like ours.
It's not your pledge, it's not your belief, it's not the belief of others, that makes your assertion true or false. It's rather the facts that correspond or fail to correspond to your assertion. If you've even made an assertion: In some cases an utterance only seems to be an assertion, when on closer inspection it turns out to be nonsense or an incomplete idea.
One of the basic problems with a statement like "there is no absolute truth" (aside from it's self-referentially contradictory nature) is that it's denying logic, in which case you can't use logic to make sense of it. Since reason/logic are our only tools to make actual sense of the world/ideas, the conversation ends right there. Everything said after that is just running around in a maze that has no solution.
No. There is nothing between empty and not empty, and there is nothing between true and false. What is not 100% is certainty, but a pocket that is 99% empty is not at all an empty pocket.
'Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 inclusive'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Absolute denotes 100% certainty so it is a valid qualifier to use with 'truth'.
Yes Absolute refers to certainty...
Quoting Devans99
So it is not a valid qualifier of truth.
Our certainty can be more or less, and maybe absolute or maybe not , but it is certainty of truth that is or isn't absolute, not truth itself.
Quoting Devans99
Of course, we can make new rules and give new mearnings to terms. And in such terms, with such a logic, you can be right. But fuzzy logic is not the logic of our ordinary speech. If you want to talk in that way, then you have to do it consistently; I think you need to get your head around 2-valued logic before you tackle infinite valued.
[i]'absolute
adjective
very great or to the largest degree possible'[/i]
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolute
When we say 'absolutely true' we mean 'absolutely certain to be true'... it's just implicit that the qualifier absolute applies to 'certain to be true' rather than true on its own. It's just an abbreviation.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes it is. 99% of stuff we do in our everyday lives is based on induction (so therefore fuzzy rather than boolean logic) - should I cross the road? Did not get run down last time... induction. So when we use terms like absolute truth we are referring to the % inductive likelihood of something being true.
Absolute truth exists. Clouds bring the rain is an absolute truth. It is true as long as people watch the clouds waiting for the rain. That does not mean that it will rain. An absolute truth is what we can do. Dancing to bring the rain is an absolute truth, you can do it. That does not mean it will rain. We can talk about certitude but it does not mean we have to do it just because one is more certain than the other. If you take numbers, 1+1=2 is an absolute truth for people who know it. But in nature you have no numbers. You can add one potatoe to another one and say it is two potatoes. That is true only for you.
The problem is in the question. The truth is relative to a community, the one that watch the clouds and the other that dance. What is true in one is not true in the other one.
Truth is a fact or actuality.
True, as the way most people seem to use the term, is the degree of accuracy some representation (like a statement) is to the truth.
The philosophical definition of "true" relates to the logic of some argument.
How could we ever know whether the 'laws' of physics we discover will remain accurate tomorrow or in 1 billion years?
How could we ever know whether the beliefs that we hold now won't change in the future?
How could we ever know whether something that we deem to be absolutely true won't be contradicted by something we hadn't imagined or thought about?
There are things we believe, there are appearances, there are things that seem to be the case sure, but absolute truth? It seems more an ideal we try to reach than something we could ever have.