The thing about an absolute truth that all the people arguing against it ignore is the fact that these observers with different answers are *wrong*. Back to the 2 + 2 = 4: mathematics has defined rules. According to the rules of math, 2 + 2 = 4. If you think differently, you are wrong. The rules for math are defined by rigid laws you cannot change. 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute fact. It cannot be changed because the rules (absolute facts) form a system that is absolute. If that person sees 5 rocks when you toss them down, that person is wrong. It does not mean there may be 5, it means the input and/or output of that person is wrong. Something is only an absolute fact if the opposers are wrong, period. If I have an absolute truth/fact, I can win any argument about its truth, and you cannot stalemate it. You can still refuse to believe it, but you are wrong. The universe is governed by absolute laws/truth/facts and you can't disprove one of those laws by not believing it. If the law is truly correct, you are wrong. The only way to prove it is not correct is to bring a factual counter-example. Your own opinion is not a factual counter-example.
-
-
I think we need to agree on a definition for absolute truth here.
I propose one:
absolute truth is something held in common by all observers in the universe, and held in common in such a way that every observer agrees about this thing in absolutely and totally the same way. All observers agree about this thing because it is absolute and because it is impossible for someone to argue that the thing is not true, or that it does not exist.
Now, by my definition, it is therefore impossible for anything to be absolutely true, including the idea that nothing can be absolutely true, because someone can always disagree about the truth or existence of anything. And by anything I mean anything and everything.
As an example, suppose I were to say that the Universe was created about five minutes ago in such a cunning way as to give the exact appearance of it having begun fifteen billion years ago. Everyone would have the same memories and everything and so on.
Now, there would be no way for me to prove this right. But, on the other hand, there would be no way for you to prove this wrong, either. You would be forced into acknowledging the possibility, that , yes, the Universe was created five minutes ago in such a clever way as to make itself appear to have been created 15 billioin years ago.
This is the way it is with any idea, theory, or observation. As long as someone disagrees, then it cannot be necessarily true or false.
If you can't understand that, or won't even make an attempt to accept its validity, then there is no more point in my continuing to argue.
The only way to find a hole in my argument would be change my definition of absolute truth. Yet if you do, I won't look at your arguments as a rebuttal of mine but as different and parallel.Comment
-
Well, you're definition is wrong. An absolute truth is something that no matter the view held by any observer, it is always the same and unchangeable. If you disagree with the truth of an absolute truth, it is still the same. If you think the sun does not give off any visible light, it still does. An absolute truth does not need your consent to be true. Natural laws are absolute truths. Math is full of absolute truths. Physics, astronomy, and any sciences dealing with the factual workings of the universe are full of absolute truths. I know the universe was not created 10 minutes ago, because I have many absolute truths that punch holes in that argument. Nothing is absolute if it requires the consent of an observer to exist. Your definition is a nonexistant item that never can or will exist because a real absolute truth doesn't need observers. When there is no intelligent left in the universe, absolute truths will still be absolute truths and whatever you are talking about will never have existed.Comment
-
You say that an absolute truth doesn't need observers.
I say that nothing exists until it is observed.
And you don't know that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago. You can't, if it was created in such a way as to appear not to have been created five minutes ago. You really don't have any absolute truths to punch into that argument.
Nothing is true until you believe it is true. If you don't believe it is true, then it isn't true, though it may be true to someone else. But if that thing were absolutely true, why wouldn't you believe that it is true?
And, does an electron behave as a wave or a particle? Is the cat both alive and dead, or neither alive nor dead? Where's the absolute truth there? Nothing exists until it is observed. How observations are perceived determines whether or not they are considered true or false.Comment
-
Your definition of absolute truth is a Universal Belief. There is a major difference.
Your thing about the world being five minutes old is unproveable and so should be considered stupid because it uses cheap tricks to dodge logic, but it is very unreasonable and most likely untrue. First of all, you must have a sentient creator being- where the hell did it come from? And having something exist beforehand means the universe already existed. Even if this problem of existing before it did was not there, you have an observer. *We* cannot determine whether the universe was created five minutes ago or not, but *it* observered it and so can identify an absolute truth. However, the universe did exist before the rest of it existed, so either it is older than 5 minutes or you have an impossible situation. Put simply, the universe could not have been created ago because logic kicks the shit out of that idea.
The reason absolute truths cannot be used in that argument is because you could easily deny it and claim some stupid reason for why that *seems* so, but isn't. Absolute truths govern the workings of the universe whether we see them or not. The real question is whether the observers can identify them or not. With the quantum physics, there is an absolute truth even if you cannot identify it. If the cat is alive, it is alive period. If it is dead, it's dead. However, you need to go much deeper into the actual science to also know why it can be both alive and dead while still obeying the absolute laws [truths that govern the universe].
With an absolute truth, it is *absolute*. If you consider it false, it is still true. Just because you consider it one thing or perceive it another doesn't mean it changes, it just means you are wrong.
Absolute: Complete and unconditional; final. // Not limited by restrictions or exceptions
Here are two parts of the definition of absolute. I put an emphasis on restrictions for a reason. If all observers must agree on it, that is a restriction. That means observers do not matter and can not matter to the validity of an absolute truth. No matter what you think, it is always true and you are wrong if you do not believe it. That is what an absolute truth is.Comment
-
I think the fundamental problem here is that you think the universe is something through which observers move and go on about their lives, and I think that the universe is something which moves about the observers, in other words, when your eyes are shut, you can believe the universe still exists, but you really can't prove it until you open them again.
Furthermore, I can't agree more when you said "...it is most likely untrue." Of course, but the fact that it is most likely not true doesn't mean that it couldn't be true. In other words, its possible, but not probable, and certainly not logical.
(and as for your complaint about the sentient creator, consider the widely accepted Big Bang theory. Who or what started the Big Bang? Stephen Hawking himself admits that the theory seems to be more a proof of God's existence than a denial. But that is for a different argument.)
"That means observers do not matter and can not matter to the validity of an absolute truth."
I don't think that could be more wrong. If you look at an electron, you change it. The electron's existence, which is a kind of absolute truth, is thus changed by observation. You don't know if the cat is alive or dead, and can't say either way because you aren't looking at it. Logically, it seems that Schroedinger's cat must be either alive or dead, but it is either neither or both until you look at it to determine this. There is no absolute truth without the observer.]
To get back to what I was originally saying, we will never resolve this if we are thinking of the universe in different ways. If you actually think that the universe still exists when you aren't observing it, and by think I mean that you think you can prove this, then we will never be arguing on the same terms.Comment
-
Quantum physics is a very messy department and I think you shouldn't use that area as an example- we don't know enough about it yet.
You are right that we should drop this, but I need to make another comment. I can prove that when my eyes are closed the universe still exists. When my eyes are closed I can still feel it, it is still affecting me, I can smell it, I can taste it, it exsits. Supposing you remove all of my senses, it is still an absolute truth that the universe exists- you are observering it, correct? That means the truth has been identified.
I think that is a very important thing to remember- the absolute truth is always there, but it requires an observer to identify it. That's what happens in quantum physics for the most part- certain things cannot have an identified absolute truth, or when the absolute truth is not identified it is unknown to the particle (so it can be both).Comment
-
As my parting comment, I would respond and say that if you can't sense the universe, you aren't observing it, and therefore you can't prove whether or not it exists. As for quantum physics being a messy department, well, I'm not sure about that. All I know is that it boggles my mind.
Anyway, good debate.Comment
-
... + ... = ... ... isn't the best example...
say ... represents 2. 2 + 2 != 22.
the best example is ... = ..., because no matter what, that's always true.
5 = 5
pig = pig
etc. = etc.
Comment
-
rofl moogy.
okay let's take this example: if, when the two rocks are put next to eachother, they create another rock by some sort of mineral reproduction because of a special element these particular rocks have.
if you take these two rocks and put two more rocks, you'll have six rocks. maybe even more, depending on the length of their ability to reproduce. in this case, 2+2 would not = 4.Comment
-
Neo, that isn't addition. It would be 2 + 2 + X = 4 + X. Man, now you've made this topic boring! I'm outta here!Comment
-
no, no.
there's still two rocks + two rocks. you add them, and you get more than four rocks.
that alone defies the "absolute truth", and it takes just one example to disprove something is absolute.Comment
-
Heh, Drac's posts sound like they were written by the Fatmouse guy ( http://www.fatmouse.tk ).
On topic, though, I think the only ABSOLUTE truths come in the form of math. Everything empirical is subject to question, and therefore can't be proven. Sure, you sense the universe around you, but how do you know you're not hallucinating it? You could then go into the "I think, therefore I am" argument and try to prove your existence, but I don't know for sure if you exist, so that doesn't affect me. I think absolute truths are hard to come by.
BTW, I didn't read the first page, so if I just repeated something, blame my laziness.
--Guido
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Neodark, stop trying to be an idiot. It isn't defying anything. 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. 4 rocks + 1 more rock (produced in reaction) = 5 rocks. It isn't that hard.
Guido: that fatmouse guys is HILARIOUS! Thanks for the link :PComment
-
you obviously didnt read anything but guido's link.
if you can't prove you exist, there's no absolute truth. i can't prove i exist to you, and vice versa. it's all just trust and senses.
and i'm not being an idiot. you take two of the same type of weirdass reproducing rock and you get 3. 1+1=3.
unless the new rock reproduced with the two others and so on and blah and blah...Comment
Comment