Absolute Truth?

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Unless of course, mathematicians are lied to, and 1+1 was discovered to be 1, and covered up by the worlds leaders in fear of global panic.

This thread could get ridiculous.

[Relambrien]

Re: Absolute Truth?

See, the reason that isn't possible is because that would change the definition of 1, the + sign (or addition operation), or 2. As defined by the consensus of humanity, 1 + 1 = 2, invariably and always.

[WillTalbot]

Re: Absolute Truth?

It is an absolute truth that a reasonable and demonstrably large number of people enjoy the taste of hot dogs.

I ALMOST fell for this when i first read it but then i stumbled upon the idea that a reasonable and demonstrably large number of people think that they enjoy the taste of hot dogs because you can't prove that they enjoy the taste of hotdogs but you can't disprove it and even lie detectors are not perfect. Which made me consider this statement ...

Perception is as far as we can go. I can prove that I am thinking right this second, and I can only prove that to myself. That is my one absolute truth. The rest is unknown, in essence.

This seems to make more sense because you can't prove that others think they enjoy the taste of hotdogs and if they say they do, you can't prove that they are lying. Only in their own mind will they know their own truth.

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

Re: Absolute Truth?

See, the reason that isn't possible is because that would change the definition of 1, the + sign (or addition operation), or 2. As defined by the consensus of humanity, 1 + 1 = 2, invariably and always.

Oh, you're correct good sir.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Absolute Truth?

In my opinion, I believe there HAS to be absolute truths for the universe to function. Yes, many things can vary throughout. In fact, almost everything is like that. Things change from time to time. But if there was no absolute truth, then eventually everything that exists would soon descend into chaos.

Do you know about chaos theory? Chaos theory states that normally non-dynamic functions change over time exponentially based on initial conditions, which exacerbate change. This is often used to describe the universe and it's working functions. But not everything can be chaos. The parameters of chaos are defined by higher powers. Absolute truths. I believe absolute truths exist in several laws that govern the universe. One example is physics. Physics govern how the universe runs. Chaos in itself is almost complete unpredictability. But based on absolute truths that go above it, it has it's parameters, and it can only be unpredictable to a point. For example, when, say, a star forms, there's no telling how large it'll be when it is finished growing. But a star can't grow to half the size of the universe, right? Because it is governed by absolute truths that have NO exceptions. They are constant and non-dynamic. The universe is a dynamic, ever-changing entity that embodies all life and matter within it. Things come and go. Stars are born, then die a few billion years later. Civilizations are born, flourish, then wither away. Galaxies are formed than die (Or will soon anyways, should the ultimate fate of the universe progress as expected. What that is is an entirely different topic). If no laws were to govern what happened, the universe would collapse under itself and probably descend into chaos. What that is I cannot say, as it hasn't happened.

Theologically, God(s) are absolute. The laws they legislate upon human beings are absolute. They do not change, they do not disappear. God(s) themselves are the same (at least in many religions, like Christianity. I can't say that for all religions, and I don't want to list them all either). Absolute truth forms the foundation of many religions. If Gods weren't absolute, then religion could not exist. After all, all religions center around one or more deitys. If they constantly changed, how could religion form the solid tenets of faith and higher powers that people are to believe in? Exactly my point. However, since religion cannot be proven to be true, the absolute truths that exist within it are null when referring to real life.

Absolute truths are even found in society. For example, one absolute truth is that murder is NOT acceptable. The reason I say this is because no society has ever existed that condones murder. (Or, at least to my knowledge). When you murder somebody, the punishment is typically either a very long prison sentence, or death. It can vary from society to society. If such truths did not exist, then society would descend into anarchy, then collapse. Think about this. If you were allowed to murder, rape, burn, steal, and harm anybody you wanted with no punishment whatsoever, do you think such a society would last very long, if at all? Precisely my point. These truths exist in a civilization so that it protects it from itself. Even if laws (Not absolute) prohibiting it did not exist, do you really think that person would not be punished? Others would punish him.

To sum up what I am saying, absolute truths exist so that that universe and it's sub-worlds can exist and flourish, then die. Then it starts all over again. With these truths governing us, we can exist. Here is an example. Can you make gravity suddenly disappear? No. Is there an exception to gravity? No. All objects exert gravity based on their mass. It has always been that way, it is that way, and always will be that way until the end of time. But without gravity, no life could exist. Planets would not exist (They could never form if there was no gravity to pull objects together, which becomes a planet. If it was form by objects smashing into it, the objects would just float away). What I am saying is that while chaos exists in 99.9999999999999% of all things, that 00.0000000000001% that is absolute enables the other 99.9999999999999% to exist.

P.S This is mostly an opinion, so what I say can be disputable.


~Bynary Fission

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Absolute Truth?

There are plenty of absolute truths within humanity's definitions of, for lack of a better word, things.

One would be hard pressed to prove humanity's definitions themselves to be absolute truths, however, but one would also be hard pressed to find a situation where trying to prove such a thing would be worthwhile.

EDIT: Before devonin and Kilroy jump all over me for it, I suppose that last statement would depend on one's definiton of "worthwhile". >_>

[tsugomaru]

Re: Absolute Truth?

I find it hard to think that a universe can occur without some laws that govern it, but then again, that'd be as closed minded as thinking and believing the world is flat in this day and time.

Much of what we have determined as "laws" are based upon other statements that are not absolute. One day, some guy is going to come up with a theory that may disprove some of the laws we know today. A while ago, we didn't think it was possible to destroy matter and that all matter must be conserved. However, since then we've discovered that anti-matter, a once fictional concept, is real. Who's to say that some of the laws we believe the universe is governed isn't true?

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

There are plenty of absolute truths within humanity's definitions of, for lack of a better word, things.

One would be hard pressed to prove humanity's definitions themselves to be absolute truths, however, but one would also be hard pressed to find a situation where trying to prove such a thing would be worthwhile.

EDIT: Before devonin and Kilroy jump all over me for it, I suppose that last statement would depend on one's definiton of "worthwhile". >_>

Here's the thing though. Humanity is great at labelling things, sure, and our labels are not necessarily reflective of objective reality. I mean there's a different word for each "thing" in every single language. But the trick is, whether you're dealing with a cat, a chat, a gatto, or a chasul, you're still dealing with one specific kind of thing.

Our labels are subjective, and thus not subject to being "proven" as absolutely true or not, but there are certain intrinsic things, if you want to put it this way, the intensions of things, which seem like they are much more objective and absolute.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

I'm not sure how a label can be subjective because a label doesn't seem to have truth-functionality at all. It can't be true or false, it's just a term. A preference for a label can be subjective.

As I said before, human beings have epistemic limitations. Karl Popper already more or less solved this one. We replace the search for verification with the search for falsification. Problem solved.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

And it is my belief that eventually we'll prove false every Y but one for a given X, at which point we will have discovered its absolute.

[WillTalbot]

Re: Absolute Truth?

So basicly, we can't prove anything because we don't have enough information to support it. We can't say that there is absolute truth because because you can ask why or how to anything and constantly get an answer with another question to follow it. We can't prove that there is no such thing because we can't say that there will be an absolute answer. Which is why people have different beliefs. It's basicly like choosing a path. But if we eventually do find that there is or is not an absolute truth, it will lead to peace or chaos. If there is absolute truth and that it is of what we consider good in today's society, then no one would want to do wrong because it would go against what they know to be true and possibly pay for that price. But if the absolute truth is what we call wrong, then everyone would want to do evil and i dont think ... we would exist anymore. But if we disprove that absolute truth exists, i dont think anyone would have a reason to live in peace, and everyone being greedy and selfish at heart by human nature would want to live for the materialistic things of this world. So maybe in the end it is better off that we don't know if there is absolute truth or not, which leads me to believe that there is absolute truth because if there was no such thing I'm pretty sure we would have figured it out by now.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C. S. Lewis

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

If there is absolute truth and that it is of what we consider good in today's society, then no one would want to do wrong because it would go against what they know to be true and possibly pay for that price. But if the absolute truth is what we call wrong, then everyone would want to do evil and i dont think ... we would exist anymore.

People do things they know to be wrong all the time. People do "the right thing" even when there are good reasons not to all the time.

I'm not sure how knowing that, say, objectively and universally murder was wrong would stop murder from happening, any more than knowing that there is -no- objective correctness to anything would suddenly make everyone commit murder.

[WillTalbot]

Re: Absolute Truth?

People do things they know to be wrong all the time. People do "the right thing" even when there are good reasons not to all the time.

I'm not sure how knowing that, say, objectively and universally murder was wrong would stop murder from happening, any more than knowing that there is -no- objective correctness to anything would suddenly make everyone commit murder.

But if everyone knew that doing wrong or right was the absolute truth then no one would do it because they would fear the consiquences to follow. This would take away our free will, and I don't think a God would want a bunch of puppets that do whatever he asks, thats just no fun.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

But if everyone knew that doing wrong or right was the absolute truth then no one would do it because they would fear the consiquences to follow.

What consequences? If we suddenly learned that say, murder was against the absolute and objectively TRUE laws of the universe...what consequences could we offer that we aren't already? I'm pretty sure -death- is about as hefty a consequence as we can inflict on someone, and plenty of places with the death penalty see plenty of murders.

How is absolute truth incompatible with people acting counter to what they know to be true?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

We don't assign "bad" a false value and "good" a true value. That's an abuse of logic. Both are presumably positive properties, if they are objective properties, which they don't seem to be. "Murder is bad" could be a true statement or a false statement, just as "murder is good" could be. It is even possible, all things being equal, for both statements to be true simultaneously. Neither statement makes false one such as "john committed murder", since there is no T -> F here. Murder is both possible and actual. Hence murder is true. True doesn't mean good. This was a really stupid equivocation.