Ouroboros Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Generally, 2+2=4, but I've even seen this challenged in ways I don't understand. I would think that 2+2=4 is a proposition within an unspecified formal system of inference. But we can alter the system of inference. For instance, if we represent numbers in a base 2 system (binary) rather than a base 10 system (decimal) then we only have {0, 1} as our set of permissible symbols rather than {0, 1, 2... .... 8, 9}. So 2+2=4 in decimal would be 10+10=100 in binary. That may be what you've seen before. It also comes down to identity. 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples. But what constitutes an "Apple"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I would be more inclined to say that a complex objective reality exists, but we understand it through its relations with the subjective mind. And being that nature is complex it is multifaceted and its understanding cannot be exhausted. Liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Objective truths certainly exist. Absolute universals, though? I assume there's some out there somewhere that our universe's set of truths are derived from, but I don't know if we'll ever find them. Absolutes about human nature may be non-existent. Any blanket statement about what "all" humans are like seems to require a disclaimer about only applying to the majority of neuro-typical adults in a certain region and time. But that's to be expected, when we're so many layers of abstraction removed from the simple objective laws of physics (even a single cell is too complex to be described in terms of our currently known lowest level truths). So I do believe, for example, that it is possible and important to seek an objective, evidence based, code of ethics. But I do not believe that there are any moral absolutes inherent in the nature of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I have to agree with the divorce court judge who says 'there are three types of truth, his truth, her truth, and the truth.' 'Truth' is in the eyes of the beholder or a matter of personal observation. We have other truths, such as the common truth that it is wrong to murder, because of cooperation we have to have as a society. We know that murder causes problems for everyone and impedes social growth, just like stealing, etc. We have our own personal truths that we all know is 'true' because we know that what we are taught is true, otherwise people wouldn't teach it, now would they? Truths are like laws, they change with the beliefs of the person who holds these truths. In gnosticism, these truth-keepers are gatekeepers and have certain keys that open gates of knowledge, if you have the right question. Truth is out there but what truths we are given as children do not always fit as adults, such as religious beliefs ('truths'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 There is an absolute reality. Truths are usually relative to the many competing factors within reality though, making it impossible to nail down for all situations. This is well put. I see truths as like the blind men touching and describing an elephant. Each are partially right in their descriptions, though none see the whole picture. They are true, and not true. That's kinda how I see it. I'd state it differently, but I think we mean much the same thing. A "truth" is an idea, an observation, a measurment, etc. It's essentially a model of reality- stored in the brain, on paper, or the like. It may well be 'true' in the sense that it's repeatable, and that it precisely describes reality. But any truth you name- no matter what it is- is subject to a boat-load of linguistic and cultural assumptions, along with the physical context in which said 'truth' fits. And when ANY truth you name is subject to all these assumptions and context, can you really call it 'absolute'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 And when ANY truth you name is subject to all these assumptions and context, can you really call it 'absolute'? Another thing I was thinking about earlier was about how Christians (and other monotheists) argue that the "absolute" must point to some form of origin. But it doesn't make sense. If something is "absolute", then it just must be. It is, without having a source. If absolute truth exists, it can't be created by some being, because then it wouldn't be absolute in an absolute fashion, it would be subjective (or relative) to that being, and hence never fully absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriptor Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Generally, 2+2=4, but I've even seen this challenged in ways I don't understand. I would think that 2+2=4 is a proposition within an unspecified formal system of inference. But we can alter the system of inference. For instance, if we represent numbers in a base 2 system (binary) rather than a base 10 system (decimal) then we only have {0, 1} as our set of permissible symbols rather than {0, 1, 2... .... 8, 9}. So 2+2=4 in decimal would be 10+10=100 in binary. That may be what you've seen before. It also comes down to identity. 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples. But what constitutes an "Apple"? And what constitutes addition? For example, in modular systems of arithmetic what is meant by "+" is not the standard operation of addition. This can also be a source of confusion. When we do addition modulo n, what we are looking for is not the sum of the two numbers, it is the remainder of this sum after division by n. For example, 2+2=1 (mod 3). In my understanding, what Legion said is true. 2+2=4 is a proposition. Whether it holds or not depends on what system of arithmetic we are using. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 In my understanding, what Legion said is true. 2+2=4 is a proposition. Whether it holds or not depends on what system of arithmetic we are using. Exactly. I agree with him too. It's true within specific contexts, but doesn't hold true if the context changes. 1 Apple + 1 Orange = 2 Fruits is true, but 1 Apple + 1 Orange = 2 Banana, is not. (It's that damn categories thing coming back ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 And what constitutes addition? The operation of addition is made much more transparent in category theory. Come on Hans. Come on man. Learn it WITH me. You know you want to. I can feel it. Scriptor are you interested? Welcome to ex-C by the way! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Come on Hans. Come on man. Learn it WITH me. You know you want to. I can feel it. I know. I do. Damn... I feel so guilty not doing it. It's my lazy brain holding me back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Come on Hans. Come on man. Learn it WITH me. You know you want to. I can feel it. I know. I do. Damn... I feel so guilty not doing it. It's my lazy brain holding me back. Lazy brain? I find that difficult to believe with you. I find it more likely that you wish to deprive me of the ego swell which would come from your consent. I assure you Hans, if you or Scriptor would come with me to explore this branch of math then I would only feel extremely grateful. It is a very rich thing, and additional perspectives on it would likely enhance my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriptor Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Come on Hans. Come on man. Learn it WITH me. You know you want to. I can feel it. I know. I do. Damn... I feel so guilty not doing it. It's my lazy brain holding me back. Lazy brain? I find that difficult to believe with you. I find it more likely that you wish to deprive me of the ego swell which would come from your consent. I assure you Hans, if you or Scriptor would come with me to explore this branch of math then I would only feel extremely grateful. It is a very rich thing, and additional perspectives on it would likely enhance my own. I'm certainly interested. I love mathematics, and category theory is an area which I have not studied in detail. You may have to bear with me at times, as I can be somewhat of a slow learner, but I think that together we can do it . How would you like to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I'm certainly interested. I love mathematics, and category theory is an area which I have not studied in detail. You may have to bear with me at times, as I can be somewhat of a slow learner, but I think that together we can do it . How would you like to start? Yeah! I believe that you need not worry about being a slow learner. People around here apparently think I'm smart. But I learn like a glacier moves. I'll PM you Scriptor and hopefully we can work out the details together on how to proceed. Thanks man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKR Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I decided to check up how the evenglicals were doing by turning on JHM.orgs Cornerstone Church on channel 9 and after speaking of how America is following a great lie (Ironey) he spoke of is there such things as absolute truths (his being DUH BIBBLE). So I ask you Ex-C, do you believe there are such things as Absolute Truths or is it all relevent or whatever? Sometimes. 2+2=4. Absolute truth. Killing babies is wrong = relative statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 You would! According to the Babylonians, the truth is the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 14, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 14, 2012 Aristotle - 'Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion." Same with absolutes as in absolute truth. You can't say absolutely that there is no absolute truth. Sort of dead ends the dogma of postmodernism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Aristotle - 'Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion." Same with absolutes as in absolute truth. You can't say absolutely that there is no absolute truth. Sort of dead ends the dogma of postmodernism... I'd say there might be an absolute truth, just maybe we might not have access to it (note: the lack of use of absolutes, "might" instead of "don't") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 15, 2012 ^ I agree, the insight of knowing that any post modern dogmatic claim asserting that there is no absolute truth can never be asserted absolutely and therefore leaves the door open for the possibility that there could well be an absolute truth, even by post modern logic. Absolute truth can not be dismissed by that type of reasoning. Which of couse makes sense because there are absolute truths all around us, such as the absolute truth of the physical laws such as gravity. We have to go against the grain to try and overcome the absolute truth of gravity in order to fly, climb trees, lift weights, use elevators, etc. It just depends on a case by case analysis of each claim being made for the absolute truth of something. We can demonstrate the absolute truth of gravity but not the existence of God(s).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Absolute truths do exist, however, usually we can't know absolutely if what we think is a truth is also an absolute truth or not. Subjective knowledge about truths, where truths can be absolute or not. Our knowledge and understanding is limited to our minds, but truths are only limited to the reality we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted November 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 15, 2012 You can't say absolutely that there is no absolute truth. Sort of dead ends the dogma of postmodernism... How can you associate postmodernism with dogma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 15, 2012 ^ I know it sounds strange, but I got it from following an argument on a philosophy site: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy.htm The End of Postmodern Philosophy(Logical Positivism, Cultural Constructs, Relativism) Postmodern philosophy assumes that there is a physical reality but it is impossible for us to know it with our limited minds. It is basically a position of skeptical doubt and uncertainty. As Ernst Mach wrote; A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations: these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow. (Ernst Mach) While this all sounds reasonable on the surface, with closer examinations we see that it leads us to the dogma of postmodernism that 'The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths'. i.e. True knowledge of reality is impossible - we can only imagine things that do not exist, we cannot imagine things that really do exist! (Which is odd when you think about it.) Thus we see that the postmodern idea of no absolute truths is actually a contradiction, as Aristotle wrote 2,350 years ago; Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion. (Aristotle) The Death of the Idealist Philosopher Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived). ... All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth - in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world - have not any subsistence without a mind. (George Berkeley) Idealist philosophy believes that the mind exists, and that our sense of the external world (physical reality) is simply a construction of the mind. Given that all our knowledge is in fact a creation of the mind (imagination) it has been difficult to refute this - to get from our ideas of things to the real thing in itself (see Kant). The experiment. Imagine an idealist philosopher in an airplane at 30,000 feet. A ten second timer is activated that will eject the 'philosopher' from the plane. They are wearing a parachute, but it is not fastened. They must decide if they wish to fasten themselves to the parachute or not. This eliminates idealist philosophers / philosophy- they either fasten the parachute and thus acknowledge the truth of physical reality - or they do not and fall to their death! This argument is a bit mischievous, but it does make two important points - that the physical laws of Nature apply equally to humans as they do to all other matter - and while it is easy to be an idealist when writing essays, we should always apply these ideas to physical reality (the ultimate determiner of truth!). The absolute argument against idealism is Darwinian evolution. It is necessary that the physical reality of the earth and sun existed prior to our evolution, thus prior to our mind's evolution. There are many common traits of the human mind which confirm that we evolved as animals on the surface of the earth. E.g. We sleep, get hungry, seek pleasure, avoid pain, love others and lust for sexual reproduction. Idealism does not explain this - evolving as sexually reproducing animals on the surface of the earth does. Thus matter is a priori to mind. Popper's comments on idealism are pretty spot on; Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Karl Popper, 1975) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Aristotle - 'Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion." ....... I want to barf every time I hear that. It reminds me of the nights reading christian apologetics and the assertion that agnostics are illogical in their thinking. It comes across more as a parlor trick than logic even though it makes sense. It should be modified to say "the only thing that can be truly asserted is that there is no true assertion." which in itself is an absolute truth and absolute truth does exist IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I'm technically neither a postmodernist or idealist though. I just concur only ever so slightly with there idea that we might not be able to find absolute truth, but in principle, I say seek it all anyway. It's worth the ride. That's because all that life is, is a ride. And its what scientists love to do on this ride, is figure things out about the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 ^ I know it sounds strange, but I got it from following an argument on a philosophy site: You should always give the source/link when you quote something. By DMCA rules, you have to appropriately attribute the author his/hers deserved credit, or it's plagiarism (actually, it's theft). We've actually been in trouble on this website for not doing it properly in the past, so... please link the source. And on a side note, the author fails to bridge the "knowledge of absolute truth" to "existence of absolute truth" in the beginning of the article. It's kind of jumbled up, both concepts, not sure which one he's arguing for or against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts