K

SOMMS:

Which rules of logic must be abandoned?

Blu

SOMMS,

Your definition "being self-sufficent and free of external references and relationships." Or as you put it, Objective truth. Are you using "Objective Truth" as being another way of stating "Absolute Truth"? Are they one in the same for you?

I have trouble with believing Absolute truth can be known by any individual on the planet for one important reason: the experiences and the lessons (informal and formal) we learn in life often lead to conclusions that make up the "Truth" as we see it. So each human being cannot have Objective Truth, each human being has relative or subjective truth because their truth depends on what they have learned in life (cognitively and through formal education). Each person's truth also is influenced by culture and society as well as many other components thereof. Since all human beings are influenced by culture and society as well as experience... the conclusion is no human being will ever know "Absolute Truth."

Absolute Truth also implies that it cannot change as subjective truths are inclined to do so with experience and learning. Science is also subject to change with ever increasing knowledge, technology, experimentation, theories, etc. So even in science there are no "real" Absolutes. Interpretations of religions that are based on culture and "the past" are also subject to change over time so there are no Absolutes there either.

I found that people are really uncomfortable with knowing they do not know everything so they say their science or their religion is the Absolute Truth in order to feel better. And current science is the "end" or the individual's religion is the "end," or the Absolute.

On Earth, in general, I don't see any Absolutes.

Thoughts?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Blu,
More or less. The definitions I gave were definitions for 'absolute'. However, I tend to think that truth as defined above would also be objective truth.

When I say 'absolute truth can be known' I do not mean 'Absolute Truth'...the sum, in toto cumulation of all truths. I mean 'an absolute (objective if you will) truth can be known'. This implies that 'a set of absolute truth can be known'. It does not imply that the entire set of 'absolute truth' can be known.


I think I see a difference in what I consider 'truth' and what you consider 'truth'. The truth I refer to does not include subjective interpretations. For example: 1 + 2 = 3. This is not subjective...no matter how I feel that day or my outlook on life I can't claim 1 + 2 <> 3 without violating logic.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
That of consistency.

A statement cannot be both true and false.

If 'there are no absolute truths' is true then there are no absolute truths. However 'there are no absolute truths' would be an absolute truth therefore the statement would simultaneously be false.

In this case it would be both true and false.


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

That of consistency.

A statement cannot be both true and false.

If 'there are no absolute truths' is true then there are no absolute truths. However 'there are no absolute truths' would be an absolute truth therefore the statement would simultaneously be false.


SOMMS

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

K

Saying that a statement can not be both true and false is an axiom of Boolean logic that can not be proven within the framework of Boolean logic. It is not an axiom for all other types of logic.

Part of your definition for absolute truth requires that it be "self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships". Does that mean that it is true regardless of the logical axioms chosen?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Correct.


A slight misnomer. Logic can't be proven. It is tautological.

Nor does it need be.

SOMMS

K

What I'm trying to say is that you used a paradox in Boolean logic by using the logic on an axiomic statement.

I could say "the set of all sets is a subset of the set of all sets". This is clearly a paradox because a set can only subset of itself if the two sets are identical. However, the set of all sets must have every single set as a subset - not just the set of all sets. The only Boolean value that can be assigned to the original statement is false. So, the set of all sets is not a subset of the set of all sets.

This is all fine and good. But, not try the same thing using "the set of all sets is not a subsets of the set of all sets". This is clearly a paradox because to be the set of all sets, there can not exist a set that is not a subset. The set of all sets would be a set that wasn't a subset, so the only Boolean value that can be assigned to teh original statement is false. Therefore, the set of all sets is a subset of the set of all sets.

Do you see why logic is not universal. It is only consistent within itself. But, like any suitably descriptive formal system, it relies on axioms that can not be proven within the system itself.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
In what way is logic not universal?

The internal consistency of logic does not imply it isn't universal...quite the opposite.


SOMMS

K

What I'm saying is that if one of the underlying axioms of your logic is that all statements are either absolutely true or absolutely false, then the statement "there are no absolute truths" lies outside the scope of your system of logic. You can not use a formal system to prove an axiomic statement of that system.