LinuxPup

This post is not meant to argue for/against theism/atheism... I am merely writing about the undeniable nature of truth itself.

Truth is the correspondance to reality. The Law of Non-Contradiction states "A cannot equal non-A", that is, if something is true, then the opposite statement CANNOT be true. Example: If I am standing, then I cannot be sitting. This principle of logic is undeniable, because to defeat it, one must use it. If I were to say, "The Law of Non-Contradiction is false", that would imply the opposite statement, "The Law of Non-Contradiction is true" is a false statement. Indeed, to deny truth, is to use truth in order to deny it, making the argument unable to stand on it's own (a self-refuting argument).

Now one might use an argument against absolute truth such as:

Jack and Jill are both outside, and Jack feels warm and says "It's warm", but Jill is cold and shivering, and says "It's cold". They're both telling the truth, so who's right?

Truth transcends the individual. It is an absolutely truthful statement that Jack believes it is warm at that time and place, and it is also an absolute fact that Jill believes it is cold at that time and place. What this means is that in every point of the universe, in any point of time in the universe, the statement "Jack felt warm at time X and place Y" is absolutely true, and any statement to the contrary is absolutely false.

Another argument against truth makes the mistake of confusing argumentation for untruthfulness. What I mean is this: If two or more people argue on the truthfulness of a proposition, that doesn't mean the proposition is false. If Bill says 1 + 1 = 2, and Sam says 1 + 1 = 3, it would be illogical to conclude that there is no answer to 1 + 1, just because we don't come up with the same answer. Also, if Bill concluded that 1 + 1 = 0, so as to make both of them wrong, it would be illogical to conclude that there is no answer to 1 + 1.

Another thing, truth by it's very nature is exclusive. Every truth claim excludes other truth claims. This is of course due to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which as I said, is completely unavoidable.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Personally, I don't find it very useful to say that truth is absolute. "Absolute" implies a level of precision, universality, and certainty that I find indefensible. It might have been a reasonable hypothesis in a Newtonian world, but these days, quantum physics puts paid to it. Universality cannot hold when we know that the macroscopic and microscopic world work according to different physical rules.

One of those quantum rules is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which rules out even the hypothetical possibility of complete knowledge. So a statement like, "Imagine you had a complete, God's eye view of the universe..." isn't different from saying, "Imagine there's such a thing as a square circle." You can postulate the existence of an absolute truth, but you would have to conclude, like Zeno, that in this universe, "absolute" truth is unknowable.

And yet, truth still demonstrably exists. The law of non-contradiction you cite is a good example. Logical truths like this exist because we human beings define them (maybe some of them are even hardwired into our brains through evolution). However, every such truth is inextricably linked to its context. In modulo, 1+1=0 could very well be correct! Furthermore, truth is "true" for entirely pragmatic reasons -- i.e. that we have agreed on a set of rules or definitions beforehand, or that we have observed something reliably enough that we are satisfied to state it as fact.

Generally, there are two things I say about truth: (1) that it is contextual, and (2) that it is either probabilistic or definitional. But "absolute"? I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

John Page

How does this correspondence take place?

OrangeSk8brdr

Harsh reality of life is that we do have a set amount of truth. Mentally we can hypothesize that only out of our true human genius ness that 1+1=0 but visually, (and overall mentally because our visual stimulus relates solely on our brains) 1+1=2.
The question is why do you put the answer towards only of what people see and then only, we can deduce that 1+1=2? Animals have just a great of perception of numbers, Though I am not relating this to the theory of evolution, but rather a substantial view of that absolutes are true, which makes an Absolute truth. To state that an absolute truth is false, is false in it’s self because it is contradicting itself. So that statement in itself is false. Which means an absolute truth is true, but of course that is simple logic. On a more broad scale, for example, Humans greatest personal treasure has always been science, the mathematical and logical explanation to classify, and log into history, of our genius ness and perception. But harsh reality is that these things have already existed, and yes rules are made such as 1+1=2 but that is the basics of life. Now the perception of science states that everything can be explained over time, or that the possibility of everything is out there. Yet a personal belief can state that those rules do not apply because we labeled numbers, words, classifications in which are rules for us to understand. But for now I am going with our "set rules" for easier understanding, and lack of boredom to those who are reading this entire message. So given our based rules, science, how science believes in the truth of "man made rules and uncertainty", It would be safe to say that there are no absolute truths. The basis is that there is enough proof to keep me happy and content with this answer to ones of life’s questions. Mind you though...I said enough proof, only enough...As if I didn’t want to hear the whole side of the story, as if I’m a witness that has been conditioned to believe what the prosecutor wants me to see. Look at the statements themselves, look at the absolute proof that we exist, that there are two of something and separate them there are two of one. The basis of how we think is absolute; otherwise if 1+1 didn’t equal 2, then you couldn’t say you were writing in Latin text with an English sub derivative dialect. Absolutes are true and absolute truth, that’s the greatest of all.

Jayhawker Soule

LinuxPup: Why "Absolute"? Look again at Kim's closing sentence, and then tell us: what is the difference between a truth and an absolute truth?

Jayhawker Soule

It's a little like drug abuse. You start with Absolute Truth and, before long, your dealing with Evangelical Truth while sliding down the razor blade of ontology into a quagmire of relativism.

WJ

Orange!

I think one is back to defining not only the meaning of truth, but in what context are things in themselves percieved to be true(?).

For instance you had mentioned mathematics. It so happens that mathmatics supports almost all the laws of nature. And so what is the meaning of mathematics itself? Who created mathematics to be true in the sense that it happens to work so well in defining nature?

In other words, are nature's truths nothing but tautologies? If they are, then they cannot capture the human condition. Otherwise, I would be happy with the truth that math provides me. (Or simply that true statement asserting same.) Perhaps only a 'vulcan spock' would find that satisfactory, if you know what I mean here.

Beyond this of course there are certain axioms that are uncomputable in terms of it incompletness with regard to math, but that is out of my realm of expertise. Nevertheless, there exist some truths in math that cannot be answered or known from their own axiomatic application (Godel, Turing, Omega). Perhaps an easier truth is the fact we don't know the origins of consciousness.

Anyway, if one asserts an absolute universal truth [that they know of one], I think they carry the burden of explaining existence (and the nature therof). Otherwise, it is question begging; what is truth? Why does truth have meaning?

Walrus

John Page

False.

Jayhawker Soule

But not an Absolute Falsehood.

John Page

True.