phil

An absolute truth would be a statement that is factual for all people, for all time, and for all situations.

Does 2+2=4 apply for all people, for all time, and for all situations?

-phil

Witt

phil:
An absolute truth would be a statement that is factual for all people, for all time, and for all situations.

Does 2+2=4 apply for all people, for all time, and for all situations?
--------------------

The tautologies of logic and of mathematics are analytic.
That is, they are necessarily true, within some specified system of decision.
All systems of decision are mind-made in the sense that there must be at least one mind to affirm their truths.

When there are no minds, there are no truths at all, because there cannot be a (mental) method of decision without mind.

Therefore, necessary truths are not absolute, because they are not true in the absense of mind.

Before mind, 2+2=4, has no one to understand its truth.

Even factual truths do not exist in the absense of mind.

Witt

sophie

Witt : On what grounds do you assert this statement?

Why do you claim that only mind has access to all information and hence all knowledge?

scumble

The main danger is when someone thinks they know what they're talking about.

Personally, I don't think we can make general statements about truth, mainly because people rarely have access to it. Humans survive because they are able to rediscover things continually. Sometimes experience helps, but you can't necessarily rely on it, expansive as it may seem.

Nowhere357

My bolding. Looking for the framework relevant to a given question makes it easier to find the answer.

Does the word "truth" refer to the external reality which we are trying to understand, or does it refer to our understanding of that reality?

If the former, then what word refers to our understanding of it?; if the latter, then what we call "truth" is flexible and changing.

This supports the latter, that truth is our understanding of reality.

It seems to me that if the framework is human interrelationships, then because of procreation, sometimes 1+1=3.
If the framework is the fabric of space, then thanks to virtual particle theory, sometimes 0=1.
If we talk about normal objective (material) reality, then 1+1=2.

So I think I agree that truth exists only in our minds. "Reality" is what the truths are trying to simulate.

Witt

Witt :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even factual truths do not exist in the absense of mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sophie:
On what grounds do you assert this statement?

Why do you claim that only mind has access to all information and hence all knowledge?
----------------------------

Hi Sophie,

Factual truth is a particular interpretation of empirical presence.

There is a correspondence of name with what is named, in facts.

Factual truth is confirmed when we establish that correspondence.

If the objects and attributes of those objects, of a presented situation of things, can be represented in language by a one to one correspondence of object to name and attribute to predicate, then we call that statement a fact.

Clearly, facts require language, and language requires mind.

Without mind, the world still presents situations, but, there cannot be factual (interpretation) without mind.

How we know is as significant as what we know.

Sophie:Why do you claim that only mind has access to all information and hence all knowledge?

Knowledge is that which 'is' shown to be the case, by some method of decision.

There cannot be knowledge or methods of decision without mind, can there?

Witt

NearNihil Experience

"An absolute truth would be a statement that is factual for all people, for all time, and for all situations.

Does 2+2=4 apply for all people, for all time, and for all situations?

-phil"

Does not 2 x 2 = 4 also?The sum of four can be reached many different truthful ways. And since we are looking for one true absolute truth, even math and logic can provide many paths(ways) to one answer(truths).

I just don't think you can find absolute truth anywhere unless you impose it...on that end I agree with Witt. The idea of truth requires thought, knowledge and mind...

however, information is rocketing apound the universe between all matter and energy. This information has only meaning to its function and any interpretation we find is imposed on it by us. Nothing in an atom tells us to camm it an atom, but atoms were there before and will be there after we are. Hard solipcism doesn't work, period.

As Witt said:
"Factual truth is a particular interpretation of empirical presence."
"Clearly, facts require language, and language requires mind.
Without mind, the world still presents situations, but, there cannot be factual (interpretation) without mind."

Facts and truths don't exist "out there". there all in our minds. The empirical presence of information is available, but only to things that react.

"There cannot be knowledge or methods of decision without mind, can there?"

I don't know, I am of Mind. Only those things of no-mind can tell you, but they can't because they are of no-mind and unable to relate information and empirical presence.

sophie

Witt :
PREMISE : Factual truth is a particular interpretation of empirical presence.
PREMISE : There is a correspondence of name with what is named, in facts.

CONCLUSOIN : Factual truth is confirmed when we establish that correspondence.

* So we can say that factual truth is a particular interpretation of what is named by emperical presence corresponding to name.

If the objects and attributes of those objects, of a presented situation of things, can be represented in language by a one to one correspondence of object to name and attribute to predicate, then we call that statement a fact.

PROOF : Clearly, facts require language, and language requires mind.

CONCLUSION : Without mind, the world still presents situations, but,
there cannot be factual (interpretation) without mind.

Therefore the world presents situations in a form

POST CONCLUSION : How we know is as significant as what we know.

Trees interpret the changes in seasons and react accordingly. Your argument implies trees posess mind.


Knowledge is that which 'is' shown to be the case, by some method of decision.

There cannot be knowledge or methods of decision without mind, can there?

Again trees posess knowledge of external circumstance and some decision is made to alter the chemistry of the tree. Does then trees have mind?

Witt

Sophie: Trees interpret the changes in seasons and react accordingly. Your argument implies trees posess mind.

Interpretation is more complex than response to physical stimulus.

Because an object falls when droped does not imply that the object interpreted anything at all.

Interpretation involves deliberate choice, will.

Neither trees nor rocks have any kind of knowledge or possible interpretations imo.

Witt

emotional

True.

And EasternGate is going to burn in hell!