Buddrow_Wilson

I think perhaps there is no absolute truth because there are actually infinite levels of truth. Once a truth is discovered and accepted there will always be underlying truths to resolve. This will occur infinately.

John Page

I am encouraged.
I don't disagree with this in principle but think it too narrow. Statements may exist in the mind but are only one of the complex and abstract class of entities we are likely to encounter in the mind. Languages are used for communicating but I do not think they are the generators of truths, merely the conveyors.
Please see my separate message on such methodology.
But if the mind contains only representations, surely they must correspond to something...
I think correspondence theory needs to be taken into account when considering any information system, such as the mind. However, that is not to say that such correspondence must be to fixed and absolute physical entities, indeed, more to the constant relations between sensory data that belie the existence of physical entities.
Here is what I say about language, cut and pasted from my web site
All words are adjectives, abstractions that describe real objects (nouns), actions and reactions between them (verbs) and the characteristics of objects and actions (adjectives). To add further complexity, words can describe a specific instance of an object or action (that clock in the far corner) but are more often used to reference a class of object (a clock or clocks). Still further, other words are used to describe the relationship between words themselves (and/or the reality they represent), for example "and" or "or" and temporal relationships such as "since" and "after"
I propose that truth has an illusion of constancy or permanence and that this proposition avoids the need for truth to be pragmatic (although one can be pragmatic about it). Example, the truth functional result of a sentence using propositional logic may be the same every time we parse it. We must understand, however, that the result is held in our minds and when we are not "thinking it" it simply doesn't exist. That we can return again to the same sentence and our mind tells us the informational result is the same creates the illusion that such a truth exists through time independent of us.
Thanks - I will try and find time. From the very illuminating information you have provided, my initial conclusion is that, like most philosophers, no underlying basis for formation of the truth is provided i.e. we're not much further on than Boole and Babbage. Accordingly, in agreement with Rorty himself, our remarks on the topic are therefore speculative and contingent.

Cheers, John

John Page

Thomas:

IMO you need complementary ontologies and epistomologies, "what there" is and "how we come to know it" are mere prognostications taken alone.

Thomas:

You seem to be saying that your definition of "absolute truth" is equivalent to the definition of "truth". In this case you don't seem to be claiming anything worth talking about.

I still think its hilarious that one might argue for the existence of absolute truth (in fact, not just concept) with less than 100% knowledge.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John:

'Absolute truth' is not the same as 'total, complete truth'.

I am absolutely sure that I exist, I am sure of my name, and that two + two = four.

But, that doesn't mean I know what the people in the next apartment over look like, or what's at the 'edge' of the universe.

Knowing one thing for certain (or two things, or three) in no way means that one knows everything.

Keith.

Thomas Ash

NB: The above title is gathering a lot of 're's
I don't think I have any problem in squaring the claim "there is an external reality in which truths are true regardless of my perception" (ontology) and "I can't be 100% sure of any claim about what the content of that external reality is" (epistemology.) I can provide supprting arguments for the first statement completely regardless of the second.

It is. But a lot of people do deny that there is any such thing as "truth", and treat this as an old-fashioned Western concept. That's why it's worth emphasizing that there is such a thing as external truth about which people and cultures (and religions) can be right or wrong.
Why? I don't see why.

John Page

First, your subjective truth is not absolute, irrespective of how certain you are.

I don't equate absolute truth to complete truth; we would seem to roughly agree the latter would be the sum of all truths.

An absolute truth would be a single truth that has unlimited domain (time, space). There was a time when you didn't exist, maybe you changed your name etc.

Cheers, John

Bill Snedden

It would appear that you missed my last response to you (at the bottom of page 4), but no matter as Thomas Ash has really been keeping the flame burning...

Hmmm. I might see at least one reason why we've been going 'round on this.

At some point in this discussion, I offered my definition of "absolute truth" as "necessarily true; incapable of being denied without contradiction." There are no space/time domain restrictions on my definition. If it were to be true that a lepton existed for even the tiniest fraction of a second, it would be absolutely true that that lepton did exist for that period of time.

That's essentially what I meant when I indicated that I saw little difference between your "existential fact" and what I was defining as "absolute truth". We seem to agree that existential facts simply are; independent of our ability to know them. If this is true, then, epistemic confusion aside (), you and I (and possibly Thomas Ash) may not be so far apart.

At any rate, let me attempt to engage your definition head-on. How could it not be absolutely true (using your definition) that something exists?

P1) "Absolute truth" is defined as a single truth that has unlimited domain in time or space.

P2) "Nothing," properly understood, is the complete absence of everything. That means time & space, and even the potential for anything. The phrase, "ex nihil, nihil fit" is apt.

P3) If it were to have been the case at any point that "nothing" were to have been in existence, then nothing would or could exist.

C1) Therefore, "nothing", as a putative state of affairs, is impossible.

P4) Something exists now. Even if we concede epistemic difficulties in knowing or defining what it is, we must concede that there is an it.

C2) Therefore, something has always existed. Call it "the universe", or just simply call it "existence", but its existence is eternal & infinite.

C3) Therefore, something exists is a truth that is true without domain in time or space and thus an absolute truth.

I realize that its pretty rough, but I'm sure that you get the gist of it.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but seeing your objections would help me to understand exactly what it is that you're saying.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Thomas Ash

Thanks - I think...

Yes - I'm not quite sure I agree with your definition of absolute truth as "necessarily true" if by that you mean some truths are "necessarily true" in the same way as God is claimed to "necessarily exist." But I agree that if something has existed at any point in time, you've established one absolute truth about it's having existed (in external reality) then.
Yes, I don't think there's actually that much disagreement. If you accept external reality, that implies that there are some truths about what is in external reality, regardless of your ability to know them.

Hugo Holbling

LOL! Parmenides again!

Bill Snedden

Ummmm...if you're referring to my last post, then no, my argument need not be taken to mean "something" as a unitary something. It could also be many "things"....

The point is, whether one thing or many things, something(s) exist(s) and always has/have...

Regards,

Bill Snedden