An intellectual question

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

An intellectual question

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:23 pm

Do you believe in absolute truth?


Choark
 

An non intellectual answer

Unread postby Choark » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:46 pm

In all honesty...

Quote:
Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statements are called absolute truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticize absolutism is the absolute truth statement: Absolute truths do not exist.

The statement, 'Absolute truths do not exist.', reveals the characteristic of absolute truth. Absolute truth does not apply to reality, existence, belief, or to human intelligence. In the logic of dichotomy of true-not true, application is without respect to what is absolutely true. Certainly, absolute truth does not define material existence, but supports material existence, position, and state of being. Absolute truth is as applicable to 'not true' as it is to 'true'. The double negative reveals this monistic status of absolute truth. The non-existence of absolute truth would, if true, be as true as the existence of absolute truth in an absolute sense. To postulate the non-existence of truth, however, is to violate the most fundamental capacity of mind. It is as though a snake could swallow itself by starting at the tail. Therein lies the value of absolute truth for thought. Violation of truth value in an absolute sense, validates the truth value of existence versus non-existence. Some say, "If I see it I believe it." Others say, "I believe it if I know it." If the sense of knowing is little better than the sense of sight, little can be made of the analogy. The acuity of the sense of absolute truth may not be good enough for most to clearly distinguish the difference between what is true and truth itself.

One could ask, 'Is it true that truth exists?' One can also ask, 'Is it true that truth does not exist?' The first can be affirmed by mind, while the latter cannot be affirmed without a gross distortion of sense. If truth does not exist, it would certainly be true that truth does not exist. That is the quality of absolute truth. If the negation were true, one could not ask the question and expect a true answer. Absolute truth is the essence of thought and distinguishes the capacity of the sapient being.


... I couldn't follow that very well and I'm pretty sure its a crux of the entire conversation/discussion that may go on in here so I can't join in the intellectual part of this.

However I do go with the knee jerk reaction that in the end something is True or Not True. If Kilroy was killed by Richard is either true or false, though part of my head says Richard could of controlled or drove Kilroy to a situation where Kilroy killed himself, so is the statement true or false? And even if you go for one it doesn't nessuarily mean the other is false. Also something like "Is God real?" We may die and find that The God isn't real... but there may actually be a being, or race of people, who are basically God like and fill most of the critea of Gods, maybe even creating a heaven and hell for non-God like souls such as us... So would that mean that "Is God real?" be found true, because there is something there that did all that God was said to do, or not because its in the end slightly different to how the Bible said this God is? And again is either actully wrong?

.. So eh.. yeah. I don't get it. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;">HEROES DON'T NEED PANTS</span> </div></p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:49 pm

I used to believe in the concept of "absolute fact". Until yesterday, when I had a realization that truth and fact were not absolute, but instead were based on the majority perception of the aforementioned "truth" or "fact". As perceptions can be changed, I believe that most, if not all truth and fact are effectively mutable--though this is ironically an absolute statement in itself, creating an unusual contradiction. <p>"DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEAT US? OUR TREASURE MAY BE HEAVY, BUT WE ARE LIGHT AS WIND. ONLY MAGICS MAY HURT US, BUT ONLY WE KNOW WHICH ONES." --Omoikane, Digital Devil Saga 2</p>

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:47 pm

Actually, I think it makes your statement false.


D
 

.

Unread postby D » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:16 pm

I know that I know nothing.

All statements are false.

People cannot form a complete sentence.

I am contributing to this debate to say that I believe knowledge is not a good to be pursued.


... Gotta love self-disproving statements. Sadly, Doug's was not.


User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: .

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:20 pm

Quote:
All truth and fact are effectively mutable


Not to be raining on Doug's parade when he can't defend himself, but I believe that the use of the word "all" implies an absolute statement. And seeing as the statement claims that there is nothing that is immutably true, it collapses upon itself.


Archmage144
 

Re: .

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:28 pm

All philosophy is bullshit. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: .

Unread postby Idran1701 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:28 am

Even logic?

Edit: Actually, I'll take that a step further. Even science? <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=idran1701>Idran1701</A] at: 6/6/06 0:29

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:30 am

This is the saddest intellectual discussion I've ever seen.

For starters, the original post contains only a link to a Wikipedia entry. Assuming that Wikipedia has all the info correct, it's still just a description of absolute truth. KoD offers no insight, elaboration, argument one way or the other, or even guesswork of any kind.

The second post confuses "the truth" and "absolute truth." It's only an absolute truth if it applies to everything of its kind, all the time, with no exceptions. Saying "He killed that woman" may be true, but it has nothing to with absolute truth, as it's only applicable to one instance. The proposition that "Killing is (always) the fault of the killer" is one that is a contender to be an absolute truth, since it applies to all homicides, all the time. If you're not sure about something, Choark, ask.

The next few posts don't offer anything constructive, Nama and KoD repeat some points from the article, Dan's post is confusing and probably irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and AM's point is counterproductive: why post if you're just going to imply that it's useless to discuss the subject?

For what it's worth, I put forth that there is at least one absolute truth (though we may not know what it is, or be able to prove it), even if it's only "The only absolute truth that exists is that there are no other absolute truths."


User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:24 am

I'm not sure about how effective this'll be as an arguement. But hey, I've got to learn how to do this sort of thing sometime, and it might as well be now.

===

The problem with absolute truth is that it does exist, then humanity would probably be unable to recognize it (as Doc mentioned as a possibility). There are so many variations on events that it's impossible to view or predict them all, so as a result, we end up having a limited viewpoint. And heck, even the basic laws of physics may end up having some flaws in them; however, that leads to a question. Are flaws like this a blemish against absolute truth, or more of a blemish against our own knowledge? My gut instinct veers towards the latter.

However, even if the existence of absolute truth may be up in the air, things related to it are still useful. For example, lets take generalities and predictability. If you spend enough time studying people, certain traits about human nature will pop up, revealing certain truths. You start to see just how cause and effect plays out, and how certain things will repeat themselves with different people. A person who has a habit of lying and cheating his friends could make an exception for you. There may even be cases where these mooches make an exception for one special person! However, it's most likely that you'll just be another sucker. This doesn't just apply to him either, though; it applies to people like him. So, if nothing else, absolute truths can provide a useful shorthand for dealing with day to day events. It's up to personal experience, wisdom, and common sense to spot what's an exception to the rule and what proves the rule. <p>

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>

User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:46 am

Just interjecting to make the note that I posted the Wiki article so that those who had no damn clue what I was talking about would at least have an idea of what the hell I was talking about.


NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:25 am

To be fair, I didn't read the entry. <p>"DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEAT US? OUR TREASURE MAY BE HEAVY, BUT WE ARE LIGHT AS WIND. ONLY MAGICS MAY HURT US, BUT ONLY WE KNOW WHICH ONES." --Omoikane, Digital Devil Saga 2</p>

Wolfbelly
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Wolfbelly » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:18 pm

Whooole lot of effort going into these Discussion threads. <p><span style="font-size:x-small;"><div style="text-align:center">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't you fight it girl, it's only NAT-U-RAL. Can't disguise what's in your eyes. They say too much. Don't deny that when we touch, it's PHY-SI-CAL. Let it be you and me, don't fight it baby.</div>
</span></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:25 pm

Just interjecting to make the note that I posted the Wiki article so that those who had no damn clue what I was talking about would at least have an idea of what the hell I was talking about.

But you didn't actually talk about it, you just posted the article and said "go."


Choark
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Choark » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:33 pm

Well considering the title of the thread was "An intellectual question" my guess is thats why all he did was post the question, with the post doing what the title of the thread said it would do. Maybe his point would of come in later if the thread hadn't contained:

a) I don't know what it is!
b) PHILOSOPHY IS CRAP!
c) None of you know how to discuss anything!!

He put the question to us, it was up to us to discuss it, kinda like a teacher trying to kick start a debate in class, so to speak. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;">HEROES DON'T NEED PANTS</span> </div></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:38 pm

This must be the special ed class, then.

It should also be noted that even when discussion was presented (Nebula Queen and I), he didn't respond.


User avatar
KingOfDoma
Guess Who It Is?
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:21 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby KingOfDoma » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:31 pm

I'm trying not to take a position, as I don't really want to be fending off arguments/babysitting the thread. I think the topic is interesting enough that it doesn't need a GM.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:46 pm

I believe there is universal truth for universal things. Objective shit like "He kicked that rock."

Before the hounds (i.e. Doc) descend on me and rip that apart, let me clarify that there are a number of inferences and presumptions about such a simple statement. "The male who I am specifically indicating and no other has forcefully impacted with his foot the specific piece of mineral material which I am specifically indicating and no other during a specific interval of time which is understood by the two parties engaged in this conversation."

That kind of shit? Okay. He either *did* kick that rock, or he didn't. Once you define 'kick' and 'that' and 'rock' then the absolute truth of the matter can be spoken upon. It's an entirely separate can of worms in the matter of how to determine, absolutely, whether this assertation is true or false. For now, though, let us ignore the faillibility of human perception, because that's a load of shit and I don't care.

Other statements which are inherently relative, like "Lloyd has never had anything interesting to contribute to this thread," are not subject to validity in an absolute sense, because 'interesting' is a subjective word. What is interesting to one is not to another, blah blah. Statements involving 'good,' 'evil,' 'desirable,' 'tasty,' and other such things are similarly covered under this no-absolute-validity blanket; it's just something that can't be said to be certain, no matter how many people may or may not agree with it. Human will does not objective truth create.

Let us also not ignore logical statements, using Boolean-esque logic. "Either I exist or I do not exist" is a perfectly legitimate statement, and it is reasonable to assume that at least one of the conditions proposed in that statement is true. Which? Who cares; the absolutism of the statement remains regardless. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 6/6/06 23:47

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:35 am

You're misinterpreting the subject, though. Statements like "He kicked the rock," or "This is a pen" aren't propositions, they're just descriptions of events/things. They don't really have anything to do with absolute truths, because they have such a narrow scope; they only talk about one thing/event.

Propositions like "Bears can climb trees," and "RPGWWers are poor debaters," might be regarded as "absolute truths," if they applied to all bears/RPGWWers (for the sake of this argument, there is no ambiguity over what constitutes an RPGWWer), at all times past, present, and future. And that's the problem: You can't say for certain that every bear will be able to climb a tree; what if one breaks his leg? Similarly, there are a few RPGWWers who know what they're doing in a discussion, so it's not an absolute truth. It only takes one example to the contrary to make it a relative truth and not an absolute one.

(note that the propositions I made in the last paragraph were for illustration purposes only, attacking them specifically is pointless)

And Priam, there are some quantum physicists who would take issue with the statement "Either I exist or I don't exist."


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:33 am

Let me put the same concept to you a different way. What if one puts forth a proposition regarding something in the past? Say, "all passenger pigeons have feathers." They're extinct now, and for the sake of argument let's say they will never be cloned or anything like that. The statement reaches across multiple units, i.e. there was more than one passenger pigeon that ever existed, but the true/false condition of this statement has already been set and there's none of this in-the-future-maybe-there's-one-that's-different uncertainty shit. So you can assert an absolute truth about this group based on the characteristics of all individuals in that group, because they have all finished existing.

If you accept this, what is so bad about "he kicked the rock?" Let's expand that to "All Horatio X. Magnamius III's have kicked rocks on July 13, 1947." Presume there was only one, and he did. All fellows with that name did that act on that specific date, and the veracity of this statement does not change depending on where you go or what cosmic time it is, therefore it is considered to be absolute, yes? Or is there something that makes you queasy about things already being written? <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Archmage144
 

Re: .

Unread postby Archmage144 » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:43 am

To back up and respond to Idran, no, I suppose I hadn't taken logic into account when I made that post. Logic is a very interesting field, but I personally think that there is a definite weakness in assuming that philosophy's definition of logical reasoning is an excellent way to explain everything. And while science has a philosophy that governs it, I wouldn't say that philosophy is empirical science. Would you call Kirkegaard, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, or Peter Singer a "scientist"?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, as Doc is saying, the only time the idea of "absolute truth" even matters is in questions of ethics. I am going to assume that Charles proposed the topic with the ethical angle in mind, because there isn't much discussion to be had regarding whether we can say for sure "he kicked the rock" or whatever. I don't believe there is much value in questioning whether there is a rock, whether one can kick, et cetera. To do so is a meaningless philosophical exercise; I feel this way mostly because I am a scientist, and as a result, I prefer experiments with testable hypotheses. However, it goes one step beyond that. More accurately, I prefer hypotheses that are readily testable. "Life is not real, it is only a dream" is a testable hypothesis. After all, you can try to wake up. However, the means of testing such hypotheses is not readily available, and it becomes difficult to qualify (or quantify) the results in the majority of "philosophical experiments." Unlike an experiment where I can demonstrate data that say "this antibiotic kills 97% of Staphylococcus aureus in a sample" or "when I add sodium sulfate to dissolved copper nitrate the solution turns green," existence or lack thereof is very difficult to prove.

Since it is not readily testable whether "reality exists" or not, and it ultimately makes no difference since the world will presumably continue to function the same way as it has previously, I feel it is an irrelevant question.

As such, it becomes necessary to explain what I do feel is a potentially valid branch of "absolute truth"-related philosophy, and that is that which deals with "absolute morality" or "absolute ethics." Since existentialist debate is ultimately fruitless, the most productive conversations that can take place are about relatively concrete concepts such as which human behaviors are acceptable. Even if not everyone agrees as to what is right, most people agree that there are things that are "right" or "wrong," and given that assumption, the question becomes how to decide which is which.

Now, if someone wants to debate slash discuss ethics instead of existentialism, I'm game, but as far as Chuck's question goes, I figured I should elaborate on my statement that "all philosophy is bullshit." I can name-drop on the subject a little (if you think that means jack), and I can discuss it competently, but I overall don't think it's a valuable exercise to sit around and ask "what is a chair, anyway? Is there really such a thing as a chair?" <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:27 pm

Birds are generally born with no feathers. Even if you limited it to adult passenger pigeons, you're telling me that you know for certain no one ever plucked one? Or that one was never born with a genetic defect? Or died in a fire? And for your other statement, which is ridiculous by itself (rephrasing a sentence doesn't change the fact that you're still describing an event): all it takes is one person to name their kid Horatio X. Magnamius III to invalidate it.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:41 pm

Except that we're talking about a past event, July whatever day I said it was. Past. Happened. Written.

As for the passenger pigeons, I thought I said we weren't talking about the fallibility of human perception. That's a different debate, and stop changing the subject. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Dr Ninja PhD
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja PhD » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:08 pm

That was the worst rebuttal ever.

Except that we're talking about a past event, July whatever day I said it was. Past. Happened. Written.

Right, and for it to be an absolute truth, it has to be true all of the time, past, present, and future. If, 10 years from now, I have a child, and name him Horatio X. Magnamius III, then your statement will have never been an absolute truth. The only way you can do it is to rephrase your statement to something like "All people named Horatio X. Magnamius III who were alive at the time kicked rocks on July 13th 1947." But then you're back to having a description of an event, rather than a proposition. It's true, sure, but it has nothing to do with absolutism.

As for the passenger pigeons, I thought I said we weren't talking about the fallibility of human perception. That's a different debate, and stop changing the subject.

I....what? I never said anything about human perception. The fact is that if even one pigeon existed that had no feathers, whether we knew about it or not, then the statement "All passenger pigeons have feathers" is invalid. Even if it turns out to be true, one might still be cloned in the future, and then maybe plucked. Then it wouldn't be an absolute truth. You can't put limiters like "For the sake of argument..." on absolute truths; if they don't apply in all situations, all the time, no exceptions, then they aren't absolute.


Dr Ninja
 

Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby Dr Ninja » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:11 pm

Also, the statement about the guy kicking the rock is not an absolute truth, because it's not true at all times--before July 13th 1947, the event hadn't happened yet, and the statement would have been false.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Re: An intellectual question

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:46 pm

I append 'for the sake of argument' because there is the distinct possibility that no passenger pigeons will ever be cloned, and if we assume that possibility then we, humans who can never actually know absolute truth with any certainty, can actually argue this point instead of frolicking in our mandatory ignorance waving our genitals at eachother.

The idea that a statement about the past has no relevance in the future is poppycock. Just because an event happened in the past does not mean that a statement about this past event cannot be true. And it can hold true for all futures. In the year 2072, will it be true that Horatio kicked a rock in July of 1947? Sure.

Your point about the times before the event, that's something to consider, though. It certainly could be said about that day in 1947 that someone kicks a rock on July 13th, and it may not be untrue, but again that leaves us the problem of how do we know this?

Actually, for that matter, how do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow? We don't. We say it will, and it is reasonable to say that this is the case; all logic and pattern recognition would agree. It will not happen forever, but the point is that it is in the future and while it is not guaranteed because of its not-having-happened, it can be stated that the sun will rise in the morning and we might be right. So I purport that statements about a specific event at a specific time can be held as absolute truths. They are not *the* absolute truth, in the sense that we have a unified field theory about it which actually tells us anything interesting about the cosmos, but it would be something that one would be unable to refute by any logical means. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

wolfbelly
 

*bash bash bash*

Unread postby wolfbelly » Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:53 am

Don't worry, in this case *bash bash bash* replies to the sound of people beating their heads against the unyielding brick wall of logic.

Priam: What the heck? I know you're smart, how can you keep this up? Let's lay it out here ... a statement is true when it's true. A statement is absolutely true when it's ALWAYS true, under ALL circumstances. A circle cannot be a square is an absolute truth. There is no circumstance, EVER, during which a circle could be a square. God exists is possibly an absolute truth. It's only absolutely true if He does exist, but if He does, then it's ALWAYS true under ALL circumstances.

A statement made at a specific time about a certain circumstance "Priam is wrong, again, when he posted on the forums on 6/7/06 23:46" is true. But it's not absolutely true. First of all, there are circumstances, however rare, where it might be false (you actually changing your post to be right for example). Second, while that statement will be true if made 200 years from now, it's not a statement that applies to the future. And an absolute truth must apply to ALL circumstances at ALL times. An absolute truth would be a statement like "Priam is always wrong when he posts on the forums" IF AND ONLY IF you were to actually remain wrong at all times that you posted.

And no, we won't know if the sun will rise tomorrow. And the statement "The sun always rises in the morning" is not absolutely true (well, that's debatable if you want to argue semantics, but let's not gay it up like that). Why? Because it doesn't apply to ALL circumstances at ALL times. We know that the sun will burn out or the earth will be destroyed. Whichever comes first will make the previous statement false, therefore it's not absolutely true.

I chuckle at how ticked everyone's getting at Doc when all he's really demonstrating is that he's right.


User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: *bash bash bash*

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:23 am

See, the logical rub is that you guys put the words 'always' and 'never' and that kind of stuff in your assertions. You don't *have* to. Absolute truths do not have to be big, widespread generalizations. So long as there is no point in time or space where it is false, then it fits the criteria. It doesn't even matter if it *might* be true or false; what matters to the veracity of the assertion is whether it *is* true or false. It is possible for a statement about the future to be true. People make livings off of doing that, in fact.

I really don't see what's so hard about this. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 6/8/06 2:23

wolfbelly
 

Okay ...

Unread postby wolfbelly » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:56 am

For the majority of what you posted, I refer you to this "An absolute truth would be a statement like "Priam is always wrong when he posts on the forums" IF AND ONLY IF you were to actually remain wrong at all times that you posted." I could take the always out of that and it would remain an absolute truth. However, the always would arise anyway as you would need to be wrong at all times for that statement to be absolutely true. It's certainly possible for the statement to be false, but if it's not, and you're always wrong, then it's absolutely true.

As for statements about the future, no. Just no. You don't see what's so hard about this because you're blind. A statement about the future incorporates one instance, absolute truth encompasses universal possibilities. A statement about the future may be true, but it may also be false. An absolute truth is logically inflexible. Refer to the circle/square argument again. A regular truth is actually useful, and applies to daily life. Absolute truths are often blindingly obvious due to their overt nature, such as your "It's X or it's not X" statement.

Absolute truth = Universal
Regular truth = any point in time
Statement about future = some point in time
Statement about future = regular truth
Obvious statement that can't help but be true = Universal

I seriously hope you're just playing with me and being obstinate to get my goat, because I'd rather be this foolish than you be that dense.


E Mouse
 

Re: *bash bash bash*

Unread postby E Mouse » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:20 am

It sounds like both in this case, Wolfy.

Well, since you already seem to be ignoring the problems with human perception, interpretation, definitions, and context, I'll focus on the other problem.

Change.

Almost nothing can be and is gauranteed to remain 'always true under all circumstances.' The concept of a 'circle' can change over time. God could probably will Him/Her/Itself in and out of existance if they really wanted to. Old laws of physics appear to be getting 'broken' these days at a decent rate.

The only thing I could see this being applied to is strict mathematics, since the concepts are so rigid and straightforward.

Then again, there's always fun stuff with changing the basic workings of the universe itself, making even the mathematical argument obsolete...

Relevant Comic!

Also, finally looking at the article, this reminds me of the thinking-too-much-bullshit that personifies high-end Mathematics and theoretical science/physics. Remind me what the point of this is? To get into a huge argument over something with no practical application?

Regardless, I could see Absolute Truth having validity in past and present tenses, but for it to extend into the future would either be extremely rare or impossible. <p>


<span style="font-size:xx-small;">"Their rhetoric... You didn't put communists in his bed did you!" came Amber's indignant reply.

"Why not? All I had to do was open a gate to his bed and stick up a sign saying 'Hot virgin willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of international socialist fraternity.'"</span>

<span style="color:blue;font-size:xx-small;">Excaliburned:</span> <span style="font-size:xx-small;">Ah yes, I'm thinking of having the USS Bob be preserved outside the Arena as a monument of sorts</span></p>

Choark
 

*sock sock sock*

Unread postby Choark » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:48 am

Damnnit! Another Quote:
Remind me what the point of this is? To get into a huge argument over something with no practical application?

Argument or discussion, yeah, but then again a lot of discussions tend to be that way anyway. Well a fair few at any rate. Its not like any of were being forced to take part, with our mothers, sisters and female friends threatened to be impregnated with maggots if we didn't. It's meant to be a fun thing to try and talk about and put our brains too. Some people like doing that kind of thing.

From what I can gather though it seems to just be another paradox discussion, as maybe the only universal truth one might be able to safely say is there are no universal truths but that means there is at least one so it isn't true anyway, so where do you go from there? How do you even prove something is right all the time?

I guess the practical application of it is if you find a universal truth you can safely say that the universe is ruled by certain sets of logic? Meaning it may be possible to find the mysterious "One Rule" that if used it could work out everything, from when someone is going to be born exactly to what the next lottery numbers are to how long will the universe last. That


Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron

Yalogank