Absolute truth?

guigus wrote:

Because if it cannot account for something, then it must be relative to just whatever it can account for, hence being relative, rather than absolute.

If it can't account for something, it's relative to what it can account for. OK. I think I'm beginning to see the light. Maybe not the one you're pointing to, tho.

Quote:

It seems you don't realize the gravity and implications of the word "absolute."

I won't deny that it's hypothetically possible.

Quote:

Absolute truth says something about all truth, about what it means to be true, which must be valid for every truth,

You're pretty prolific with these bold assertions. They seem almost as if they were based on the logic that you claim not to trust...*cough*

Quote:

...including the contradictory truth of the liar paradox -- which is why I asked you for a non-contradictory solution to that paradox in the first place:

I'm not the one making bold assertions without empirical support. Why should I give a rat's arse about the liar's paradox? I'm not the one using logic to discredit...logic.

Quote:

until you can provide one, absolute truth must incorporate contradiction.

Again, why? Because you say so? Got anything empirical to support that? Or is it just another groundless metaphysical presupposition and conjecture?

I'm not the one making metaphysical assertions; it's not up to me to do anything other than show the flaws in yours. Which is like shooting fish in a barrel lately.

You've made a number of errors so far. You mistakenly claimed that I asserted that there is no absolute truth. You mistakenly claimed that I'm the one defending and depending on logic, when your arguments are based on it. What's the deal? Is it a reading comprehension problem? Or are you tilting at windmills and assuming, without close investigation, that I represent an opinion that you oppose? If you read carefully what I have written so far...

OK, I'll finish that.

...you might see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about. Sorry if I was starting to sound a bit snarky, but you really do need to beef up your argument. Just claiming something to be true doesn't make for a very convincing or compelling argument.

I think YOU have some 'issues' that you refuse to 'see to their depths' and you put that blame on all those who can't 'accurately create' explanations for you.

FBM wrote:

OK, I'll finish that.

...you might see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about. Sorry if I was starting to sound a bit snarky, but you really do need to beef up your argument. Just claiming something to be true doesn't make for a very convincing or compelling argument.

I already gave you what you are asking for, at http://able2know.org/topic/162574-15#post-4591641, despite your apparently not noticing it.

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

OK, I'll finish that.

...you might see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about. Sorry if I was starting to sound a bit snarky, but you really do need to beef up your argument. Just claiming something to be true doesn't make for a very convincing or compelling argument.

I already gave you what you are asking for, at http://able2know.org/topic/162574-15#post-4591641, despite your apparently not noticing it.

I noticed it as speculative, meaningless word salad.

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

OK, I'll finish that.

...you might see that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about. Sorry if I was starting to sound a bit snarky, but you really do need to beef up your argument. Just claiming something to be true doesn't make for a very convincing or compelling argument.

I already gave you what you are asking for, at http://able2know.org/topic/162574-15#post-4591641, despite your apparently not noticing it.

I noticed it as speculative, meaningless word salad.

You must decide: it is either meaningless or speculative -- it cannot be both. And supposing you opt for "speculative," you must point out in which respect. Or, if you opt by "meaningless," then you should stop discussing with me. (By the way, you seem to like salad a lot, since you mention it all the time.)

So... Can anyone name an absolute truth?

So... Can anyone name an absolute truth?

How can you assert that "That there was no rain in New York City on Monday, October 11, 2010." is true without language?

What?

It cannot be said, it cannot be known, it cannot be believed, etc..

Ken:
"What I said (carefully) is that if it is true that it rained on that day, then it is an absolute truth that it rained that day."

How can this be known to be the case, when there is nobody around?
Your claim is that 'it' is true, so, how do you know that it is true ...without the capacity to show that it is true or not?

p -> (p is absolutely true), is very doubtful if it has any meaning at all.

Your criteria for 'absolute truth' ..true at all times, does not work.

Yes...this is an introduction to second order cybernetics....the observation of observation.

With respect to Ken's persistent posts about "the moon prior to observers", what he hasn't worked out is that is a contingent aspect in the "story" of the earth. i.e. Observers NOW might be tempted to agree that hypothetical observers THEN would have recognized "the moon". But such agreement is based on such hypothetical observers possessing modern semantic networks in which "moon" has meaning. (It is the current communicators themselves are observing "the ancient moon" in their minds). What is functionally going on now is systemic thinking with respect to the explanation (i.e prediction) of current observations of the state of the moon/ earth/oceanic system. Since pre-diction and retro-diction share the continuous logic of a time-line, success in prediction implies "success" in retro-diction. And "success" constitutes "truth".

Quote:

The statement is not true because people agree is is true.

Wrong ! It's true for them at that time and place...i.e. "it works". And that is all any "truth" implies.