Absolute truth?

@Dasein,

Re: "...the subject/object world is a very real illusion..."

I don't think it is an illusion. It is in fact a possibility to experience. The objective structure of being in itself present to hand includes the being of my body which, along with the signals, establishes a separation between me "over here" and "seeing" and "it". This is not unreal as it is the actual structure of the essent present to hand. An alternative to this view fails by something close to but not Ocham's razor. Perception itself is entangled with the structure emerging in different ways and the differences assigned theoretically to the observer. For example there is no reality to the notion of absolute motion yet when you are on a train you can sometimes experience the track moving and then suddenly it stops and you are moving. This is attributed to your "sense of motion" which necessarily includes some absolute rest frame. There is no objective correlate other that the one doing the sensing.

There is something very real and true about the objective assumptions of physics that could have been otherwise but is not.

Also, for example, when hammering a nail it is important not to hit your finger. This fact does not have the character of an illusion which to me is a false structure with the true structure behind it.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:

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.)

As meaningless as debating how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

Salad is good food! Not so great as a debating tool, however.

And, yes, I will stop discussing with you. You're firmly convinced that you've got something there. I probably shouldn't try to deprive you of your comforting illusion. Enjoy the rest of the thread.

You insist in that what I am saying is meaningless, and now that it is also an illusion: again, in can't be both. And again, you say it is an illusion without saying why. Worst, you don't even say in what such alleged illusion would consist. That's not much of a discussion, don't you think?

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

Stand there and expect everyone else to give you a reason to 'move' for as long as you want.

That's not what I am expecting for: I am expecting for you to properly address my post, saying if you agree or not, and why, as is usually done in a rational discussion.

0 Replies

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

2. And yet, the truth of a falsehood is the truth that the falsehood is false which is not the falsehood itself.

3. So the truth of a falsehood must be different from the falsehood itself but not different from itself because the truth of the falsehood of a falsehood is not itself a falsehood but rather a truth.

3. The truth of a truth makes nothing untrue except the opposite of itself which is not itself.

Finally someone addresses my post! At last.

The truth of a falsehood being the truth of the circumstance of something being false depends on the falsity of that something: without being that falsehood itself (and not its bearer, which you are mistaking it for), its truth cannot be true.

1 Reply

@guigus,

The truth of a falsehood is not the falsehood's being true its the falsehood being not true.

Doesn't it all follow from that?

"My laptop is floating one inch above the desk". That is false.

Now I use your statement: "The truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk depends on the falsity of my computer floating over my desk: without it being my computer floating over my desk" That is true but this is also true: "The truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk depends on the falsity of my computer floating over my desk: by being the fact that my computer is not floating over my desk." Ok then you say: "Its truth cannot be true" I presume that this is because of 1) If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true.

So reverting to the example If the truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk were untrue then it would not be a truth: Every truth must be true. No problem so far as it is true.

I think the problem is that you have trouble with something truly being false. Is that it? As if there is a contradiction in it "truly being" and its "being false"?

But I don't think that is a problem because my laptop must *not* be floating over my desk for the the statement that it is floating over my desk to be false. And it "is" not floating over my desk so the statement the truth of the falsity of its floating is true as my laptop is not in fact floating. So the truth of the falsity depends on a situation being true where the falsity is not. In this case the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the truth of the falsity of the fact that it is. So a falsity is not being used to establish a truth rather a truth is and that truth is identical with the statement that my computer is not floating above my desk.

I still don't get the problem?

1 Reply

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

The truth of a falsehood is not the falsehood's being true its the falsehood being not true.

Doesn't it all follow from that?

"My laptop is floating one inch above the desk". That is false.

Now I use your statement: "The truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk depends on the falsity of my computer floating over my desk: without it being my computer floating over my desk" That is true but this is also true: "The truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk depends on the falsity of my computer floating over my desk: by being the fact that my computer is not floating over my desk." Ok then you say: "Its truth cannot be true" I presume that this is because of 1) If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true.

So reverting to the example If the truth of the falsehood of the fact that my laptop computer is floating above my desk were untrue then it would not be a truth: Every truth must be true. No problem so far as it is true.

I think the problem is that you have trouble with something truly being false. Is that it? As if there is a contradiction in it "truly being" and its "being false"?

But I don't think that is a problem because my laptop must *not* be floating over my desk for the the statement that it is floating over my desk to be false. And it "is" not floating over my desk so the statement the truth of the falsity of its floating is true as my laptop is not in fact floating. So the truth of the falsity depends on a situation being true where the falsity is not. In this case the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the truth of the falsity of the fact that it is. So a falsity is not being used to establish a truth rather a truth is and that truth is identical with the statement that my computer is not floating above my desk.

I still don't get the problem?

You are denying the problem by trying to circumvent falsehood itself to get directly to its truth, which is impossible. For example, when you say that "the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the truth of the falsity of the fact that it is," you deliberately omit a necessary logical step. The complete formulation of this would be: the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the falsity of the fact that it is, hence the truth of that falsity.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I am sorry but I just don't see the problem. You seem to be equivocating two meanings: 1) X is truly false and 2) X is true and false.

I agree that I am saying the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the falsity of the fact that it is floating over my desk, hence the truth of that falsity.

But that just means that it is truly false that my computer is floating over my desk so there is no problem - because I can assure you that in the ordinary language sense it is not. I am looking at it right now to check.

Can you say for me where the problem is? Why is that a problem?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Are we not all hypothesizing

on this thread all but me

to get to absolute truth is to relise when the question(s) can stop , hence why the sun is important to life

past and present philosphers agruments on anything stop here when talking about absolute truth

because if the sun were to stop its processes we would die , all life would , simple as that

Quote:

or do we know empirical truth when we see it?

as a whole we don't , and there inlies the problem and why it becomes a shock when it is presented

1 Reply

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

I am sorry but I just don't see the problem. You seem to be equivocating two meanings: 1) X is truly false and 2) X is true and false.

I agree that I am saying the true situation of my computer not floating over my desk establishes the falsity of the fact that it is floating over my desk, hence the truth of that falsity.

But that just means that it is truly false that my computer is floating over my desk so there is no problem - because I can assure you that in the ordinary language sense it is not. I am looking at it right now to check.

Can you say for me where the problem is? Why is that a problem?

The problem exists only as far as you try to circumvent the second step of the following reasoning (by suppressing the identity between a falsehood and its truth):

Code:

1. If any truth were untrue,

then it would not be a truth:

every truth must be true.



2. And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is a falsehood,

for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,

which must be different from it.



3. So its truth must be different from itself,

hence untrue.



3. But if the truth of a truth is untrue,

then the truth it makes true is also untrue:

any truth becomes its falsity,

which makes every truth variable.

2 Replies

@north,

reasoning logic wrote:

past and present philosphers agruments on anything stop here when talking about absolute truth

Speak for yourself.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Ok let me try that.... here is the second step:

"And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is a falsehood,
for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,
which must be different from it."

The identity you speak of I think is: "the truth of a falsehood = a falsehood". (If that isn't right let me know) I guess you are right there. I am denying that as I think the truth of a falsehood, unlike a falsehood, is a truth. The falsehood is what is false and the truth of the falsehood is not false but is true. So now on to your reason...

"for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,
which must be different from it"

It seems it has two parts:
1) for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth
2) which must be different from it

Ok so taking 1) first: The truth of a falsehood must have itself as a truth. I don't have a problem with that as it is true that the falsehood is false and that truth is "had" by the truth of the falsehood. So no problem with 1)

Now 2): "which must be different from it" Trying to get that but can't. I don't think you mean that the truth of the falsehood relies on a situation in which the truth of the falsehood resides because you seem to exclude the message in earlier posts.

I am sorry. Still don't get it. Was kicked in the head by a horse when I was little. Can you explain?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Here is my best try at generating the contradiction:

1) the truth of a truth is that truth
2) the truth of a falsity is not that falsity

3) the truth of a falsity is a truth

4) the truth of a falsity is that truth of a falsity not that falsity so 1) and 2) do not contradict.

So I still get no contradiction

1 Reply

@justintruth,

justintruth wrote:

Ok let me try that.... here is the second step:

"And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is a falsehood,
for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,
which must be different from it."

The identity you speak of I think is: "the truth of a falsehood = a falsehood". (If that isn't right let me know) I guess you are right there. I am denying that as I think the truth of a falsehood, unlike a falsehood, is a truth. The falsehood is what is false and the truth of the falsehood is not false but is true. So now on to your reason...

"for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,
which must be different from it"

It seems it has two parts:
1) for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth
2) which must be different from it

Ok so taking 1) first: The truth of a falsehood must have itself as a truth. I don't have a problem with that as it is true that the falsehood is false and that truth is "had" by the truth of the falsehood. So no problem with 1)

Now 2): "which must be different from it" Trying to get that but can't. I don't think you mean that the truth of the falsehood relies on a situation in which the truth of the falsehood resides because you seem to exclude the message in earlier posts.

I am sorry. Still don't get it. Was kicked in the head by a horse when I was little. Can you explain?

Whatever is false is nothing, or it would be true rather than false. But its being false must be something, or it wouldn't be the falsity of anything. And although they are different (one is a non-being while the other is a being), the truth of the non-being (what is false as false) is identical to the truth of the being (the falsity of whatever is false):

Quote:

And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is a falsehood, for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth, which must be different from it.

1 Reply

@guigus,

The truth of a falsehood is a truth, and not a falsehood...although of course what you mean is a falsehood is a falsehood which is an evident tautology...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The truth of a falsehood is a truth, and not a falsehood...although of course what you mean is a falsehood is a falsehood which is an evident tautology...

The tautology consists in saying that "the truth of a falsehood is a truth," not in saying that the truth of a falsehood is just a falsehood. Neither the latter means that a falsehood is just a falsehood, since it refers to the truth of a falsehood, rather than to that falsehood itself, thus having the (unpleasant to you, despite obvious) consequence that a truth (the truth of a falsehood) is identical to a falsehood (the falsehood of which it is the truth).

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

The tautology consists in saying that "the truth of a falsehood is a truth," not in saying that the truth of a falsehood is just a falsehood.

No that´s a plain correction to what you said which is absurd !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
The tautology consists in saying that "the truth of a falsehood is a truth," not in saying that the truth of a falsehood is just a falsehood.

No that´s a plain correction to what you said which is absurd !

Explain yourself better, please.

1 Reply

@guigus,

There´s nothing in need of clarification, its simple and plain as water !

1 Reply

Synopsis: It can't be the Absolute Truth unless it can be shown to be Absolutely False. That which has been shown to be Absolutely False must, therefore, be Absolutely True. Only after the Truthiness of the Falsiness has been verified by the Falsiness of the Truthiness can the Truthiness be considered as a viable candidate for Absolute Truthiness. Then everything falls into place.

QED.

Taadaaaa!!!! Wink

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Synopsis: It can't be the Absolute Truth unless it can be shown to be Absolutely False.

What are you talking about ?

...if it is true that a falsehood is a falsehood then it is true...just like X is X !
...and of course that a truth does n´t have to be shown false...what is shown false is that which is falsified...

If I say, that the sky is pink is a falsehood, which is an assumed falsehood for the purpose, then it is true that the sky is not pink, or that the truth of what is referred as false is confirmed.

3 Replies

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know