Absolute truth?

@Chights47,

All you really needed was the 'I can somewhat see where you're going with this', the rest of that paragraph are just your own 'turds'. You spit them out at your 'self' and all those around you who you interpret as your 'self', hoping they will 'stick' so you can have an excuse to keep bullshitting your 'self'.

You exist, there really is no 'me' in this, you are the one who is 'participating' in this conversation.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

You're a contradictory idiot...

1 Reply

@Chights47,

If you find contradictions, it's because you are looking for 'concrete' definition. You really aren't interested in communicating, you're just looking for ammunition for your own conclusions.

0 Replies

@Hermod,

There is at least one absolutely true statement which is the statement: "Every statement is either true or false." Thus there exist at least one absolute truth.

1 Reply

By nature the one who asks lacks, awareness is measurement (and the need for measurement is the need for answers)...Being is not needing to know !

...a Final state of affairs in the set of all sets, the way I see it, is not aware of itself, it does n´t need to, not even to move, its atemporal and static...it reminds me of that Nirvana Hindu thing, there´s definitely some truth in there...

2 Replies

the absolute truth , and there are billions of them

if you get into the depth of what makes anything , anything , they all come about because the combination of this or that , atoms , elements , molecules etc, can not do otherwise

combination(s) produce a type of indentity unique to the resultant object

hence why an arm does not become an insect etc

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

the absolute truth , and there are billions of them

if you get into the depth of what makes anything , anything , they all come about because the combination of this or that , atoms , elements , molecules etc, can not do otherwise

combination(s) produce a type of indentity unique to the resultant object

hence why an arm does not become an insect etc

And what makes the elements that combine?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

By nature the one who asks lacks, awareness is measurement (and the need for measurement is the need for answers)...Being is not needing to know !

...a Final state of affairs in the set of all sets, the way I see it, is not aware of itself, it does n´t need to, not even to move, its atemporal and static...it reminds me of that Nirvana Hindu thing, there´s definitely some truth in there...

Does the set of all sets contain itself?

If not, then how could it be the set of all sets while being itself a set it does not contain?

If yes, then how could it remain the same set and be always another set containing it?

0 Replies

@JPhil,

JPhil wrote:

There is at least one absolutely true statement which is the statement: "Every statement is either true or false." Thus there exist at least one absolute truth.

If that statement were absolutely true, then it would itself either be true or false (as every statement would), which means it would be both possibly true and possibly false. However, an absolute truth is not possibly false. And since there would be at least one statement of which we could not say that it is "either true or false," the statement "every statement is either true or false" would be false.

0 Replies

...in my rule book a set is a sequence of dynamic systemic relations, thus sets do not contain themselves by definition...a set of squares which is itself a square for instance in its being a square of squares does not entail equality with a square alone, only faked similarity...being therefore is more then the sum of passive parts which would then transcend each other in passivity...the true sum of parts must imply the sum of relations in a group.

Set theory needs a change in understanding what a set is !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...that which is not contained and that contains is bounded by the finite total sum of relations of their parts and thus cannot project itself to contain itself...
...IT CANNOT COMPUTE ITSELF !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

..."God" its not aware of being "God"...in enquiry we are the mind of God !
...God does not enquire itself being everything there´s nothing to enquire about...
...Minds and knowledge, Epistemology, are about parts not wholeness...(relativity qualify´s that)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...a set cannot compute itself but it is the result of a sum of computations that ultimately halt...the lenght of the sum is halted in itself...it cannot diversify itself from itself, to fully reckon itself in the relation with the different from itself...it cannot grow out of itself...thus itself being motionless as itself renders motion a walk to itself...motion is the negation of God if only to find him...the eternal loop of that which cannot ever be contained, once the container by definition...LAW !

0 Replies

Read Pyrrho, Hume and Popper, in that order. A truth becomes trivial as it becomes "absolute."

1 Reply

@FBM,

That which cannot repeat or project itself hardly could be called trivial...but I know what you meant with trivial in there...tautology, a square is a square is a square...thanks for the advise. Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the triviality in a tautology consists precisely in us being able to compute it repeatedly...not the case in here...whatever is true is true does not equal to explain what is to be true nor the lenght of truth itself...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

By nature the one who asks lacks,

Nature is not the factor which determines who you are and people who ask are not lacking, they don't remember that they already know.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

awareness is measurement (and the need for measurement is the need for answers)

Why do you continually attempt to place the illusion of measurement on that which is unmeasurable? What are you hiding from and why?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Being is not needing to know

You are correct. 'Be'-ing IS knowing. 'Be'-ing IS temporality. 'Needing' is the game we play on ourselves to prove to ourselves and others that we forgot that we already know.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

...if "you" forgot "you" don´t know...that simple ! (knowing means presently knowing)

...the "you already know but forgot" bit of talk up there concerns BEING...the possibility of actuality !

That which is not actual and I enquire about makes me lacking...and of course unless I myself am to be the final set of all sets I certainly cannot contain nor compute all the answers there are to be asked about thus from my incompleteness the very need for enquiry, and from its unreasonableness the necessary compulsory commitment with belief ! A final set would not need epistemology for any purpose at all...

1 Reply

@Dasein,

...who said measurement is unresolvable ? relative measurement or comparative measurement is a part in absolute measurement which is not for your teeth...absolute measurement is not awareness of measurement but the whole of the measuring itself, BEING ! (not enquiry)
Absolute measurement is unresolvable to you that are a part and not the whole...
...and the Whole in turn in "its measuring" does not measure, IT is !...

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

the absolute truth , and there are billions of them

if you get into the depth of what makes anything , anything , they all come about because the combination of this or that , atoms , elements , molecules etc, can not do otherwise

combination(s) produce a type of indentity unique to the resultant object

hence why an arm does not become an insect etc

And what makes the elements that combine?

what makes the elements ?

just to make sure , is this what your actually asking ?

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know