25
   

Absolute truth?

Forums: Truth, Reality, Philosophy, Mind, Infinite
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 01:29 pm
@guigus,
How is a set different from a category? The members of a category belong together, it seems to me, not because of some "essential"commonality, but only because some human or humans decided to organize them that way for whatever purpose. If that is so how does it not also apply to sets? I took a set theory class about half a century ago and forgot what was learned.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 01:29 pm
@guigus,
How is a set different from a category? The members of a category belong together, it seems to me, not because of some "essential"commonality, but only because some human or humans decided to organize them that way for whatever purpose. If that is so how does it not also apply to sets? I took a set theory class about half a century ago and forgot what was learned.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 07:56 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

How is a set different from a category? The members of a category belong together, it seems to me, not because of some "essential"commonality, but only because some human or humans decided to organize them that way for whatever purpose. If that is so how does it not also apply to sets? I took a set theory class about half a century ago and forgot what was learned.


Don't confuse things: I was talking about the essential properties of any set, as a concept. My reasoning does not depend on the particular concept of set you may have: whatever its essential properties are, two different sets---even the most different ones---must share them.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 08:44 pm
@JLNobody,
Set theory can get a bit complicated, but is essential in math.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Aug, 2011 10:35 pm
@guigus,
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 06:09 pm

yet I define absolute truth based on what certain chemical combinations produce , molecules

both in living things and non-living things

guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Aug, 2011 04:53 pm
@north,
north wrote:


yet I define absolute truth based on what certain chemical combinations produce , molecules

both in living things and non-living things




Could you then please formulate that definition?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 11:01 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:

north wrote:


yet I define absolute truth based on what certain chemical combinations produce , molecules

both in living things and non-living things




Could you then please formulate that definition?


formulate ?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 11:02 am
@north,
create?
maybe?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 11:05 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

create?
maybe?


I don't know , really
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 11:09 am
@north,
maybe he wants you to try to restate that definition.
this isn't meant to kind of insult guigus or anything, but there was this kid at my school who used big words and spoke reallyfast all the time, (and i suspect he used them out of context alot as well) and we hung out alot, so i had to read between the lines alot, just to understand what he was saying. i'm not saying guigus does this, but, well, yeah
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 11:14 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

maybe he wants you to try to restate that definition.
this isn't meant to kind of insult guigus or anything, but there was this kid at my school who used big words and spoke reallyfast all the time, (and i suspect he used them out of context alot as well) and we hung out alot, so i had to read between the lines alot, just to understand what he was saying. i'm not saying guigus does this, but, well, yeah


I don't know

what more can I say

other than the Universe gives us the chemicals and therefore the possibility of life
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 12:28 pm
@north,
North, let me quibble for a moment: according to my perspective you are understandably confounding "truth" and "reality". I "reject" your equation of molecules with absolute truth because I define "truth" as theoretical propositions ABOUT reality. In other words your equation was a (truth) proposition about the structure of reality, not a descripton of it.
You might have said that you ["] offer as a TRUTH PROPOSITION the definiion of REALITY as the molecular consequence of Nature's chemistry ["].
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 12:35 pm
@JLNobody,
Well put, and I agree. Biology is physical, and has nothing to do with human reality and perspective.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 12:43 pm
@JLNobody,
...I am sorry but that´s only one of the propositions on what truth is about namely the correspondence theory of truth...one could in simple terms state that truth is the state of affairs on which all things are grounded...and thus understanding that knowing it is an entirely different matter...while one may assert that no description can ever fully correspond to any previous state of reality once relying in a relative measurement that in turn does n´t make the partial description less correspondent to whatever caused such perspective...all descriptions are therefore partial valid descriptions on arrangements of information and are real descriptions in themselves. there is no possible absolute referent in temporal terms even in a fully causal universe once the measurer is an integrate part of such universe and thus cannot compute its own process of computing reality without necessarily needing to exceed such reality from which he is a part to fully compute it...the reference of validity for truth must therefore always be a partial reliable measurement...one that works !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 01:00 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...a measurement is always a partial account on reality itself, as a real part of it it cannot possibly fully describe it, if itself in it as a sub set of it...although it can be said that it is fully caused by it in holistic terms of course...Truth is reality itself and any description of it is only valid as real description thus corresponding to something but not necessarily to what one supposes it addresses...for a relative question an absolutely correspondent relative answer.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 01:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...the measurer is an integrate part of such universe and thus cannot compute its own process of computing reality without necessarily needing to exceed such reality from which he is a part to fully compute it...


...intended to be as:

..the measurer is an integrate part of such universe and thus cannot compute its own process of computing reality without necessarily needing to exceed such reality, (from which contrarily he is only a part) to fully compute it...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 02:18 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

North, let me quibble for a moment: according to my perspective you are understandably confounding "truth" and "reality". I "reject" your equation of molecules with absolute truth because I define "truth" as theoretical propositions ABOUT reality. In other words your equation was a (truth) proposition about the structure of reality, not a descripton of it.
You might have said that you ["] offer as a TRUTH PROPOSITION the definiion of REALITY as the molecular consequence of Nature's chemistry ["].


which is an absolute truth , to me

the way I define " truth " has nothing to do with " theoretical " at all

truth is beyond theoretical , absolutely
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 02:22 pm
@north,
I'm going to disagree; theoritical truth is all part and parcel of all variants of truths.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Aug, 2011 02:23 pm
@north,
...a definition is always a theoretical proposition with a practical cause North...
 

Related Topics

Truth vs. Fact - Question by atchoo522
What is truth? - Question by Torii
The truth about life - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
Is truth subjective or objective? - Discussion by Taliesin181
Responsible Guilt or Guilty or Innocent - Discussion by MsKnowledgebased
Church vs Bible, What to believe? - Question by papag
Changing Beliefs.... Changing Experiences! - Discussion by NoName77
Philosophical Discussion About "Truth" - Question by NoName77
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Absolute truth?
  3. » Page 39
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 01:24:41
▲ ▼