Absolute truth?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm going to disagree; theoritical truth is all part and parcel of all variants of truths.

agreed

but the absolute truth is that we are thinking ultimately upon the same object

for instance the hydrogen atom

fundamentaly

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...a definition is always a theoretical proposition with a practical cause North...

the point is though that the object that we theorize on is absolutely true

the hydrogen atom for instance

1 Reply

@north,

...Jeeeesus North...how can you tell if only a theory ??? (not mattering if the best theory around)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...although theory´s are real theory´s, they don´t portrait a real in the sense of complete explanation on what they intend to account for...nevertheless their explanation is real in the sense of a relative explanation in an absolutely corresponding relative question...sometimes they may not even achieve an optimal correspondence to the optimal input in the question, in which case they are real delusions...that is, bad descriptions of the "questions segmented, asked for reality" (intrinsic cosmological order implied in the question referent to a primitive extrinsic justification) with real causes for not corresponding to it...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...although theory´s are real theory´s, they don´t portrait a real in the sense of complete explanation on what they account for...their explanation is real in the sense of a relative explanation in a corresponding relative question...sometimes they may not even achieve an optimal correspondence to the optimal input in the question, in which case they are real delusions...that is, bad descriptions of the questions segmented reality (intrinsic order) with real causes for not corresponding to it...

regardless how we interpret the object and its behaviour

the object its self exists

that is absolutely true

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...and this is what is reported as confusing from subject to subject exchange of information...meaning that solely the questioner is the primitive extrinsic justification for the meant asked for reality implicit in the question thus the only who can fully disclose meaningfully his experience of what is in such question.
...results necessarily that the subject is the only one who can gather a real correspondence for a valid true answer to a valid per se true question...
again, KNOWLEDGE IS A PERSONNEL PURSUIT !

1 Reply

@north,

...of course ! but you can´t tell what it is...and certainly it is not what you asked for in the question since the scope of any question is also relative....

0 Replies

@north,

As Cicerone notes all "truth" is theoretical; Reality, on the other hand, is concrete in the sense that it is approached only directly as immediate experience. Truth is conceived while reality is perceived. What you are saying is that your description of the world is (absolutely) accurate like a Chuck Close portrait.
Ultimately, we are having a semantical debate: You say that the way you define truth is beyond theory, that's what I say about reality. I say that "reality" is beyond (or before) theory, and that "truth" consists of inherently theoretical propositions ABOUT that reality.

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

the object its self exists
that is absolutely true

Please, list the attributes of an object, that it needs to have, to be existent.

2 Replies

@north,

do we KNOW beyond ANY doubt that it exists?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...it follows a very interesting question from here...so why, how come communication is nonetheless partially possible ? how come we are not in a transcendent but transcendental stance with fellow humans ?
...and is precisely there, in that place, that we all can find the sufficient valid reason to presuppose a common link in between communicators...that is, an external justification that justify´s the justifiers, the subjects engaged in relative measurements...

0 Replies

@igm,

...existent for whom ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...existent for whom ?

Just trying to get a working definition before I say anything.

1 Reply

@igm,

fair...

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

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 ?

Formulate, state, explain, say, precise, bring to light, let us know (I can continue if you like).

(When the guy said he could give me U$ 1,000.00 I asked him: "Do you have it in your pocket?")

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

north wrote:

the object its self exists
that is absolutely true

Please, list the attributes of an object, that it needs to have, to be existent.

depth , length , breadth and movement

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

the object its self exists
that is absolutely true

Please, list the attributes of an object, that it needs to have, to be existent.

depth , length , breadth and movement

No I don't agree for the following reasons:

These are gauged by a flat inverted image on the retina. From that the mind constructs an image from each retina via nerve impulses. The existence of the object is not proved only perceived and that perception is believed to represent a truly existent external object but it cannot be proved and doesn't have the properties of 'depth, length etc... So, in this respect i.e. what you have said (see above) does not prove 'the object itself exists'...so it follows that it is not absolutely true.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

the object its self exists
that is absolutely true

Please, list the attributes of an object, that it needs to have, to be existent.

depth , length , breadth and movement

No I don't agree for the following reasons:

These are gauged by a flat inverted image on the retina. From that the mind
constructs an image from each retina via nerve impulses. The existence of the object is not proved only perceived and that perception is believed to represent a truly existent external object but it cannot be proved and doesn't have the properties of 'depth, length etc... So, in this respect i.e. what you have said (see above) does not prove 'the object itself exists'...so it follows that it is not absolutely true.

yet Helen Keller , who was both blind and deaf , dealt with the same objects as those who see

understand my point ?

2 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

igm wrote:

north wrote:

the object its self exists
that is absolutely true

Please, list the attributes of an object, that it needs to have, to be existent.

depth , length , breadth and movement

No I don't agree for the following reasons:

These are gauged by a flat inverted image on the retina. From that the mind
constructs an image from each retina via nerve impulses. The existence of the object is not proved only perceived and that perception is believed to represent a truly existent external object but it cannot be proved and doesn't have the properties of 'depth, length etc... So, in this respect i.e. what you have said (see above) does not prove 'the object itself exists'...so it follows that it is not absolutely true.

yet Helen Keller , who was both blind and deaf , dealt with the same objects as those who see

understand my point ?

Yes...but...she used a different sense...so just replace retina with 'touch' and read what I said above from 'via nerve impulses... same problem same rebuttal.

0 Replies

Quote:

yet Helen Keller , who was both blind and deaf , dealt with the same objects as those who see

understand my point ?

Quote:

Yes...but...she used a different sense...so just replace retina with 'touch' and read what I said above from 'via nerve impulses... same problem same rebuttal.

and just touch

thats the thing

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know