Absolute truth?

Also i.e. second post same answer:

Descartes said he couldn’t be sure of being deceived…(he could only be sure he was conscious of appearances…so he believed… I’d say even this was going too far, in my opinion) and with touch alone it would be very easy to deceive someone into thinking they were touching something of a particular shape and size when you the deceiver only had a thin strip of wood and by holding it vertically and horizontally at different distances when that person touched it…the mental experience produced would be completely wrong and the result of deception… but believable to the person with only the sense of touch to go on.

igm wrote:

Also i.e. second post same answer:

Descartes said he couldn’t be sure of being deceived…(he could only be sure he was conscious of appearances…so he believed… I’d say even this was going too far, in my opinion) and with touch alone it would be very easy to deceive someone into thinking they were touching something of a particular shape and size when you the deceiver only had a thin strip of wood and by holding it vertically and horizontally at different distances when that person touched it…the mental experience produced would be completely wrong and the result of deception… but believable to the person with only the sense of touch to go on.

ahhh
but the reality of the object is still absolute
whether you can define this object by touch is irrelevent
the object is still absolute
the object doesn't care whether you or I get it right , as far as understanding the object
the object still remains an absolute truth
the object absolutely exists

It's the observer of that object that has to decide whether the object exists. If there is no observer then the attribute of existence cannot be applied to the object.

igm

Quote:

It's the observer of that object that has to decide whether the object exists. If there is no observer then the attribute of existence cannot be applied to the object.

then your saying that the observer has the fore-knowledge and therefore the full understanding of that object in-order for that object to come into existence

but science has ologies , the study OF , which shouldn't be nessecary

if the observer " decides " the existence of all objects

igm

Quote:

It's the observer of that object that has to decide whether the object exists. If there is no observer then the attribute of existence cannot be applied to the object.

then your saying that the observer has the fore-knowledge and therefore the full understanding of that object in-order for that object to come into existence

but science has ologies , the study OF , which shouldn't be nessecary


if the observer " decides " the existence of all objects

No, I'm not saying that. I'll put it another way: you can't just say that an object would exist whether there is an observer or not. How would you prove that?...it’s impossible.

actually its not impossible
is the observer possible without the reality of our star , our sun

north wrote:

actually its not impossible
is the observer possible without the reality of our star , our sun

It's like I've already said the sun appears so it's not non-existent but the sun's color, shape, extension, location, etc... are mental phenomena... we interpret appearances and form opinions about the way things are but those opinions are not and can never be 'Absolute Truth'.

There's only one absolute truth and it's that there is no absolute truth.
Robert Thurman

JLNobody wrote:

There's only one absolute truth and it's that there is no absolute truth.
Robert Thurman

I disagree

there is a fundamental absolute truth

the Universe

That sounds right to me.
"Absolute" and "relative" are interdependent constructs. We can't have one without the other. If that is so, the "Truth", cannot reference the Totality, i.e., the universe's "Reality" without transcending that distlinction.
...something like that.

I may not have stated this clearly enough but I don't believe that I went into any specifics with it but all definitions are already interpreted by each individual person. How those words are defined is just the generalized point of what it represents for most people. If I were to say "water" a great deal of understandings, and interpretations branch off from that. When I say "water" you could think of it from a chemistry stand point of H2O or you can think of a bottle of water, or a river, etc. This is why we use context and generally the more context that you use, the greater the understanding about something is. Unless you already have a level of understanding with a person then you sort of skip a lot of those unnecesary steps and less context is needed.

That sounds right to me.
"Absolute" and "relative" are interdependent constructs. We can't have one without the other. If that is so, the "Truth", cannot reference the Totality, i.e., the universe's "Reality" without transcending that distlinction.
...something like that.

JLNobody wrote:

That sounds right to me.
"Absolute" and "relative" are interdependent constructs. We can't have one without the other. If that is so, the "Truth", cannot reference the Totality, i.e., the universe's "Reality" without transcending that distlinction.
...something like that.

Seems on the right track to me also.