Veeky Forums, absolute truth exists?

>oppose God
Which one? Unless you're talking about some pantheistic mumbo jumbo.

>>It is absolutely true that 1+1=2
this depends on experience, so no absolute.

truth is necessarily absolute or it isn't truth at all

God if you believe

God isnt absolute truth just because you believe he exists. I honestly didnt understand

There seems to be something we chase after called truth. So if we understand it enough to chase it, it most likely exits.

You can absolutely know you exist and have experiances

Even if you want to go full autism with something like simulation theory, your existence and experiences remain a certainty

But what if u think that u think dat u exist but not exist at all???? Not even simulation.

>which one
I'm obviously going to butcher this point, but you can research this yourself though...but again, to reference Jordan Peterson...he points out that what man has ATTEMPTED to call God, has always been man looking for the ultimate truth. There is only one truth though, therefore one God.

Like the reason why the Greeks had a god like Ares, the "god of war"...is because war starts in thought, in the human mind, a pathological thought process that allows war to manifest. The Greeks knew this, they knew "Ares" could come alive in anyone and everyone. Again, Ares being both the capacity that holds the psychological pathology TO justify war. The Greeks recognized that the pathological thoughts that can be categorized and given definition, create human action..like war. They saw that this was not only inside of man, but they recognized it as something man actually hated, so they externalized it as something that was out of their control. They called it Ares. They feared Ares because of "its" influence and therefore wanted "favor" with Ares and out of ignorance created idols and images to worship something they actually hated, because they feared this element of human nature.

Now from the objective perspective, you see a terribly sad and ignorant form of regression. That was perpetuated by fear.

Now what makes this disconcerting, is that it explains the human condition of ignorance in general across all time, up to this very moment in time. They worshiped something they hated out of ignorance. Now isn't that story of suffering and life?

Anyways, life is about navigation and adjusting. There is no definite box to sit in. Because once the walls of the box get clashed upon, you'll be forced to defend the box. Now if the box is a manifestation of ignorance, you''re basically fighting on behalf of stupidity. Left vs Right, etc etc.

Shout out to Jordan Peterson though, he's better at explaining this stuff.

Depends on what you think about modality, contingency and necessity.

Though, I think absolute truth is a poor notion because it must presuppose time to be meaningful instead of being self-instantiating, detached and alien.
In any case, people mistakenly look to Epistemology instead of Ontology for this question.

1+1=2 is math you retard

No, sometimes .9999999999999999+.99999999999999999999=2

Abstractions are not real though. So this truth is not absolute since it does not exist in our finite world.

Yes, and it is quite simple to demonstrate.

"Absolute truth does not exist."

For that statement to be true, it would have to be absolute truth, and in that case absolute truth exists.

If the statement is false, again absolute truth exists.

I think it's absolutely true that life is absolutely retarded, does that count?

Only through rounding which is not actually accurate.

1/3=.33333333333333333333333333(3...)
(1/3)*3=.99999999999999999999999(9...)
(1/3)=1
Therefore, .99999999999999(9...)=1
Checkmate, Atheists

0.999999... is equal to 1
So your statement was simply 1+1=2

>Only through rounding
No

>(1/3) = 1

?????

Could you prove it?
That is because it is done in a computer. The .33333 is infinite. You're showing 3(1/3) as equal to 3(1.3333-). 3(1/3) is equal to 1 whole but since 1.333333 technically != one third, as the 3's are infinite.

You are a huge faggot, that much is for sure.

Consider the statement, "there is no truth".

Is the statement true?

fpbp

is that true?

>makes a non-mathematical claim positing the sole validity of mathematical claims

in history? only ideologues see absolutes
in other areas yes there are.

Yes, no.

If you claim that truth is relative, you are stating an absolute truth. Either we speak of absolute truth or we just make noises with our mouth and write symbols. Relativism isn't even a choice.

>we just make noises with our mouth and write symbols
We don't?

I'm saying that if we cannot speak of absolute truth, then our utterances have no meaning, which means that a material description of them is exhaustive (although we couldn't actually say that if that were the case).

By definition, something is only true or false if it is logically true or false. In other words truth only exists in the kind of mental games humans play, such as philosophy, mathematics, and games. If you land your first serve of the match without the other guy hitting it, it is true that you have scored an Ace, just as if you add the natural number 1 to itself, it is true that you have the natural number 2. Where it goes wrong is the idea that we can translate truth from these mental abstractions into reality, and start describing facts as "true". This is a basic category error, facts are neither true nor false, they just are. Truth can only ever tell us if a statement or act fits within the rules of the game being played, it can never be used to make real judgements about nature-as-she-is.

Language and writing is far too flexible and diverse to call them absolute. Even the same noises and symbols can have a different meaning, depending on context.

But we still need to absolutely posit that they mean such and such and this and that in different contexts.

Language is exactly the kind of game that does have truth. While it's certainly more flexible than formal logic, there are utterances in English that are true or false, in exactly the kind of "is it within the rules of the game?" kind of way that mathematical statements can be judged true or false.

That greatly depends on what you mean by "absolute," and "truth," and "exists."

If you're using simple quantified modal logic with lewis's possible world semantics and all, then you can even prove things like necessitation. Though it could be argued that this is a fault in the system rather than a discovery made by it.

but 0.999... + 0.999... = 1 + 1 by virtue of the fact that 0.999... = 1, so you haven't presented a counterexample. You just repeated what he said, but with different symbols. It isn't that "0.999... + 0.999... = 2" instead of "1 + 1 = 2", but rather that both equal 2.

You could have maybe said that 1 + 1 =/= 2 in binary, but he could have countered and said that the difference is just a matter of de re/de dicto and that the binary 10 = decimal 2.

You're employing a loaded lexicon. Consider the statement, "this statement is false". Is the statement true? Is it even true or false? Better yet, consider the usage of vague predicates in declarative statements like "this statement is flbuhpubuh". You really can't describe it with either value using just a T/F system. The word "truth" might just be a bunch of flbuhpubuh, a misnomer; you can't throw it into a sentence as though it worked in your proof of the claim that it works.

Even in formal logic you can have systems which are trivalent or quadrivalent rather than bivalent. There are ways to argue that the former two can be reduced into the latter, and I guess those systems all contain T and F even if they have a couple extra values, but lot of people would say that imposing the T/F thing in general is just a human habit that's been mistaken for some apriori thing, or better yet, that banking off of apriori in general is retarded.

whoops, there's some extra text typed onto that image

1 is showing the barcam proof, 2 is the converse, 3 is just gluing them together.

>abstractions are not real
pleb

hellooo middle ages

To say there is no absolute truth is to claim that the previous statement is absolutely true, which is a contradiction.

Thus absolute truth exists.

>I put the box inbetween the quantifier and the A variable
just fuck my shit up, I need to read my stuff out in english before posting

any instance of "upside-down-A, box, lowercase-a, greek-letter" should be written as upside-down-A, lowercase-a, box, greek-letter"

>Veeky Forums posting THE phil 100 freshman phrase
Try this one on for size; there can be no thing such that it does not exist, therefore all things exist (after all, none of them don't).

Isn't just easier to say that absolute truth cant BIT exist, because this way im using an absolute truth to deny absolute truth's existente?

>BIT exist
I'm not at all familiar with what "BIT existence" is

Not*, sorry.

1/2

Oh. So what you're saying is

assume that there exists no string such that it is an absolute truth, and that the string "there exists no string such that it is an absolute truth," when evaluated, is absolutely true
-thus there exists some string such that it is an absolute truth (the previous string itself; this is only reduction/less specific version of the previous line)
-there exists some string such that it is an absolute truth, and and there there exists no string such that it is an absolute truth (conjunction of the previous two lines)
since the assumption leads to a contradiction (a conjunction of X and not-X), the assumption must be false; it is false that there exists no string such that it is an absolute truth (reductio ad absurdum)
which is the same as saying it is true that there exists a string such that it is an absolute truth once you remove the double negative

so basically you're saying I've probably been overly specific, but even so, there's a catch to that. It only works out that easily in what some people would consider to be really simple systems (most of which also somehow lead to weirder conclusions and/or cannot account for certain aspects of language whatsoever) and that the word "absolute" is sorta vague. Even SQML (simple quantified modal logic, which is sortof "the norm") leads to weird things like nessecitation (see image); anyone could just argue that the reason why you're able to reach the conclusion you have is just a byproduct of the fact that your logical operators were given bad core symantecs, i.e. that you're using a "loaded" system of logic (and yes, there's more than one).

From there on out you have to banter over what would constitute a logical system, which becomes an "I want this!" "but I want that!" kind of argument. Some would want logic to model natural language, others thing natural language is just shit and would prefer it to be a "super-language" I guess.

2/2

and on top of the "you loaded the symantecs!" argument that'll ensue, you'll have the even bigger "is it even possible to NOT load the symantecs?" question looming over you all the while. Every theorem (a theorem being any line in any proof) is completely subservent to the core symantecs of the proof system being employed. By deciding how a logical system ought to look, you're effectively "deciding" what's true and what's not, since the system is what basically controls that. The only real difference between that and straight up "deciding" what's true and whats not is that the typical human won't have to foresight to instantly see every single consequence of the symantecs they've designated, so it typically looks a little less crude than "this is true because I said so". However that's still just "deciding what's true," only with extra steps. If people are just deciding whats true, then... it's subjective.

The only real way to try getting around that is to claim that you're modeling some phenomena, because when you say that you can argue that some systems are more or less accurate, the same way a physical law might be more or less accurate. But then someone's going to ask "how are you modeling that phenomena?" and you're pretty much doomed to eventually say "empirical induction, I just looked at the world over and over and this same shoe kept fitting" which will be followed by "but isn't empiricism fallible?" and a whole slew of different issues.

Fucking excellent post mate

>That greatly depends on what you mean by "absolute," and "truth," and "exists."

>others thing natural language is just shit
others think*

an example of someone like this might be Quine with set theory (I think this was him). One problem with set theory that he was introduced to was that it couldn't account for properties. If we live in some realm of possibility where everything that has a heart has a liver and vice versa, then the set of all things which have a heart and the set of all things which have a liver would simply be the same set, in spite of the fact that the property of having a heart and the property of having a liver are two clearly different things. Rather than amend the system to account for that aspect of natural language, he basically says "well fuck properties then lmao".

>There is only one truth though, therefore one God.
Is that statement true?
Is is true that the previous statement is true?
Is is true that the previous statement is true?
Is is true that the previous statement is true?
Is is true that the previous statement is true?
Is is true that the previous statement is true?

>ehhh
my thoughts exactly upon reading the OP's question

>Could you prove it?
I could

how do you know that statements can be true?

>To say there is no absolute truth is to claim that the previous statement is absolutely true, which is a contradiction.
>
>Thus absolute truth exists.
only if you have faith in the principle of non-contradiction. but it is a nice try for a 18 yo undergrad believing to be smart.

1+1=0 in Z_2 you fucking idiot lmfao.
>implying any arithmetic truths can be proven
>implying "truth" can even be defined in arithmetic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
Fucking dropouts ITT I swear to god.

What is this principle?

please tell us about this untrue truth

Paired systems with {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1}. Any system which has a criteria different from yours, really.

I actually shouldn't have used squiggly brackets because those make it look like I was posting sets and not ordered pairs, but the fact that 10 and 01 are both present should get the point across

yes
otherwise how could anything exist

>tfw I don't understand math memes but I sculpt enough to know what topology is and pick up on the lewdness

it does not get the point across. explain with words.

I mean that it gets the point across that they're ordered pairs as opposed to unordered pairs, since it'd be redundant to list and if order didn't matter.

The point of the original post is that there are plenty of systems with different takes on truth. Some are bivalent and just use 1 and 0. Some actually have 0.5 as a value (listed as a # usually, sometimes to imply that its simply "not 0 or 1, but between them" as opposed to 0.5 specifically). Others have the four pairs I've listed, two of which are further divisions of the #. Google "sider logic for philosophy pdf".

>literally read this book because I cannot coherently make a point myself

If all abstractions aren´t real than every concrete thing is not real because you have to abstract from real things, otherwise it´s not a correct abstraction. Abstraction is just thinking parts of real things that are general, and ignoring parts that aren´t general. Saying that things "are" is abstract, saying that "some things are cups" is more concrete, saying that "this cup is white" is concrete. Schopenhauer said that only your experience is concrete and when you think in words you become abstract. Thus denying abstractions is denying that words are real, which is proven false by every thought you have.

I've made the point earlier in the thread, but I almost wrote a book in the process

>abloo bloo bloo why cant any serious topic be explained to me in 2000 characters or less? Why can't we just use sparknotes instead of going over the primary literature?

Obviously it exists.

Even claiming it doesn't exist, would constitute an absolute truth in itself.

this is making it sound more like all abstractions are incorrect abstractions

First you have an experience like seeing something white, then you give a name to that experience saying "white" while pointing on that with your finger so others can see it too. You do the same thing with other experiences and in time you come to at first primitive sentences like: "Peter strong" as most 2 or 3 year old kids can do. This is a synthetic judgement that is absolute true if your experience shows you that "this is peter" and that "peter can carry something heavy or else".

What makes you think this way about it?

Sometimes the abstraction of something is more true than the physical object.

Talking about how carbon behaves is more true than simply talking about diamonds.

if you don't abstract from the ground floor of reality which is either QM or somewhere below then you aren't abstracting from things that are real but from some unconsciously made approximation.

What is more true on this: "Carbon doesn´t react with acid" than this : "Diamonds don´t react with acid"

Well I was thinking more the lines of abstractions like pic related.

Isn´t this just analyzing what particles a thing, an atom has and abstracting from how they behave instead of abstracting from synthetic things and how they behave in connection? It seems to me that it is truth on another level, not more truth than the other. Explain it to me if i´ve got it wrong.

Define truth in math.
Define truth in science.

>>if you don't abstract from the ground floor of reality which is either QM or somewhere below
You heard this at some university and you take it by faith like a good boy?

what did I say that you find so controversial? that things are made of smaller things?

Well, i could lie to you..

Absolutely. Theory of property rights, self ownership axiom. By detention non aggression principle, by social extension dispute resolution organisations. Homo economicus; self interested rationale actors, as individuals, etc.

Extension

It's all a lie, including the former.

One truth doesn't mean "there is only one thing that is true." It means that there can be no 2 conflicting truths, and that there is one objective truth for all things. For example, 1 plus 1 will always equal 2, and can never be equal to anything else. That is "one truth."

What if it's only kinda true?

Does imagination exist? Do thoughts and abstractions exist?

I'm not positing this as a counter-argument, I just want to know your answer to have a better understanding of what you're saying.

t. pop math retard

>1 plus 1 will always equal 2,

> I just want to know your answer to have a better understanding of what you're saying.
The best thing I can tell you if you want to understand my own point of view is that I seriously have no strong opinions either way, and sometimes wonder if "existence" is a misnomer (though I wouldn't commit to that claim either).

I also thing that claims like that in quantified logic ultimately just translate into fairly obvious tautologies (things which exist exist, things which don't don't) which don't need to be seen as threats to the system. Though other people would argue that it has weird implications as to how modality works.

1/2

>everything's always philosophical