Is there an absolute truth?

Is there an absolute truth?
Can truth be known?
Can we go further than just axioms and safe assumptions?

Other urls found in this thread:

collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/somatism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

1. Axioms
2. First Principles of Logic
3. Laws of Logic
4. Congruent and Contingent Propositional Logic

>axioms
>absolute truth

Self referentials lacking implications are absolute truth.
To say
1=1
Is absolute truth

I don't think you know what epistemological truth means

>To say
>1=1
>Is absolute truth

Only if logic is "true". We don't know if its true, we assume it to be true. Its an axiom.

What if I just define truth to be whatever statement that is made by me? That way I'm always right. And I can prove that this is the correct definition of truth by simply stating it.

Is your definition of truth a true one though?
You'd need to self reference to insist that.
Truth thus must be defined by something other than our definition of truth. It must be backed by observable reality.

Epistemological assumption isn't the same as laymen use of assumption.

So when the word is used it doesn't mean what you think it means.

It means deductively, congruently and contingently true.

It's based on empiricism.

There is no reason to doubt empiricism.

yes
yet like fishes are oblivious to the water in the ocean, we are oblivious to the truth surrounding us

That's an ipse dixit fallacy wrapped in a Solipsism argument which is inherently self contradicting.

>there is no reason to doubt your senses

Except every one of us experiences dreaming, which is when your senses tell you things are occurring that aren't occurring. There are also mirages, mental illness, or plain being wrong about hearing/seeing something you thought you did.

Every human alive has plenty of reason to doubt their senses, since their senses often mislead them.
To sense something is not proof that its absolute truth.

nice Māyā, faggot.

Thought terminating cliche detected
1. Where is your proof fish are oblivious of water?
2. Who says everyone is equally oblivious?
3. Do you even know what cognitive biases and fallacies are?

you forget that the human body has inbuilt mechanisms to determine if what is happening to them is actually real.
For example, motion sickness happens when the body feels that it's being moved around, yet the persevered picture remains the same, so the body thinks it is hallucinating and tries to vomit out the poison.

You forget the many cases where this isn't true, the obvious examples being when you are dreaming or when you are very scared. You get false sensory information, and it is being treated as true sensory information. You jump out of bed as if there actually was a train coming towards you, even though there obviously wasn't and your body didn't get any signals that it was, it just lied to you.

1. Dreams are not empirical; you can not measure things in dreams and present them to others for independently replicated peer reviewed double blind studies. So we've established you don't know what empiricism is.

2. We empirically known what mirages are.

3. Mental illness is a term invented by psychiatrists to silence people that complain or reject empiricism and coherency like yourself.

4. Being wrong is proven with empiricism. You just defeated your own argument.

>Every human alive has plenty of reason to doubt their senses, since their senses often mislead them.

No, most people do not report aberrations, and that is also WHY we have empiricism.

You're confusing empiricism of somatism.

>To sense something is not proof that its absolute truth.

That's somatism.

Empiricism requires:
- Measurement
- Peer review
- Double blind replicate studies
- Fallacy and Bias analysis

You see, it is of no importance if they actually do or do not - everything we say about the others is merely a projection of our own thought.
The important thing is to use it for our benefit instead of quibbling over semantics.

Literally all the questions posed in this thread are expounded and discussed in the old Hindu texts such as Bhagavad Gita. It is quite frustrating to watch faggots discuss this when there's a literally 3000 year old book explaining the answers.

You're correct.
The origin usage of the word "somatism" just means "materialism".


collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/somatism

I stand corrected.

You're using Solipsism and ipse dixit wrapped in confirmation bias and nonsensical egocentric faux-spirituality for virtue signalling purposes.

Most not have a degree.

Most probably a child.

Dreams are dreams, and reality is reality, and one is quite different from another. I do acknowledge that a lot of people find it hard to differentiate between the two, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Hinduism is not scientific nor logical.

It's religion.

The philosophy of Hinduism is nothing more than ipse dixit wrapped in nonsensical platitudes.

Truth is subjective

Nope. Observable reality is just a bunch of wavelengths of light that your brain perceives and processes, sound is just a bunch of vibrations of particles that you ear transforms into signals, smell is just a bunch of particulate matter in the air.

Truth is only achievable by introspection.

I'm sorry friend, but t's usually the neophytes trying to impress others by using a lot of professional jargonisms. Like I said, projections of your own thought.

When you are in a dream, you don't know that you are in a dream.
You could be in a dream right now. Probably not, but you can't know it. You don't and can't know for a fact you aren't in a dream, since you lack the faculties to do so.
How can you trust your senses and any information coming from them, when you can't know if you aren't in this sensory lie mode right now?

>when there's a literally 3000 year old book explaining the answers

Posing the questions*, not explaining the answers.

And like I said, that's solipsism, a debunked concept.
Keep up with the ipse dixit.
You're just making a fool out of yourself.

Another ipse dixit fallacy.
Probably founded up "feels" and a middle ground fallacy.
No, empiricism has proven reality is objective.

You see, the problem here is that I would know, actually. There are multiple replicable techniques that allow you to achieve that result, there's nothing special about it. Like I said, our body is quite capable of understanding if it's actually dreaming, and our mind can learn to do that as well.
There would be no joy in solving the puzzle if we'd remembered the solution from the last time we did it, would there?

>You see, the problem here is that I would know, actually.

Lets get sophisticated then. How about Nick Bostrom's Trilemma:

One and only one of the following must be true:
>1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero
>2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero
>3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one

That is, if (1) is false, and there are (were, will be?) civilizations that can run a simulation, and if (2) is wrong, that is they would so such a thing if they could, then there are so many simulations, and the simulated people in them running their own simulations, and so on, that we are very likely simulated. There would of course only be 1 reality, one "real" existence, and all other existences are simulated, and the odds that we are part of the real one and not a simulated one are astronomical.

So you can't trust your senses, because they wouldn't tell you what is true, only what appears true in this elaborate lie that is all our existence and all out observable energy and matter. Truth would be inaccessible to us, as we are encapsulated away from it.

You see, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. It doesn't really matter if it's a real duck or a simulated duck or a duck you've dreamt up - it's still a duck. However, since we experience dreams every day, it is useful for us to have a distinction between real and dreamt-up ducks. Likewise, since we don't really experience non-simulated reality (if we do live in a simulation) there's absolutely no point in thinking about non-simulated ducks - they could as well exist in another universe.

The question is about truth, not if truth is useful.

Useful here meaning utility, before you get anal about it.
Of course if we are "fake", truth has no utility to us, but would still exist and would be unknowable.

>empiricism has proven reality is objective.
Wew lad. You have no way of empirically verifying that statement. Really makes the noodle wriggle.

Can something pointless and unknowable really be the truth? Would you acknowledge such a thing as "truth"? Would it really make our existence fake? I don't really think so, but it's just my position.
Now, I do want to say that the principles of the "simulated" world we might exist in would still work on "real" logic, which means that the underlying principles would still remain the same. Even if it would be a "lesser" version of the "real" world, the truth of our world would still be created through "real" logic, one way or the other.

truth is not more worthy than untruth in most cases excluding science

No.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>Can something pointless and unknowable really be the truth?
Before human civilization, gravity still existed, as did waves, and so on.
They weren't known, and there wasn't much "point" to them, but they existed.
Truth doesn't require a consciousness to comprehend it to come into existence. We don't create knowledge, we discover it, it was always there and now we are aware of it.
Its like mining for rare minerals, they are in the earth and only wait for you to get better at finding them and extracting them. They were there before you were aware of them or looked for them, or before you valued their concept.

only untruths are known. only negative proof is possible.

>Now, I do want to say that the principles of the "simulated" world we might exist in would still work on "real" logic, which means that the underlying principles would still remain the same. Even if it would be a "lesser" version of the "real" world, the truth of our world would still be created through "real" logic, one way or the other.

Consider basic quantum physics. Things have many values, until observed, then they have one value. To a programmer this stinks of memory optimization. Low level small things aren't calculated unless someone is specifically looking at them, to save memory.
Why calculate such small things if all you have are apes wandering around the Savannah?

So it could be that we are living in a reality that is meant to appear like the real one, but is hacked in order to cost less resources to run and manage. That way we are obstructed from knowing truth, because our world isn't true, its a fake.

The absolute truth is that white bois are inferior and should kneel down to the BLACK TÜRK.

You should always doubt everything
Mental Illness exists, although its a form of chemical imbalance

...

>Mental Illness exists, although its a form of chemical imbalance

Mental illness doesn't exist. Imbalance exists, and if you are too imbalanced, we classify you as ill. The illness itself, or any illness, doesn't exist. Its a term used to refer to imbalances.

More modern example instead of dreaming would be to say that your conscious is uploaded onto a simulation.

Also, induction is dubitable

What existed before the human civilisation was a Rorschach blot, essentially. It is the human mind that analysed it and named one part of that blot "gravity". Truth is a concept, and a concept exactly requires a consciousness to comprehend it, it's the material world that doesn't, it exists on it's own.
Human mind is optimised to find correlations, so one should be very careful when trying to base a theory on a convincing coincidence. A correlation like this doesn't necessary mean anything on its own, even when backed by a lot of other data. And, like I said, it doesn't matter if we live in a simulation or not, one can find the truth even in shadow theatre on a cave's wall.