Veeky Forums, does absolute truth exists?

This is a humanly intended truth. Is it absolute?

>get 9 apples
>get 16 apples
>put them in the same group
>you now have 29 apples
If you can write a proof involving apples that means it's true.

Any attempt to achieve truth is always covered by the human language. This language is a deformation of reality, therefore we can never attain absolute truth.

Why it is a deformation, not a transcription of reality to understandable ways?

No one said anything about apples.

> thinking of numbers as truths
noob xD

What if a demon was deceiving you every time you made those calculations into thinking they were right, when in fact the equality does not hold?

I said something about apples. You even replied to my post about apples.
Are you having a stroke?

A transcription of reality in an approximately but not exact way. Look at physics for example, we model the nature into human logic forms. In clasical mechanics sometimes you can asume a body like a mathematical point. This works, but it isn't true.

You are projecting the concept of unity into apples. Apples aren't exactly equal.

I didn't say the weight, or the quality of apples. I simply said apples. An apple is an apple is an apple, you can't just say it's half an apple.

>I simply said apples. An apple is an apple is an apple, you can't just say it's half an apple.

This clearly show that maths are a language game. The conception of "an apple" doesn't exist by itself. It is a human made idea.

>other species don't have words for "one" so apples aren't real
Autism.

I'm not saying that apples aren't real. My point is that the concept of apple as an unit is purely linguistic.

Your experience

>get 9 oranges
>get 16 oranges
>put them in the same group
>you now have 29 oranges
If you can write a proof involving oranges, that means it's true.

>9+16=29

Veeky Forums 2017

If absolute truth did not exists then it would be absolute that absolute truth did not exist, which would be a contradiction as it is an absolute truth.

So by definition at least one absolute truth exists, even if that absolute truth is that no absolute truth exists.

>tripfag
fr*ck off nerd

I was going to complain about the conflation between necessary and possible truth, but this is even more glaring:
>by definition at least one absolute truth exists
If something is only true because you arbitrarily defined it to be true, it's not absolute because I can consistently define it to be false.

If you define a true statement as false then your definition is inconsequential.

The existence of the quality of an attribute creates the categorical necessity of the ontos/ontological basis of that attribute by the condition that Ousia is not self-contained.

I take it you aren't into Modal Logic?

>If you define a true statement as false then your definition is inconsequential.
Exactly the opposite: if a theory internally proves that true is logically equivalent to false, then by the principle of explosion every wellformed sentence is a consequence of that theory.

>The existence of the quality of an attribute creates the categorical necessity of the ontos/ontological basis of that attribute by the condition that Ousia is not self-contained.
Until you ground your definitions in a proper context (eg some first-order theory) this is meaningless word salad.

We have a membership relation [math]\in[/math]. Use it instead of trying to obfuscate with imprecise terminology like 'ousia'. It'll help clarify your thinking as well.

>I take it you aren't into Modal Logic?
I could ask you the same thing.

I unironically find myself agreeing with post modernists and the right wing

If they're the unit, they don't exactly need to be. So what he said is true, and what you are saying is kind of ambiguous and irrelevant.

There is one absolute truth: there are no other absolute truths besides this statement.

...

Yes, but its unreachable.

both?
Postmodernism is inherently antipolitical.

you cant ever know if you know the absolute truth or not, nor can you ever know if it exists.

all in all searching for the absolute truth is about as useful as solipsism.

>That's a contradiction.

Only if you delude yourself believing there's a common truth.

You said two absolute truths.
>there is absolute truth
>there are no other absolute truth beside this statement

Sorry honey, math is just some random shit we made up.

It's like showing a picture of a knight in a chess game moving in an L shape, and saying that is proof that there is actual truth. Like no brah, the knight only moves like that because you said it does. Similarly, those equations only equal each other because we say they do. It's completely circular logic.

>If absolute truth did not exists then it would be absolute that absolute truth did not exist
I see what you're trying here but the consequent at least doesn't follow immediately
The only thing that follows immediately about the truth of "absolute truth doesn't exist" is that it can't be absolutely true
I don't know how to derive "it is absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist" from it, but I know how to do the next best thing:

>P1: If absolute truth doesn't exist, it's only non-absolutely true (i.e. relativistically true) that absolute truth doesn't exist.
>P2: A relativistic truth can't be asserted above a contrary relativistic truth.
>C1: So in order to assert that absolute truth doesn't exist above its negation, you have to assert it as an absolute truth (which involves you in self-contradiction).

Obviously all the action here happens in P2, and some will deny it (either denying P2a: that relativistic truths can be contrary to one another, or P2b: that if contrary they can't be asserted over one another). Others will deny its significance, saying that relativistic truths don't need to be asserted above one another to be asserted.

There's also a proof that if absolute truth doesn't exist then absolute truth must exist: Assume absolute truth doesn't exist. Then it's only true relative to something X that absolute truth doesn't exist. It's also only relativistically true that X exists and that "absolute truth doesn't exist" is true relative to X. So those truths must be relative to something too, call it Y. The same problem arises for Y obviously. So either you get an infinite regress of relativities or at some point there is a relativity that exists absolutely. So "absolute truth doesn't exist" being true depends on it being true relatively, which depends for its intelligibility on absolute truth existing.

>definitions must be arbitrary
How to spot the person with zero philosophical background

it also presupposes all sorts of facts about what it is for something to be absolute, or a truth, and what properties both have, such as the logical relations there exist between truths and between absolute and non-absolute things, etc.
so it's totally incoherent for there to only be one absolute truth

does anything exist? if yes then yes.

how do you know what exists isn't just relative?

If the condition of non-existence of absolute truth is not absolute, then you are saying that in some moment or situation, absolute truth exists.

So, when you deny the existence of absolute truth, you have to conclude that its non-existence is absolute.

everything exists in the relative, "absolute truth" would be the sum of those interactions.

The only absolute truth is that there are not absolute truths

>If they're the unit, they don't exactly need to be.
Stupidest shit I've read all day, and I've been browing Veeky Forums, /g/, /a/ and Veeky Forums

If [math]1x \ne 1x [/math], then x is an exceptionally bad choice of an unit

I'm not sure how you derive the second line there.
The relativist denies the existence of absolute truth relative to himself, but allows it to exist relative to others. How does this not commit him only to the existence of relative truths?

How does this prove that if anything exists then absolute truth exists?

Dealt with already, see , ,

The bible's translations aren't accurate so even if the original book turns out to be true the one you read now isn't.

>This is a humanly intended truth
What does that mean?
If it means it's something intended to be true by a human, then of course, any sincere statement is, but that does not imply relativism

>Apples aren't exactly equal.
That's ambiguous.
If it means "Apples aren't exactly alike" then it's trivial and doesn't show that whether something is an apple is relative to us.
If it means "Not every apple is equally an apple," it's false if being an apple is an Aristotelian/binary property but true if being an apple is a Wittgensteinian/multi-valued property; but even in the latter case relativism does not follow, since degrees of appleness could be determined by a real standard like a natural kind or Platonic form rather than by our minds or language.
>You are projecting the concept of unity into apples.
These projectivist claims are always unclear.
Is the claim that there is no such thing as one apple and we merely think there is, or that our thinking that there is is what there being one apple consists in?
Neither account seems plausible: Denying the possibility of there being one apple means denying the distinction between there being one apple and five hundred; and since "one apple" is the same as "an apple" it means denying the existence of apples. And the idea that our thinking there is an apple is all there being an apple amounts to runs afoul of the "reality pushes back" problem, because we can't just think of anything as an apple and have it actually be an apple--and whatever restriction reality places on us here is always going to amount to some pattern (say of resembling entities) along which we seem to identify apples, which will always just amount to something like a real kind of things existing in nature, apples. Also, apart from the pushback problem, it's plausible that apples could have fully preceded the existence of all conscious organisms.

Christians like to circumvent this by saying it was divinely inspired so obviously it can't be wrong.

>Not reading biblical script in classical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
That's where you hecked up niBBa

This statement is absolutely true.

>tfw I shitposted in the Veeky Forums version of this thread when I could have just stayed in Veeky Forums
whatever then

25+144 = 213
in base 6

his next move in the argument would be to say "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re"

though I personally still agree with your general point

yes
actually no and never
hmm, maybe
well, it's very complicated
y-yes
yes

Yes and no

its an absolute truth that i fucked ur mum

Yes, and here it is: every god ever invented is fake. None of them exist.

>Veeky Forums, does absolute truth exists?

Yes.

A=A

/thread

Sure.
If you said there were no absolute truths that would be an absolute truth. Therefore the 'absolute truth' exists.

your statement is dumb.

>If you said there were no absolute truths

Wouldn't that be an absolute truth(if true), you fucking moron?

See here for refrence, you idiot.

nice clear and distinct idea friend

...

there's already one of these threads there

1+1=2
Absolute truth

Bitch the structure of language is the structure of absolute truth.

Only true for given definitions of "1" "+" "=" and "2"

is that absolutely true?

I know with absolute certainty that I am perceiving what can be perceived as a reality.

You what?

Expanded version of I think therefore I am.

Fox shine in melee is good kappa