Philosophy - What is truth?

[askyourpc.com]

Since I cannot talk about religion or politics for obvious reasons. Could I talk about philosophy?

Here it goes:
It seems as if we are somewhat surrounded by false appearances, half truths, and sometimes lies.
What is truth?
Some people say that it is something that is eternal. Something that can be applied to everyone, or at least that it is universal truth. What do you think? This is a conversation I would have in a cafe. :)

Its a good brain exercise to think about this stuff... :popcorn:

[BGrigg]

1: That which is verified by fact.
2: That which you will accept as not being false.

[eddietours]

you may want to see this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

[zmjjmz]

Ok, this may blow some minds, but here it goes:
We only know what our sensors tell us. Whether or not that is true, we cannot verify, because only our sensors could prove it. If our sensors are inaccurate, the truth could be totally different.

[lisati]

1: That which is verified by fact.
2: That which you will accept as not being false.

To which I would add: it can be trusted beyond the filter of perceptions and preconceptions.

[Athanasius]

Thomas Aquinas put it well:


Now we do not judge of a thing by what is in it accidentally, but by what is in it essentially. Hence, everything is said to be true absolutely, in so far as it is related to the intellect from which it depends; and thus it is that artificial things are said to be true a being related to our intellect. For a house is said to be true that expresses the likeness of the form in the architect's mind; and words are said to be true so far as they are the signs of truth in the intellect. In the same way natural things are said to be true in so far as they express the likeness of the species that are in the divine mind. For a stone is called true, which possesses the nature proper to a stone, according to the preconception in the divine intellect. Thus, then, truth resides primarily in the intellect, and secondarily in things according as they are related to the intellect as their principle. Consequently there are various definitions of truth. Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is that whereby is made manifest that which is;" and Hilary says (De Trin. v) that "Truth makes being clear and evident" and this pertains to truth according as it is in the intellect. As to the truth of things in so far as they are related to the intellect, we have Augustine's definition (De Vera Relig. xxxvi), "Truth is a supreme likeness without any unlikeness to a principle": also Anselm's definition (De Verit. xii), "Truth is rightness, perceptible by the mind alone"; for that is right which is in accordance with the principle; also Avicenna's definition (Metaph. viii, 6), "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." The definition that "Truth is the equation of thought and thing" is applicable to it under either aspect.

Now wrap your head around that.

[GrouchoMarx]

That is an epistemological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) question and there is a huge body of philosophy on the subject. In fact many philosophers consider it the only real branch of philosophy. Here is one of my favorite articles on The Fixation of Belief (http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html), by Charles S. Pierce. I think one of the problems when it comes to the discussion of these topics is that many people take a very intuitive approach to the debate, when there is already hundreds of years of rigorous thought about the nature of knowledge.

[samjh]

An article on "truth": http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm

I think the search for one all-encompassing definition of truth, is something beyond current human intellect.

May philosophy (love of wisdom) be with you. :)

[InfinityCircuit]

I think a precondition to answering this question is settling the debate between falsificationism and verificationism.

[Abras]

Ya know, philosophy tends to mingle with religion a lot... Sometimes they're indistinguishable. I'm sure plenty of people are likely to argue against that, but they should know that I'm not being philosophical; I'm being realistic. Too many of these kinds of threads and religious arguments could start sneaking in under the veil of philosophy.

As to the question at hand, who cares? We'll never have a completely satisfactory answer to any question that can be consider philosophical. Yeah yeah, I know a lot of the arguments against that kind of attitude but none of them has ever been able to sway my opinion. Aw shucks.

[askyourpc.com]

Wow, you guys have exceeded my expectations in your responses. The reason I ask is mainly because of a class in college. In response I would like to say that life in general can be a search for truth. Our perceptions keep changing about what is applicable or what works. We may never find Truth with a capital "T" but it is still worth the search and that is how I view my education as I am attending college.

[Chessmaster]

As to the question at hand, who cares? We'll never have a completely satisfactory answer to any question that can be consider philosophical. Yeah yeah, I know a lot of the arguments against that kind of attitude but none of them has ever been able to sway my opinion. Aw shucks.

For some beliefs it is really important to know if they are true or not. Such as "the glass of liquid I am about to drink is not acid", "the are no cars coming so I can cross the road". Being able to know what is true and what is not, is important.

So, is it important that we know what truth is, as opposed to knowing what is true? Well, yes. Just because something seem intuitively true, doesn't mean that it is. So, we need to have an understanding of what truth is so that we can (in difficult circumstances) know when things are true and when things are not true.

Often I hear people say, "well it is true for you and it is not true for me". Sometimes that is the case (such as liking ice cream etc), but it is not the case for whether or not the world is flat (although I have heard some people try to defend that kind of truth relativism). So, how do we distinguish between these cases? It is possible for two contradictory things to be true? Are some truths relative? Is truth relativism even coherent? Is truth objective? Are scientific theories / models true? In what sense are they true?

Having an understanding of what is truth is important if we want to solve these sorts of issues. If there really is no objective notion of truth, then it would seem to undermine many of our deeply held intuitions, but then again our intuitions are often unreliable. There are also corresponding issues with knowledge, justification, testimony etc.

There are many theories about what truth is: check out http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/truth/#Def

The wiki article isn't bad either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

[NovaAesa]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

[uberdonkey5]

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

+1

Kurt Godel was a famous German mathematician who proved (using set theory) that any logical system cannot have the logic applied to itself. Some people considered this to mean that 'there is no such thing as logic' but actually he showed that logic is dependent on prior assumptions (which cannot be proven, they just structure the system).

The way we think and experience reality is obviously shaped buy our education, perception and categorisation as well as our evolution (e.g. we think of a chair as a chair, because we have been taught this (some 'primitive' people may not know what a chair is; we do not see radiowaves). Thus, what we experience is just as model of reality, and things that produce better predictions (e.g. science) are better 'models' but there is no real objective reality.

Finally, communication depends on pre-agreed concepts of classifications of objects or actions and common understanding. An interesting thing about formal argument and even science, is that the arguments often don't produce something new, they produce a more refined definition of what something is. Even within our own discussions it is often how we define our words differently that cause differences of opinion.

Thus, there is no ONE logical system, there is no objective reality, and communication is only able to transmit information in an agreed framework (which is often quite subjective). Thus, there isn't really any such thing as 'truth' unless you want to define it in a limited sense i.e. when people believe they are being honest.

(PS. many psychologists believe that decision making is made by our subconcious brain, and our concious mind functions mainly to find EXCUSES as to why we take a certain action, i.e. justifying it to others and ourselves. From personal experience, I believe that I am unaware of the real motivation for my actions, though I try to make a cohesive story of my actions to build a persona for myself, and to project towards others).

[Sealbhach]

Futile speculation. The only thing that matters is doing the right thing - living the right way. How to define that is another can of vermicelli though...


.

[NovaAesa]

uberdonkey5, Wow, that's exactly what I was thinking, but in a much better way compared to how I could explain it.

[Chessmaster]

Thus, what we experience is just as model of reality, and things that produce better predictions (e.g. science) are better 'models' but there is no real objective reality.

Surely some models are better than others, and some models could even be true. Anyway, even if our experiences of the world were not "true" that does not mean to say that there is no truth, only we are unable to (as yet) know it.

As for Godel, as you point out, he showed that we must accept axioms that cannot be proven from within the system itself. BUT, that does not mean that the axioms themselves, or the system itself, is not true. Only that we cannot necessarily prove that they are true.

Things are true or false independent of people thinking or knowing that they are true or not. i.e. the world was round long before humans were around and will be long after. Whether there is ice on Mars is true or false independent of whether we have even been to Mars to look for the ice.

As for no objective reality, as Alan Sokal once famously said: "tell me there is no reality when you are falling from my 7th floor office window!"

[uberdonkey5]

Wow, you guys have exceeded my expectations in your responses. The reason I ask is mainly because of a class in college. In response I would like to say that life in general can be a search for truth. Our perceptions keep changing about what is applicable or what works. We may never find Truth with a capital "T" but it is still worth the search and that is how I view my education as I am attending college.

P.S. I agree with this, and have been interested in philosophy (and religion) since I was around 12 years old. I am only 36 now, but my main conclusion would currently be that reality as we experience it is in some senses superficial, and that our brains throughout our life are able to understand and process information in an integrated way that is completely different from reductionist science (which sometimes gives birth to spirituality?). I think that the proof of something being more truthful than something else (with truth being subjective) is that it more accurately predicts the outcome of an event.

I think, like science, even though there is no final answer, the search for truth helps us to learn more about our own conditioning, our inability to think freely, and to understand (at least in a deconstructive way) ourseleves and reality better.

P.S. a good question to ask yourself is 'would you rather be happy, or understand reality as it actually is'. I used to think the latter is better, but as time goes on and I realise just how subjective reality is, I think happiness is better i.e. we can create our own truths.

[Chessmaster]

There is of course a significant difference between "knowledge" and "truth", which are too often conflated with each other.

i.e. truth is independent of what we know, but knowledge is not independent of the truth.

[Chessmaster]

I think, like science, even though there is no final answer, the search for truth helps us to learn more about our own conditioning, our inability to think freely, and to understand (at least in a deconstructive way) ourseleves and reality better.


If there is no objective truth, how can we learn? i.e. we cannot truly know anything or understand anything if there is no truth to our beliefs because we would ALWAYS be completely deluded i.e. always wrong about what we know because our beliefs would always be false. We would be no better than the madman who thinks he can fly or a caveman who thinks the sun is an animal.


P.S. a good question to ask yourself is 'would you rather be happy, or understand reality as it actually is'. I used to think the latter is better, but as time goes on and I realise just how subjective reality is, I think happiness is better

Similar to the famous old question" "would you rather be a happy pig, or a miserable Socrates?" It is a tricky one, for sure! :confused:


i.e. we can create our own truths.

We perhaps can create our own beliefs, but truth is independent of ourselves, and we can only be said to have knowledge if that knowledge it is true.

[uberdonkey5]

Surely some models are better than others, and some models could even be true. Anyway, even if our experiences of the world were not "true" that does not mean to say that there is no truth, only we are unable to (as yet) know it.

As for Godel, as you point out, he showed that we must accept axioms that cannot be proven from within the system itself. BUT, that does not mean that the axioms themselves, or the system itself, is not true. Only that we cannot necessarily prove that they are true.

Things are true or false independent of people thinking or knowing that they are true or not. i.e. the world was round long before humans were around and will be long after. Whether there is ice on Mars is true or false independent of whether we have even been to Mars to look for the ice.

As for no objective reality, as Alan Sokal once famously said: "tell me there is no reality when you are falling from my 7th floor office window!"

the models are only ever models, and never reality (trying desperately not to break into religion here!) all parts of reality are intrinsically linked, so there is no final answer to a question about reality (i.e. a maths answer can be answer, cos it is abstracted). But definately, some models are better than others.

You only believe the world has been around for a long time and will be because of education. However, you believe it, because it makes a coherent model of reality (if the world was only around for say, 6000 years, it is difficult to explain many many other things). Well, ice on Mars? Thats the equivalent of asking if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it make a sound? Within our scientific framework, yes it does. But consider this, if we have parallel universes (which some particle physists believe must be true) is anything that happens in these universes actually 'real' if there is no information transfer between our universes? Like, we can put sound measuring devices in the forest and show that the falling tree made a sound, however, we do not know that the tree that orginally fell (with no devices) made a sound... it is unprovable. Thus, is it true that there is ice on mars? Who knows until we go there. After the fact we can say it WAS true (or at least assume this). Indeed, many scientists (including me) think time itself, as we experience it, is more of an illusion of the way in which living things exist (we live as organisms in a universe with 'increasing' entropy, but who is to say that entropy is not increasing, and we just understand things backwards??).

I would definately say there is no objective reality, but we have very good models of reality which seem cohesive and tend to be good at explaining the future. (PS. during the time of the big bang, most physists believe that the laws of physics were different, so even though science predicts things well, it is only within limited confines, take for example Heisenbergs uncertainty principle i.e. matter can spontaneously appear and disappear).

[rune0077]

Things are true or false independent of people thinking or knowing that they are true or not. i.e. the world was round long before humans were around and will be long after. Whether there is ice on Mars is true or false independent of whether we have even been to Mars to look for the ice.


Nah, not according to everything we know about quantum mechanics. A "particle" only becomes a particle when we are looking at it. There may be a probability that there's ice on Mars, but the Universe doesn't make up it's mind about it, until there's someone there to observe it. If Bohr taught us anything, it's this: it's not just that the tree doesn't make a sound if there's no one to hear it, it's that the tree doesn't even bother falling or not falling if there's no one there to see it.

[uberdonkey5]

If there is no objective truth, how can we learn? i.e. we cannot truly know anything or understand anything if there is no truth to our beliefs because we would ALWAYS be completely deluded i.e. always wrong about what we know because our beliefs would always be false. We would be no better than the madman who thinks he can fly or a caveman who thinks the sun is an animal.



ok, I agree. But we are always deluded. We just have to accept that we work using a brain that has evolved in a certain way, that we are limited. But we have developed superb techniques to construct a cohesive sense of reality (such as science). Science and maths do work, but they are always aproximations.

Take for example newtons law:
force = mass x acceleration

this is fantastic for prediction. However it is innacurrate when we apply it usually, because einstein also found that mass changes with velocity. Therefore even without resistance, the force required to produce constant acceleration is not constant! (ok, so no-one would really notice until you get close to the speed of light, but heck, I'm picky)

Basically, the rules we have work pretty well, but we will never know if they will always work.

(PS love this chat, and wish could chat more, but afraid I have to go. Incidently, I am a scientist but realised recently I should have gone into philosophy instead so currently applying for a PhD comparing Chaung Tzu and Western Existentialism)

[Dragonbite]

I think Truth is something that can be consistently tested with the same outcome for a longer time than the majority of things that bend and reshape with our even without any external involvement.

That doesn't mean Truth is always consistent, just that it is more consistent than other things.

[karellen]

Nah, not according to everything we know about quantum mechanics. A "particle" only becomes a particle when we are looking at it. There may be a probability that there's ice on Mars, but the Universe doesn't make up it's mind about it, until there's someone there to observe it. If Bohr taught us anything, it's this: it's not just that the tree doesn't make a sound if there's no one to hear it, it's that the tree doesn't even bother falling or not falling if there's no one there to see it.

it's a fallacy to apply quantum mechanics to other phenomenon and things except those of quantum mechanics.;). if we're talking about elementary particles, quantum mechanics laws are true. but we must not extrapolate. the consequences and conclusions could be rather amusing, besides obviously false :)

[Chessmaster]

I think you are conflating truth and knowledge. As I said ealier, things are true or false independent of what people think, or believe about any proposition. If you don't think that they you are rejecting the Law of Bivalence (Proposition P is either true or false.), which you can do, but I would maintain that it is controversial to do so - although there are many people who do reject it.


(i.e. a maths answer can be answer, cos it is abstracted).

So, is maths and objective (natural) feature of our universe? Is maths a fiction? Is maths just abstract objects (why do they correspond to the world then?). These are interesting and important questions, far from resolved. An good intro worth reading is http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Philosophy-Mathematics-Michele-Friend/dp/1844650618/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223037241&sr=1-10


But definately, some models are better than others.

If, as you maintain, there is no objective reality, how can one model be better than another? Surely the standard by which you judge the efficacy of a model is by its predictive success. This in itself assumes that there is an objective reality against which to measure its success i.e. predictions. If there is no objective reality, then all models are as good as each other.


You only believe the world has been around for a long time and will be because of education. However, you believe it, because it makes a coherent model of reality (if the world was only around for say, 6000 years, it is difficult to explain many many other things). Well, ice on Mars? Thats the equivalent of asking if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it make a sound? Within our scientific framework, yes it does.

Again, this is independent of truth. Whether there is ice on Mars has nothing to do with me, my beliefs etc. It is true independent of what anyone thinks about ice on Mars. It depends on whether there was water, how cold it was, how the solar system formed, etc and the rest of the causal story. But it is a causal story independent of any people's beliefs about ice on mars. Whether my beliefs about ice on mars (and hence my knowledge) are true or not depends on what I believe about ice on mars and whether there actually is ice on mars. This is an epistemological question.


But consider this, if we have parallel universes (which some particle physists believe must be true) is anything that happens in these universes actually 'real' if there is no information transfer between our universes? Like, we can put sound measuring devices in the forest and show that the falling tree made a sound, however, we do not know that the tree that orginally fell (with no devices) made a sound... it is unprovable.

It may be unprovable. But that is an issue about what we can know, not whether it is true or not. i.e. the tree either fell down, or it didn't. (P or not-P)


Thus, is it true that there is ice on mars? Who knows until we go there. After the fact we can say it WAS true (or at least assume this). Indeed, many scientists (including me) think time itself, as we experience it, is more of an illusion of the way in which living things exist (we live as organisms in a universe with 'increasing' entropy, but who is to say that entropy is not increasing, and we just understand things backwards??).

Depends on your definition of time. As I understand it, the majority of scientists and philosophers of time hold to a four-dimensional view of time. The nature of time is an empirical question, that should some day be solved one hopes.


I would definately say there is no objective reality, but we have very good models of reality which seem cohesive and tend to be good at explaining the future. (PS. during the time of the big bang, most physists believe that the laws of physics were different, so even though science predicts things well, it is only within limited confines, take for example Heisenbergs uncertainty principle i.e. matter can spontaneously appear and disappear)

Again, how can you have "good" models of something that doesn't exist. The laws of physics could change, and all our models could be wrong, but it doesn't follow that there is no objective reality. Again, these are important questions in the philosophy of science. Check out http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/models-science/#ModReaVerAntDeb especially the section on "Models: Realism and Anti-realism". Some good references there too.

PS: Don't ya just love arguing philosophy! ;)

[Chessmaster]

(PS love this chat, and wish could chat more, but afraid I have to go. Incidently, I am a scientist but realised recently I should have gone into philosophy instead so currently applying for a PhD comparing Chaung Tzu and Western Existentialism)

Yes, fun indeed. Myself, I got a degree in Chemistry and am now completing my PhD in Philosophy (submitting in 2 months! Better go do some writing!).

[rune0077]

it's a fallacy to apply quantum mechanics to other phenomenon and things except those of quantum mechanics.;). if we're talking about elementary particles, quantum mechanics laws are true. but we must not extrapolate. the consequences and conclusions could be rather amusing, besides obviously false :)

I'm not sure it's a fallacy at all. Sure, particles are behaving very differently from how things work up here, in the big world. But at the end of the day, everything in the big world is still just made up of billions and billions of particles. If an electron is actually a "wave", and only collapses into a "particle" when we look at it, then the same must certainly be true for, say, all the electrons in a human body.

The fallacy lies in my tree analogy, because there is no real analogy, no metaphor, and no way of comparing particles to anything in the big world. But the quantum rules still apply. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just as true for a billiard ball as it is for a single photon: it's just that the uncertainty is so incredible small that with regards to the billiard ball it is negligible, whereas with a photon it makes all the difference in the world.

Hey, there's a serious theory that humans created the big bang themselves, just by looking for it. The Big Bang occurred, setting everything into motion. All those millions of years later, we finally had the technology to look to the center of the Universe, observing the Big Bang and thus creating the event that long ago created us (how's that for paradox?). This is serious science to, not some quack theory. It originates from the mind of John Wheeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler), one of the pioneers of quantum physics. It sounds a little to paradoxical for me to buy it, but it shows that scientists does not consider it a fallacy at all to connect quantum reality with the big world.

[koenn]

As for no objective reality, as Alan Sokal once famously said: "tell me there is no reality when you are falling from my 7th floor office window!"
have you seen "The Matrix" ?

[Chessmaster]

have you seen "The Matrix" ?

Yep. First one was good, the others went down hill pretty quick I thought.

Thing about the matrix, the people living in the matrix did have reality, sort of. It was just different from what they though it was, but there was a reality. It doesn't mean to say that it wasn't real.

There often seems to be an assumption that if things don't exist in 3 dimensions then they don't exists at all. But do numbers exists? Does information exist? Do abstract patterns exist?

Say you found out that you were in a matrix (not like the movie) but that the entire universe was a computer simulation, including yourself (we are perhaps all algorithms). Does that mean that the world doesn't exist any more? I don't think so, it just mean that we have to change our understanding of the underlying metaphysics of the universe. i.e. it is not elementary particles that make up the universe, but information (say binary patterns) that is the fundamental basis of the universe and everything in it - in fact there are some theories that all matter is at just information if you go down low enough.

If interested, check out David Chalmers' paper, "The Matrix as Metaphysics" where he explores these ideas. Definitely a fun read an makes you think... http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html

Also check out "Are we living in a computer simulation" http://www.simulation-argument.com

As for Sokal's quote, well if people really didn't believe in reality (and I mean really didn't believe) then they would act very differently from how they actually do.

[danillo]

Similar to the famous old question" "would you rather be a happy pig, or a miserable Socrates?" It is a tricky one, for sure! :confused:

John Stuart Mill, defender of utilitarianism... His view was definitely that it is better to be a miserable Socrates.

[Riffer]

You hurt my brain :confused:

[koenn]

Thing about the matrix, the people living in the matrix did have reality, sort of.


What I meant is that 'reality' only exists as brain activity. So the Matrix is the reality of those who live in it.
And those who know it's a computer simulation are capable of actually "falling from my 7th floor office window" and survive it. (or: There is no spoon :) )

off to read that matrix metaphysics paper now, it looks interesting ..

[uberdonkey5]

Yes, fun indeed. Myself, I got a degree in Chemistry and am now completing my PhD in Philosophy (submitting in 2 months! Better go do some writing!).

fantastic! I always think philosophy should be taught in schools also (and religion be a part of it). Philosophy is really the basis of all thought, no?

As far as our philosophical argument goes, I think we are coming from two slightly different assumptions... I am assuming that reality is only what I have experienced (even if there does appear to be a congruent external reality) and you believe there is an external reality, of which we are observers.

[pp.]

Philosophy is really the basis of all thought, no?

No. It's the application of thought.

[karellen]

I'm not sure it's a fallacy at all. Sure, particles are behaving very differently from how things work up here, in the big world. But at the end of the day, everything in the big world is still just made up of billions and billions of particles. If an electron is actually a "wave", and only collapses into a "particle" when we look at it, then the same must certainly be true for, say, all the electrons in a human body.

The fallacy lies in my tree analogy, because there is no real analogy, no metaphor, and no way of comparing particles to anything in the big world. But the quantum rules still apply. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just as true for a billiard ball as it is for a single photon: it's just that the uncertainty is so incredible small that with regards to the billiard ball it is negligible, whereas with a photon it makes all the difference in the world.

Hey, there's a serious theory that humans created the big bang themselves, just by looking for it. The Big Bang occurred, setting everything into motion. All those millions of years later, we finally had the technology to look to the center of the Universe, observing the Big Bang and thus creating the event that long ago created us (how's that for paradox?). This is serious science to, not some quack theory. It originates from the mind of John Wheeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler), one of the pioneers of quantum physics. It sounds a little to paradoxical for me to buy it, but it shows that scientists does not consider it a fallacy at all to connect quantum reality with the big world.

you do realize that the part differs from the whole ;). we are basically carbon, water and a couple of other elements - not very different from a bazillion other things. but of course, the big difference lies in the organization and structure of the compounding pieces

[Phreaker]

Truth is a concept with no absolute definition

[LaRoza]

This thread is possibly violating the Cafe topic limitations. IMO, it is, but I am going to ask the other staff.

The biggest problem is that it restricts people from discussing things. Some of the statements are interesting and invite responses, but I can't because of the religious nature of my view of parts of the subject.

[pp.]

42.

The answer to life, the universe and everything.

[LaRoza]

42.

The answer to life, the universe and everything.

Right. With that, this thread is closed.

[pp.]

My preceding post ("42") was shorthand for what I actually meant to write (and what I am uncertain if I succeed).

I think the use of the substantive "truth" misleading. I do not think there is such an animal as "truth".

You'd just as soon ask "What is goldth?" or spend a life pursuing goldth or endlessly debate about the goldth of this tree or such philosophy.

In most uses of the word, a large element of the meaning goes in the direction of 'consistency' or 'freedom of contradiction'. Hence, a statement can be true. It could also be false, meaningless or undecideable.

[LaRoza]

I reopened this thread until the discussion about it is brought to a conclusion.

[pp.]

reopened .. until..

Thank you.

To pursue the thought above, one person will perceive a statement as 'true' if it consistent with an internal model this person entertains about the domain of the statement. Conversely, a person might perceive her or his model as true (or false) according to observation or statements about an external reality.

Several person may engage in a conversation about their internal models of their common environment. In the course of such a conversation some of the models may turn out to be more consistent to the common perception of the environment than others. However, getting some people to discard their internal models in favor of other models may or may not be possible. Swift described that perfectly with the round- and pointed-enders.

[handy]

I was surprised to see this thread listed as unlocked, then upon opening it I see that it is on incredibly thin ice...

Bummer, the Ubuntu forums have become so boring without the BY. :D

Back on topic:

There exists high truth that is only accessible through the raising of an individuals consciousness. This kind of truth can only be objectively measured by the natural sciences via graphing an individuals brainwaves etc.

This kind of truth is paradoxical, as it is extremely personal & at the same time explodes an individual into the collective, the unity.

I guess that will probably be all it takes to kill this thread.

If so, sorry guys, I was just attempting to share some truth with you. ;-)

[Chessmaster]

I reopened this thread until the discussion about it is brought to a conclusion.

Are we allowed to discuss the reasons for closing / or not closing the thread? Is there a place we can do this?

The reason I ask, is that ANY discussion of metaphysics is going to be in violation of any strict reading of the Cafe Topic limitations because many people think that Metaphysics and Religion are intimately related, if not inseparable. Many of course, don't think this. Therefore any metaphysical discussion is going to therefore preclude a portion of people from partaking in the discussion. And I might point out that Metaphysics is HUGE, as in pretty much everything.

I think this holds for any other discussion about rights, free software, the morality of free software etc, or any such topic.

I realise this isn't the place to discuss these issues, so if there is somewhere, could you please point me in that direction.

Cheers

PS: I work in the Philosophy Department, so discussions such as this thread are the type of "lighthearted and enjoyable discussions, like you might find around a water cooler at work." :)

PPS: I am not being facetious.

[LaRoza]

Are we allowed to discuss the reasons for closing / or not closing the thread? Is there a place we can do this?

The reason I ask, is that ANY discussion of metaphysics is going to be in violation of any strict reading of the Cafe Topic limitations because many people think that Metaphysics and Religion are intimately related, if not inseparable. Many of course, don't think this. Therefore any metaphysical discussion is going to therefore preclude a portion of people from partaking in the discussion. And I might point out that Metaphysics is HUGE, as in pretty much everything.

No, see for my thoughts on it (which was found reasonable by another) http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5901371&postcount=2



I think this holds for any other discussion about rights, free software, the morality of free software etc, or any such topic.

Issues related to free and open source software or technology is allowed. Mostly political (see the description of the Cafe), I don't think there will be an deep religious discussions, except on morality of free software and possible political systems (which, in the context of free software is allowed, assuming it isn't tense or argumentative)




I realise this isn't the place to discuss these issues, so if there is somewhere, could you please point me in that direction.

Well, for things related to free and open source software and technology, it is allowed.

The most appropriate place for in depth discussions would be not on the internet, as the internet is attractive to people who wouldn't look in you in the eye in person.



PS: I work in the Philosophy Department, so discussions such as this thread are the type of "lighthearted and enjoyable discussions, like you might find around a water cooler at work." :)

Can your prove that you work in the philosophy department? Or is that just your perception?

[Chessmaster]

Can your prove that you work in the philosophy department? Or is that just your perception?

All I will say is that in all the books I have read on epistemology not one has mentioned God or religion. Nor any online encyclopaedias of Philosophy http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/truth/ as epistemological discussions in Western Philosophy are generally considered independent of one's religious views (as in much, if not most, of eastern philosophy). I won't say any more because I am probably overstepping boundaries.

Hmmm, proof you say. I realise that you are probably being tounge in cheek. Anyway, I don't really want to put my university profile on the forum so I sent you a private message with a link to my University profile, and I have changed my profile to say Hi LaRoza at the bottom. :D

[LaRoza]

All I will say is that in all the books I have read on epistemology not one has mentioned God or religion. Nor any online encyclopaedias of Philosophy http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/truth/ as epistemological discussions in Western Philosophy are generally considered independent of one's religious views (as in much, if not most, of eastern philosophy). I won't say any more because I am probably overstepping boundaries.

Well, discussions on a forum will probably involve religion at some point don't you think?



Hmmm, proof you say. I realise that you are probably being tounge in cheek. Anyway, I don't really want to put my university profile on the forum so I sent you a private message with a link to my University profile, and I have changed my profile to say Hi LaRoza at the bottom. :D
It was tongue in cheek (not tounge) :-)

Thanks though.

Here is his profile everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAUv7w_CzQg&feature=related

[doas777]

Truth in a truly objective form is only possible with omniscience and omnipotence. otherwise real truth is either unknowable or it is lessened into a subjective form. I would presume that this is why the concept is tied to religion in many places.

there are common usages for the word "truth" that are technically valid, but yes you are right many of the "truths" as we see them are fundamentally flawed because we lack the perspective to truly observe truth.

lol.

[Chessmaster]

It was tongue in cheek (not tounge) :-)


Sometimes I type so fast this old Pentium 4 just can't keep up and gets all confused!

Although I might point out that "Tounge" is legitimate spelling of "Tongue" in Ye Olde English.

[LaRoza]

Sometimes I type so fast this old Pentium 4 just can't keep up and gets all confused!

On the bright side, if you have a cold winter (although, I think your seasons are backwards, right?) you won't have a separate heating bill.

[doas777]

I was surprised to see this thread listed as unlocked, then upon opening it I see that it is on incredibly thin ice...

Bummer, the Ubuntu forums have become so boring without the BY. :D

Back on topic:

There exists high truth that is only accessible through the raising of an individuals consciousness. This kind of truth can only be objectively measured by the natural sciences via graphing an individuals brainwaves etc.

This kind of truth is paradoxical, as it is extremely personal & at the same time explodes an individual into the collective, the unity.

I guess that will probably be all it takes to kill this thread.

If so, sorry guys, I was just attempting to share some truth with you. ;-)


interesting. I think we may have similar thoughts on the nature of objective truth, but came to two different conclusions about it.
What level of technological awareness do you think we would need to obtain to completely observe the truth of an objects existence?

I'm thinking that yes science could describe the whole truth of existence, but that it would have to be capable of viewing the entirty of existence as a single cause/effect tree to do it. theoretically the future would be just as visible as the past.

I don't know, i guess i think that that way, I can avoid the messyness of imperfect yet sentient observers.

but then again, we'd probably just alter the outcome by observing it.

[Chessmaster]

theoretically the future would be just as visible as the past.

In a 4-dimensionalist view of time, the future and the past are both places where we can go to, and they exist in a similar way that spatial locations exist. This is thought to be entailed by Einstein's theory of relativity. So, the idea that the future can be just as visible as the past is not a stupid one.

[frankleeee]

I was surprised to see this thread listed as unlocked, then upon opening it I see that it is on incredibly thin ice...

Bummer, the Ubuntu forums have become so boring without the BY. :D

Back on topic:

There exists high truth that is only accessible through the raising of an individuals consciousness. This kind of truth can only be objectively measured by the natural sciences via graphing an individuals brainwaves etc.

This kind of truth is paradoxical, as it is extremely personal & at the same time explodes an individual into the collective, the unity.

I guess that will probably be all it takes to kill this thread.

If so, sorry guys, I was just attempting to share some truth with you. ;-)

Hee hee hee you said collective. ;)