What is Truth?

[Chandler Frank]

And anything that is possible must exist, since the universe is infinite.

The main assumption you seem to rely on, and the main downfall of most of your arguments.
The universe is not likely infinite. For it to be infinite could cause a multitude of paradoxes, (given your comments on another thread on the fact that given infinity, anything and/or everything is possible) Infinity itself may be a paradox, in that being constrained to a world, (and I propose, universe) that is defined by finity, our perception cannot go beyond such constraints. Nor is it ultimately proveable, for to prove infinity from within the constraints of the finity which we live and, more importantly, experiment is theoretically impossible.

order for you and your world to be imagined in the first place you and your environment must be physically possible on some level.

Not necessarily, for what imagination is based entirely on physical possibilities? Dreams, for example, at times take the memories, the desires and other things from the subconcious - concocting at times a 'physically' (based on the rules of our world - those that the mind knows it must conform to when awake) impossible vision and/or experience.

To take this slightly deeper (sorry I may have misunderstood your idea here, but bear with me)

This being the imagination basing it's existence upon the physical constraints of this world, an imagination somewhere must also base itself on some set of rules in order to imagine other rules.

Thus for an imagination to conceive anything at all in the first place it needs a concrete truth (that the mind itself takes as truth, not necesarily reality - but what is reality outside of your mind, for does not your mind tell you what that reality is?) to first base from in order to continue the imaginational construct - for example the mind must believe that the eyes show what is truly in front of you, what you 'see' in order to then conceive any 'vision' from there - thus you are constrained to the truth of vision, of a physical reality, of sight, smell, touch, sound.

All which could lie to you by themselves, but the apparent co-incidence of these 'senses' together points otherwise. (again your theory of infinity, and that given infinity, random chance turns to reality - this could happen, where these senses co-incide, though not physically (based on outside rules - which are not testable by the senses of man, because of this infinity of the universe and the random-becomes-reality theory))

What say you? I've gotta go so I'll finish my reply later...

[Alive]

You have not responded to the problems I have presented with your argument, ZNFYRH.

What exactly is the difference between a "matter of fact" and a matter of opinion?

If it's this:

Quote by: ZNFYRH Any time you cannot present some sort of objective material support you are no longer dealing with fact, but opinion.

Then like I said, if two people are on a deserted island without any almanacs, then is it just as true to say Paris is the capitol of France as it is to say Paris is the capitol of Japan? There is no objective material support either way (not that an almanac would be objective material support. What qualifies as objective material support exactly anyways?)

I think the vast majority of English speakers would say that Paris is the capitol of France and not Japan no matter what; that this is true; regardless of whether the speaker of the statement knows it to be true. Put simply, something does not become true just because you think it is true.

I think the vast majority of intelligent thinkers would accept, implicitly in their use of the word if not explicitly, that a fact is not a fact by virtue of being accepted as fact but by virtue of being, well, true.

[ZNFYRH]

The ability to prove something right or wrong does not make something anything other than true. Two people stranded on an island without an almanac do not change the capital of France.

A matter of fact means that only the fact itself is true.

In a matter of opinion, every opinion is true.

Your example of capital cities only deals with fact. In that case, fact and truth are the same.

In matter of opinion, facts and truth are not necessarily the same. In between the fact and its truthfulness are our own personal evaluations. Using the example of someone's spouse being lovable, two people could both state facts about the spouse. But they evaluate those facts different and come to varying degrees of similar truths.

[Alive]

Quote by: ZNFYRH A matter of fact means that only the fact itself is true. In a matter of opinion, every opinion is true.

What exactly is the difference between a matter of fact and a matter of opinion? You have not clearly stated this yet, and you must before I can understand what you are saying.

Using the example of someone's spouse being lovable, two people could both state facts about the spouse. But they evaluate those facts different and come to varying degrees of similar truths.

I do not understand what you are saying. What exactly is the difference between:

Situation 1:
Fact: Paris is the capital of France
Truth: Paris is the capital of France
Untruth: Paris is not the capital of France

and

Situation 2:
Fact: Person A loves wife A'
Truth as stated by person A: Wife A' is lovable, as proven by the fact that I love her
Untruth as stated by person B: Wife A' is not lovable, despite the fact that person A loves her
Untruth as stated by person C: Wife A' is not lovable, because it is not a fact that person A loves her.

Person B contradicts himself, and person C contradicts fact, so how exactly are they true?

[ZNFYRH]

Alive,

Paris is the capital of France. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with opinions in any way. If Person A says Paris is the capital and Person B says Marseilles is the capital, Person A is telling you what is true and B is telling you what is untrue.

Regarding the "lovable" question, look at it this way.

Your written out situation is incorrect. Person A says that Spouse is lovable because Spouse smiles while sleeping. Smiling while sleeping is a fact. Person A's assessment is true.

Person B says that Spouse is not lovable because Spouse smiles while sleeping. Smiling while sleeping is a fact. Person B's assessment is also true.

I don't know how to explain the difference between relative truth and factual truth other than telling you that it has to do with matters of opinion. Opinions are always true for the one who has them. Ever hear the expression, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or "One man's trash is another man's treasure"? Those are both indicative of the relative truth concept.

A mathematical way of looking at it is to say that facts are boolean, while opinions are scalar. With factual truth, something either is or isn't, 0 or 1. With opinions, something might be more than something else or less than something else. I might find a joke funny, you might find it gut-busting hilarious. That's the nature of relative truth.

[Alive]

Hmm, I wonder if my misunderstanding stemmed from taking the word "lovable" in a different way than you intended, as meaning "able to be loved". By such definition, if anyone loved person A, person A must be lovable. Nevertheless, I think we do have an important thing to discuss here.

What you are talking about is not generally what is meant by real relativists/postmodernists in saying that truth is relative. I will try to illustrate the difference.

If person A is beautiful to person B and not beautiful to person C, it makes sense to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One could say that "beauty is relative"--there is nothing about person A that contains inherent beauty or absence of such; beauty is found by person B or not found by person C.

But truth as the term is generally used, is not relative.

In this situation:

Person B's truth: Person B finds person A beautiful, person C does not find person A beautiful.
Person C's truth: Person B finds person A beautiful, person C does not find person A beautiful.

Their truth is the same. If person B states: I [Person B] find person A beautiful--then this is a fact, and it would be untrue for person C to deny this fact. If person B states: Person A is beautiful--that is not a fact, it is what you called an opinion. I would not attribute any kind of truth value whatsoever to this statement; I myself would call it a perspective or taste.***

This is not the same thing as the postmodernist/relativist claim that truth is relative, though. To the true relativist, if person C thinks: Person B does not think person A is beautiful--then for person C, the truth is that person B actually does not think person A is beautiful. If person C thinks Paris is the capital of Japan, then for person C, Paris actually is the capital of Japan. If you think you can fly, and you jump out a window and try, you will actually fly. That is what at least some people mean when they say that truth is relative. If you are not one of those people, I think it would clarify matters if you used phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" to indicate your view rather than statements like "truth is relative."

***(when someone says "She is beautiful" they are implicitly adding "I perceive that" to the beginning of their statement. Thus these statements uttered by people do actually have objective truth values. The evidence: If someone says "She is beautiful" when that person actually thinks she is hideous, we consider that person to be lying, despite the fact that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.)

[loser]

What is truth?

Hey, hey, it's what I say.

How do you define truth?

As everything I say.

How do you define reality?

If I say so, believe it.

Am I really here, or is this just a product of my own imagination? Or the product of the imagination of another?

If I recognize you, you are somebody. If I don't, you are nothing.

Is truth relative or absolute?

It's either absolutely relative or it's relatively absolute.

How do you define relative or absolute without relation to another absolute?

Absolutely!

Thus how do you define truth without relation to an absolute?

In a relative way.

Specifically, I'm curious how you can state that truth is absolute when some of the greatest minds in human history disagree with you.

Were they absolutely great minds or just relatively great minds?

Fact: Paris is the capital of France

Absolutely wrong (in a relative way)!

Truth: The capital of France is Paris.

Truth: Paris is a city in Texas.

Therefore, although the capital of France is always (absolutely) Paris, Paris is NOT always (relatively) the capital of France.

The main thing to remember is always DOTE on my every word and you will be absolutely and really bound to truth...I have spoken and it is so.

Unless, of course, I am lying.

In that case...

never mind.

[ZNFYRH]

Alive,

You hit upon the problem of personal context. "Relative truth" means nothing more than something where two different people can observe the same thing and have two different conclusions.

If you read back, you'll see that I specifically commented that "truth is relative" should not be dismissed as "post-modernist". In that sense, I agree with you.

I think the short and simple summary of what you and I are discussing is that when a statement agrees or disagrees with a fact, it is true or untrue. But when a statement is derived from, as I wrote earlier, a scalar value instead of a yes or no, it is opinion.

[Alive]

Quote by: ZNFYRH "Relative truth" means nothing more than something where two different people can observe the same thing and have two different conclusions.

I would rather not argue with definitions, but in my experience, this is not what people mean when people say that "truth is relative." After all, it is trivially obvious that two people can eat one thing and one person likes it and another does not; if truth relativism means only that, who would disagree? Do you know of anyone who rejects your version of truth relativism?

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Chandler Frank The main assumption you seem to rely on, and the main downfall of most of your arguments. The universe is not likely infinite. For it to be infinite could cause a multitude of paradoxes, (given your comments on another thread on the fact that given infinity, anything and/or everything is possible) Infinity itself may be a paradox, in that being constrained to a world, (and I propose, universe) that is defined by finity, our perception cannot go beyond such constraints. Nor is it ultimately proveable, for to prove infinity from within the constraints of the finity which we live and, more importantly, experiment is theoretically impossible.

I don't know where you took math, but you are criminally uninformed. Just because you can't sense infinity directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The universe must be infinite because of a basic mathematical truth; in order for any one thing to exist, everything must exist. For example, numbers 1-5 can't be the only numbers that exist, because their definition relies on a rule that constitutes numbers can go on forever. The distance between 1 and 2 is the same as the distance between 5 and 6. We have no reason to stop at 5 because we can keep counting. In fact, we MUST go on. Because you have established the rule of whole numbers, all possible whole numbers have been defined, and therefore numbers go on forever in accordance with this rule. Because numbers 1 and 2 are defined, every number in existence must be defined. And the same concept holds with the universe. If you exist, if something you see exists, then EVERYTHING exists. Read some Nietzsche, or at the very least do some research on wikipedia. What you have been told about infinity was disproved centuries ago.

Not necessarily, for what imagination is based entirely on physical possibilities? Dreams, for example, at times take the memories, the desires and other things from the subconcious - concocting at times a 'physically' (based on the rules of our world - those that the mind knows it must conform to when awake) impossible vision and/or experience.

What I was referring to was, it's impossible to imagine a tangible paradox that works itself out. If it does work itself out, it wouldn't be a paradox. Therefore, everything that you imagine has some grounding in "rules" of the physical world, and therefore, anything relating to the physical world is physically possible on some level, in spite of contradictions in the laws of physics. The very nature of infinity entails that even the impossible things become not-so-impossible under the right circumstances.

To take this slightly deeper (sorry I may have misunderstood your idea here, but bear with me) This being the imagination basing it's existence upon the physical constraints of this world, an imagination somewhere must also base itself on some set of rules in order to imagine other rules. Thus for an imagination to conceive anything at all in the first place it needs a concrete truth (that the mind itself takes as truth, not necesarily reality - but what is reality outside of your mind, for does not your mind tell you what that reality is?) to first base from in order to continue the imaginational construct - for example the mind must believe that the eyes show what is truly in front of you, what you 'see' in order to then conceive any 'vision' from there - thus you are constrained to the truth of vision, of a physical reality, of sight, smell, touch, sound. All which could lie to you by themselves, but the apparent co-incidence of these 'senses' together points otherwise. (again your theory of infinity, and that given infinity, random chance turns to reality - this could happen, where these senses co-incide, though not physically (based on outside rules - which are not testable by the senses of man, because of this infinity of the universe and the random-becomes-reality theory)) What say you? I've gotta go so I'll finish my reply later...

No. Your senses could indeed be lying, but any lies would result in sensory paradoxes, which would be physical manifestations of contradictory "laws." There are many "tricks of the mind," I won't dispute that, but most of them are obvious and do not obscure our understanding of the universe because we know that they are just that. Paradoxes created in the mind are not the same as hypothetical paradoxes, or concrete paradoxes, and it's usually very easy to distinguish them. Even if our perception were comparatively rife with inaccuracies, we'd be able to spot them and know the limitations of our perceptions, and on that level, build an accurate picture of what the universe is really like. And even if your senses were lying to you 100% of the time, those lies would still have to behave according to the logic defined by everything in the first place, because nothing that is illogical can exist in this universe. Because the paradoxes we speak of are contradictions in what your mind senses and what really is, there is a logic structure that sustains them. Simply by understanding the patterns of logic that dictate which sensory paradoxes are in action, and when, we would (and are) able to understand the reality of the universe. All impacts in previous statement apply here.

[ZNFYRH]

Alive,

Without sounding rude, I have no interest in what others call "relative truth". I thought you had asked me what I mean by relative truth. And there are probably people on this very forum who disagree with the truth of my statement about relative truth. I guess that makes it relative?

[Chandler Frank]

I don't know where you took math, but you are criminally uninformed.

Criminally as in I should be in jail? Because I am apparently uninformed?
Gosh, you and your absurd accusations.

Just because you can't sense infinity directly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sounds like a faith statement to me.
Is not one of the main detractions of creationists (to bring that up again) the broad statements made without evidence? (eg. 'just because you can't sense God directly doesn't mean he doesn't exist')

The universe must be infinite because of a basic mathematical truth; in order for any one thing to exist, everything must exist.

You have said this already in multiple forms. (Another faith statement)
Just because a square peg exists does not mean a square hole must exist. The human mind perceives that a hole for the square peg to go into could be possible, (and thus the mind may choose to implement that idea into the creation of a square hole for the square peg to go into) The only place where the square hole must exist is in your infinity, which is automatically disqualified from being the cause, lest we create another of your circular arguments.

In fact, we MUST go on. Because you have established the rule of whole numbers, all possible whole numbers have been defined, and therefore numbers go on forever in accordance with this rule.

Numbers do not go on forever with this rule, they only go on as far as one is willing, or decides, to use them. The perception of all (infinite) numbers is there, but the reality is not demonstrated unless (once again) infinity is employed - creating another circular argument.

And the same concept holds with the universe.

A mere equivocation.
Just because the mathematical equation exists does not mean that it applies to the universe.

If you exist, if something you see exists, then EVERYTHING exists.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I would state it as:
If you exist, if something you see exists, then you can perceive that EVERYTHING [could exist].

The very nature of infinity entails that even the impossible things become not-so-impossible under the right circumstances.

Thus either infinity itself is a paradox, or the existence of a paradox is a paradox. Again you base everything on the assumption that this universe IS infinite.
Try arguing such without the (even unspoken) preamble of "if the universe is infinite" or "because the universe is infinite" because at the moment you are walking in circles.

I won't dispute that, but most of them are obvious and do not obscure our understanding of the universe because we know that they are just that.

You say that we are generally able to perceive the difference between reality and a mind-trick, then you say that theoretically EVERYTHING is possible. Thus theoretically the notion that we are all 'mind-tricked' and cannot perceive this difference is also possible.
If you are going to skip so happily between theoretical possibilities and realistic possibilities, I'm afraid your arguments aren't going to hold too much water.

Simply by understanding the patterns of logic that dictate which sensory paradoxes are in action, and when, we would (and are) able to understand the reality of the universe.

And here you assume that we can actually ascertain and understand these patterns of logic, in an infinite universe (as you propose it) it is perfectly possible that such patterns of logic are indeterminable by the human mind - in fact they could be relatively illogical, at least in relation to what else we may call logic.

[Alive]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Alive, Without sounding rude, I have no interest in what others call "relative truth". I thought you had asked me what I mean by relative truth. And there are probably people on this very forum who disagree with the truth of my statement about relative truth. I guess that makes it relative?

The entire point of language is communication, so I don't see how you cannot care if other people will take the words you say to mean something different than you take them to mean. I do not think there is anyone who would claim that just because one person finds something beautiful, everyone must find that thing beautiful, which is the only thing your truth relativism rejects.

Just for simplicity sake, and because it is how the term is usually used, I think we should use the word truth such that the word is always referring to objective "factual" reality, and delegate "opinion", taste, and perception to the words "opinion", "taste", and "perception" rather than the word "truth". It is not "true" that she is beautiful, it is not "false" that she is beautiful, it is not true in my world and false in yours, the term truth has no meaning applied to the question of if she is beautiful. But it true that I find her beautiful, objectively, factually, absolutely true to all.

If you want to use the word otherwise, feel free, but I think it will pose a barrier to effective communication and understanding.

[ZNFYRH]

Alive,

Then it would appear you just answered the topic of the thread.

"Truth" only pertains to objective, factual reality, and should not be used in matters of opinion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point is that just as Zhavric stated that "Nothing is absolute" is contradictory, so is the statement "Truth is absolute". In ever discussion about truth you will have people, like Zhavric, who claim that there is only one truth for anything and that believing truth is relative is post-modernism.

You're confusing truth with opinion.

"Truth is absolute" is in no way contradictory. Truth is what reality is independent of our perception.

Aliens either do or do not exist on other planets. That is the truth. Their existence or non-existence is the truth. Let's say for the sake of argument no other aliens exist and we're the only people here. "Aliens do not exist" is, by definition of the hypothetical, true. In this hypothetical, opinions can be stated which match or do not match the truth. With evidence and logic we can discern truth and compare it to our opinion.

Honestly, I don't understand these discussions. I don't understand how individuals as smart as volconvo.com posters can get so confused about something so elementary.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that someone stating their opinion is speaking the truth. Alive and I have been going over this and Post #34 make a distinction. Why did you feel the need to comment on Post #20 when the subsequent posts already develop into the point you made?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Zhavric, I understand what you're saying. The problem is that someone stating their opinion is speaking the truth.

This is a simple misunderstanding of absolute statements. Observe:

"I believe ZNFYRH does not exist." This is an absolute statement. It's true that all things that are Zhavric at 1:11pm est on 3/6/2007 believe that ZNFYRH does not exist. That is true for everyone everywhere because my statement is the same for everyone everywhere.

"But wait! I do exist" you say.

This is the truth that exists independent of my absolute statement. It is also a different context from my statement. So my statement of belief is 'true' because I've worded it in such a way that I'm making a statement about what's in my own mind.

Your existence independent of my opinion is the truth / what actually is.

Alive and I have been going over this and Post #34 make a distinction. Why did you feel the need to comment on Post #20 when the subsequent posts already develop into the point you made?

Because I don't feel you got it quite right and I try to reply to what's directed to me... albeit a bit late this time.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Zhavric This is a simple misunderstanding of absolute statements. Observe: "I believe ZNFYRH does not exist." This is an absolute statement. It's true that all things that are Zhavric at 1:11pm est on 3/6/2007 believe that ZNFYRH does not exist. That is true for everyone everywhere because my statement is the same for everyone everywhere.

It's not a misunderstanding at all. As I wrote in response to Alive, the difference is that you wrote that you believe I don't exist. You are factually incorrect, even though you are being truthful.

I've got it quite right. Instead of trying to correct me, what if you try to understand me?

Given the theme of this thread, truth is factual. But Truth (capital T) is opinion. Someone can speak the Truth with honesty and still be factually incorrect.