What is Truth?
- Auteur de la discussion ararat
- Date de début
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14/7/07
- Messages
- 9 628
Truth to me means a relationship between phenomenon and observation that´s free from misconceptions.
The truth about drugs involves facts and figures, not lies, flawed arguments or religious dogma. The truth about my grandmother is that she´s dead, not alive. There are lots of truths we can all agree upon.
The truth about drugs involves facts and figures, not lies, flawed arguments or religious dogma. The truth about my grandmother is that she´s dead, not alive. There are lots of truths we can all agree upon.
Brugmansia
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 2/11/06
- Messages
- 4 372
Truth is saying nothing. But merely being in silence and loniness.
BrainEater
Banni
- Inscrit
- 21/7/07
- Messages
- 5 922
truth doesn't exist as we think of it. it just lies there, beneath the surface. sometimes it shimmers through and sometimes it can be like a bright light, illuminating that what is. truth is probably a concept created by us humans that is needed, for the distinction from the other side which is misiniformation and lies. because of that, truth is seldomly perceived for what it really is, in spite of always being there. instead there is the level of personal truth which forms a level of its own and can twist the actual truth around more than we might be aware of.
peace
peace
magickmumu
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 3/11/07
- Messages
- 4 166
a stick knocking you on the head :wink:
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23/11/05
- Messages
- 11 366
Pariah a dit:
There is no fork either.
Brugmansia
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 2/11/06
- Messages
- 4 372
Meduzz a dit:
I'd love it, to be the controller who's manufacturing it all out of that platform.
T
TheMetacognologist
Guest
Truth is subjective. I would argue there are two different types of truths, those of reality, and those of concepts. And that gets a little weirder. It is true that 1+1=2 regardless of belief, as the system of mathematics we have set up has this statement as true. Other similar concepts can be true as well, however, when we start getting into the abstract, that is where subjectivity comes in, as it becomes more and more complex.
I would argue however, that there is an ultimate truth, but like an asymptote on a statistical graph, one will always get closer to that truth, but never truly reach it
add in quantum physics, and how belief and observation warp reality, suddenly even the "truths" about reality suddenly get blurred as well
ahhaha
my first post, i just joined
Hi.
I would argue however, that there is an ultimate truth, but like an asymptote on a statistical graph, one will always get closer to that truth, but never truly reach it
add in quantum physics, and how belief and observation warp reality, suddenly even the "truths" about reality suddenly get blurred as well
ahhaha
my first post, i just joined
Hi.
welcome to the forum 
The mathematical approach, I believe is critical because of two things:
1. it is not ultimate, it is based on human thought. You may laugh at me, but the axiom that every number n has the number n+1 as a successor is a human rule and not based on nature. The thought that you can make a domain and say that there are e.g. two apples is already a human approach. There are not two apples, the two apples are only a restriction of how many apples there are in total in the universe :wink: And you see, mathematics already stumbles on the number 0 - you cannot divide by 0 as if 1/0=0, then 0*0=1 which is, by common mathematics not true. ERROR.
2. Mathematics is only an image of truth, just as humans are only images of God and therefore not God resp. not truth. Therefore, as you say, math can only approach truth and never reach it.
Therefore even the statement 1+1=2 is not ultimatively and generally true. Therefore one will
The mathematical approach, I believe is critical because of two things:
1. it is not ultimate, it is based on human thought. You may laugh at me, but the axiom that every number n has the number n+1 as a successor is a human rule and not based on nature. The thought that you can make a domain and say that there are e.g. two apples is already a human approach. There are not two apples, the two apples are only a restriction of how many apples there are in total in the universe :wink: And you see, mathematics already stumbles on the number 0 - you cannot divide by 0 as if 1/0=0, then 0*0=1 which is, by common mathematics not true. ERROR.
2. Mathematics is only an image of truth, just as humans are only images of God and therefore not God resp. not truth. Therefore, as you say, math can only approach truth and never reach it.
Therefore even the statement 1+1=2 is not ultimatively and generally true. Therefore one will
On the other hand I believe that this Limit only will exist if we approach truth mathematically resp. scientifically. The boundary of (Newtonian) physics is already reached by the Law of Gravity - A scientist can only state that Gravity IS and not WHY it is. :wink:
maxfreakout
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/2/07
- Messages
- 1 474
i dont think there is any such thing as truth, because it is impossible to 'know' anything, anything you think you know could turn out to be wrong
so nothing is true, truth is nothing
"i know that i know nothing" - Socrates
so nothing is true, truth is nothing
"i know that i know nothing" - Socrates
I'd say TheMetacognologist is on the right line, but here's some food for thought anyway:
Descartes had the problem of realising that since the senses can be fooled, we can't be sure of anything - eventually he realised that the fact that he was doubting his existence was the best indication of his existence - he could not doubt that he was doubting. from that foundation it was possible to build up a (somewhat shakey) reliance on empiracle data, maths etc... at least to a stance of no reasonable doubt: knowledge doesn't require certainty.
On the opposite side of things to the general thinking on this thread (you know, just to stir things up) far from nothing being true: if you can argue well enough, everything can be demonstrated to be "true" - this was the thinking of sophists who would teach rhetoric and argumentative method for a fee: stating that far from nothing being true - "everything is true" - you can convince people of the truth of anything if you can argue well enough.
Descartes had the problem of realising that since the senses can be fooled, we can't be sure of anything - eventually he realised that the fact that he was doubting his existence was the best indication of his existence - he could not doubt that he was doubting. from that foundation it was possible to build up a (somewhat shakey) reliance on empiracle data, maths etc... at least to a stance of no reasonable doubt: knowledge doesn't require certainty.
On the opposite side of things to the general thinking on this thread (you know, just to stir things up) far from nothing being true: if you can argue well enough, everything can be demonstrated to be "true" - this was the thinking of sophists who would teach rhetoric and argumentative method for a fee: stating that far from nothing being true - "everything is true" - you can convince people of the truth of anything if you can argue well enough.
