Absolute Truth - Page 2

NotConvinced · 12-13-2007, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

First Principles, that are necessarily true by their very definition. Here are some First Principles, defined a priori:

1. A is A (law of identity)
2. A is not Non-A (law of contradiction)
3. Either B or Non-B (law of excluded middle)

Quote:

Answer: I believe that beliefs can't always be true.

We're not talking about beliefs here. We're talking about axioms. Again, you're confusing perspective with context. I am saying that certain things are always, absolutely true no matter what we think about them.

You asked me what I believed. I told you. If you want to change the subject to axioms, please don't quote me out of context. Honest mistake so I forgive you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Just because you think something is not true does not inherently define its truth. Truth is exclusive. To say that it is not is to state an exclusive truth to prove all truths are relative, ie: "I believe that all truths are relative" is using an absolute truth claim to try and say there are no absolute truth claims. It fails because it contradicts itself.

"I believe that truth is always relative." If the definition of truth changes, who the hell knows if I'm using an absolute truth claim or not. That in itself is relative. I've tried many angles, I think I've found one that works...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Without these laws and concepts, communication is impossible. There have to be absolute truths that are exclusively true and are a priori, otherwise we fall into a reductio ad absurdum infinitum fallacy.

If I believe A is not always A, then do axioms 1 and 2 fall apart? Can you give me an example where A is always A?

bobleplask · 12-13-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobleplask

I actually took philosophy of logic but I failed it. I am starting to understand why now

in the man made system called mathematics 1 = 1 and if not then as you say, mathematics will fail. We not do really know if the same rules applies to the real world. We just take it for granted. It could be that 1 really, really, really is 2, but we just have not figured it out yet.

Doesn't matter if 1 is actually "2" or "643" or "whoozie". The numbers are abstract representations of physical entities. They represent ideas in reality - entities - and therefore what they actually *are called* does not matter. The principle is the same.

No. There is no absolute proof that one physical entity in a box and another physical entity in a box is two physical entities in a box. It most likely is, but we could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Yes, by its very nature. A cannot be non-A.

Forget senses - you're still thinking that truth is defined by perception. I am arguing that it is not; that truth is exclusive. You can use logic to prove such without using physical senses. Knowing truth is a whole other topic that is unrelated to absolute truth.

A = A is a tautology - a propositional formula that is true in any possible valuation or context.

Could be what? No, A cannot be Non-A. If you want to say it can, you must prove otherwise. I have shown that A is A, and therefore cannot be non-A.

The proof is: ~(P v ~P)

Quote:

Within "a system" called logic based on claims, you have proven that "A = A". Also to say that "A = not A" you say I have to prove it. These are rules from Logic101.
I say that we can't know if "A = A" or if "A = not A" and we can not prove either of them.

You might enjoy this quote from the philosopher Avicenna:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

Yes, it is a good one

Quote:

If I am sitting in a chair, I am therefore by necessity not not sitting in a chair.
If I am eating an apple, I am therefore by necessity not not eating an apple.
If I am typing this reply to you to get you to understand first principles, then I am therefore by necessity not not typing this reply to you to get you to understand first principles.

I understand first principles, I just see that it can be doubted. I am not saying it's a lie, nor am I saying it is truth. I am saying we do not have anything but our mind to base the assumption that first principles are true on. It assumes that our mind has the ability to see what is true and what is false based on a system we made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

If you're going to deny First Principles and our knowledge of them, then I suggest seeing how the very way you live - even your post to me - relies on First Principles.

Quote:

When you said that you "say we can not prove either of them", you assumed the law of non-contradiction that states that something is either proven or not proven. You also assumed that "them" is "them", and not "not-them".

Did I assume that? Or did you assume that I assumed it? Bad argument on my part there

Yes, everyday life needs something stable so that we can make decisions regarding everything we do. And I am bound by that in many ways. I am used to have a refrence point when making any form of assumption or claim or decision. Again, it does not mean that the reference point is an absolute truth. In fact - if we might never find out what absolute truth is, then it might not be important. It should be a familiar thought on this forum actually.

Quote:

We can simply "say" things are not knowable, but unless you show me any sort of evidence why First Principles are unknowable, you're just spouting off at the wind. Let's be reasonable, here.

Quote:

These statements we more or less take for granted and it's hard to find reasons for them not to be true. But can it be doubted that A = A? Or does there exist something that tells with out doubt that A = A?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

These laws are a priori - they are self-evident and self-proving. If you doubt First Principles, then all knowledge and philosophy breaks down and you cannot deduce anything. The statement that A = A might not always be true without First Principles, specifically the law of identity.

Quote:

These laws are a priori because we say they are. They can be doubted by many things, for instance Descartes deceiving god and his evil demon for all we know. On the other hand they might be true. It just can not be known.

Straw Man fallacy - I did not say they are a priori because we say they are. I said they are a priori on their own self-evident nature. Whether or not we percieve that A = A is irrelevant. A is still A. The truth of the statement exists outside of your perception, but yet can still be percieved but not defined by that perception.

To simply say "they might be true" is nonsense. Either they are or they are not. And if they are not, then you have run into an impossibility, for to have something be "not", it must have an opposite "be", which implies that to "be not" is not to "be". Ergo, the law of non-contradiction.

No, but you got some of it. It has to do with perception. Does it feel impossible for you to imagine that A = Not A, and 1 + 1 = 3 or first principles being false? Just because we can't perceive it, does not mean it is not so.

Quote:

I doubt First Principles and do not think we can deduce anything.

No offense, but that's a lie. You deduced that very statement, even if it was an incorrect one.

Quote:

I do see First Principles as helpful for making decisions and basic living, but I see a big room for error if we use something that might be false to find something that is true.

You can either live in doubt of everything and eventually go mad because of living in intellectual contradiction, or accept basic foundational principles that are logically sound and coherent.

You can believe whatever you want, doubt whatever you want, but that does not change that A = A and A is not non-A. In fact, it even reinforces it.

The assumption that I will go mad by living in intellectual contradiction is just an assumption. It is possible to assume you would go mad from never accepting that absolute truth might never be found and it might be possible to assume I would go mad from accepting something I do not see as absolute truth as absolute truth.

I can accept A =A as a relative truth though. Everything is relative

**Skepticologist** · 12-14-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobleplask

It has to do with perception. Does it feel impossible for you to imagine that A = Not A, and 1 + 1 = 3 or first principles being false? Just because we can't perceive it, does not mean it is not so.

You're absolutely right. But if I can't perceive it, I can accept it as nothing more than one of billions of yet to be substantiated possibilities.

bobleplask · 12-15-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobleplask

It has to do with perception. Does it feel impossible for you to imagine that A = Not A, and 1 + 1 = 3 or first principles being false? Just because we can't perceive it, does not mean it is not so.

You're absolutely right. But if I can't perceive it, I can accept it as nothing more than one of billions of yet to be substantiated possibilities.

Thank you, and I believe you are quite right yourself

shaun · 12-17-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Without these laws and concepts, communication is impossible. There have to be absolute truths that are exclusively true and are a priori, otherwise we fall into a reductio ad absurdum infinitum fallacy.

Quote:

If I believe A is not always A, then do axioms 1 and 2 fall apart?

Only in your theory. Not in reality. However, if your theory cannot be logically established or based in reality, it is not valid, sound, or worth accepting.

Quote:

Can you give me an example where A is always A?

You just did. You assumed 'A' means 'A', before you could posit if 'A' was not 'A'. To deny something you have to have itself in your mind before you can deny it.

The very basis of First Principles is that they are automatically deduced - it is a basic assumption that is already stated and cannot be deduced simply because to deduce assumes the First Principle. It is self-evident.

Aristotle puts it this way: "For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same in the same (way) is impossible."

You cannot even doubt the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A) without it. To doubt is to view something as inconsistent, and inconsistency necessarily assumes consistency a priori.

To deny this is to deny the very foundations of language, mathematics and science as we know it. All of them are based upon this axiom.

shaun · 12-17-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobleplask

No. There is no absolute proof that one physical entity in a box and another physical entity in a box is two physical entities in a box. It most likely is, but we could be wrong.

You're stating absolute truths here. To say 'no' is to assume an absolute truth.

Quote:

I understand first principles, I just see that it can be doubted. I am not saying it's a lie, nor am I saying it is truth. I am saying we do not have anything but our mind to base the assumption that first principles are true on. It assumes that our mind has the ability to see what is true and what is false based on a system we made.

Fair enough - but to even doubt them you must first assume that there is consistency and validity (doubt is based upon your perception of the consistency and validty of something), and therefore you already are assuming that for something to be consistent it must always be consistent. Hence, A = A.

Quote:

Did I assume that? Or did you assume that I assumed it? Bad argument on my part there

Nope, you assumed it.

Quote:

We can simply "say" things are not knowable, but unless you show me any sort of evidence why First Principles are unknowable, you're just spouting off at the wind. Let's be reasonable, here.

Quote:

No, but you got some of it. It has to do with perception.

So you're saying that absolutely in all cases truth has to do with perception?

Quote:

Does it feel impossible for you to imagine that A = Not A, and 1 + 1 = 3 or first principles being false?

Yes, it is impossible for A to = Not A. To say it is true is to assume something true is always = true and then try to say true = false. It's logically incoherent, makes no sense and is deriving a wrong conclusion from a contradictory presupposition.

Quote:

Just because we can't perceive it, does not mean it is not so.

Just because we can't perceive it does not mean it is so.

Quote:

I can accept A =A as a relative truth though. Everything is relative

Again, you're making an absolute claim there to state that everything is relative.

bobleplask · 12-17-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobleplask

No. There is no absolute proof that one physical entity in a box and another physical entity in a box is two physical entities in a box. It most likely is, but we could be wrong.

You're stating absolute truths here. To say 'no' is to assume an absolute truth.

You are quite right. The "no" can be taken away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

I understand first principles, I just see that it can be doubted. I am not saying it's a lie, nor am I saying it is truth. I am saying we do not have anything but our mind to base the assumption that first principles are true on. It assumes that our mind has the ability to see what is true and what is false based on a system we made.

Fair enough - but to even doubt them you must first assume that there is consistency and validity (doubt is based upon your perception of the consistency and validty of something), and therefore you already are assuming that for something to be consistent it must always be consistent. Hence, A = A.

Maybe. I am saying I do not know and do not think I can know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

We can simply "say" things are not knowable, but unless you show me any sort of evidence why First Principles are unknowable, you're just spouting off at the wind. Let's be reasonable, here.

Quote:

No, but you got some of it. It has to do with perception.

So you're saying that absolutely in all cases truth has to do with perception?

Not at all. Something can be true even if there never had been anyone there to perceive it. I think we agree on that. I am saying that something can be true, but you would not know it if you saw it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Does it feel impossible for you to imagine that A = Not A, and 1 + 1 = 3 or first principles being false?

Yes, it is impossible for A to = Not A. To say it is true is to assume something true is always = true and then try to say true = false. It's logically incoherent, makes no sense and is deriving a wrong conclusion from a contradictory presupposition.

I agree with you on this. When you boil everything down then A = A and it is impossible for A = Not A. but we can never (big word, i know) be sure that what we perceive as A is actually A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

Just because we can't perceive it, does not mean it is not so.

Just because we can't perceive it does not mean it is so.

I agree. We can perceive everything. But we have no way of separating them into truths and lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

Quote:

I can accept A =A as a relative truth though. Everything is relative

Again, you're making an absolute claim there to state that everything is relative.

You know how to use your words well. You have expressed your views and I have expressed mine. Our minds have not changed much and I don't believe they will even if we continue. So thanks for your input and merry Christmas to you Shaun

shadowind · 12-19-2007, 02:34 PM

every thing apears to be based on guesses and Assumptions like my perception being accurate, i have no effective way of knowing the accuracy of my perception, thus i have no way to know if my perception is true.
A is what A is, unless after Interpretation it is only what it apears to be. now it is intresting that the statment" there is no absolute truth" apears to be a absolute truth, but it is a relative truth, true in the system i observe and believe, its based on assumptions and beliefs, that belief is that my senses tell senses not truths. and thus the world at my fingertips might also just be the world i perceive and nothing more. or it could exist as solidly as it apears to be, but how can i perceive the accuracy of my perception? anyways everthing comes down to a unknown when you tear it down enough.

Silence Dogood · 12-19-2007, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowind

anyways everthing comes down to a unknown when you tear it down enough.

There's a contradiction here, isn't there? The statement itself relies upon the assertion that you do indeed know something: everything is unknown. A man can't lift the "unliftable"; likewise, a man can't know the "unknowable."

shadowind · 12-19-2007, 07:53 PM

i know that i do not know.