Truth, an absolute?

[Danabis]

 

Why is that hard to answer? I mean, it makes sound if somebody is there, why shouldn't it make sound when there is nobody there to hear it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's there, there's just nothing to recieve it in its audio form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can say the same thing about light...

 

 

 

Does light exist if there is no one around to see the source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn straigh it does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with your point of view, but that doesn't make it right.

[Godslayer]

Well, I'm probably imagining you all, so I'll just say nothing is absolute. Except the fact that nothing is absolute. Therefore, one thing is absolute. No. Wait-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bmw]

To the tree question, it all depends on what you define sound as. Since sound is just a word, there isn't necessarily one right definition. Therefore there is no truth behind that question.

[Korla]

To the tree question, it all depends on what you define sound as. Since sound is just a word, there isn't necessarily one right definition. Therefore there is no truth behind that question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the question was:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Did the tree fall if noone was there to see it?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so it's not about sound, it's wether the tree fell or not.

[jamie]

Something is either True or False, but it may change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True or False is different from Right or Wrong. The truth can be wrong but it's a fact that must be accepted. Something thats wrong can also be the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right or Wrong is based on moral philosophy, one persons opion be different from the others so whats Right and Wrong will always vary. But truth is an absolute certain which cannot ever differ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whats True to you may not be the Truth, its just what you belive to be true, but it may actually be false. There is nothing wrong with this, thats what makes us unique. The Truth is always there and never shall change, all that changes is how we depict the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There must be a Universal Law for the Truth based on everything thats ever happened, but this would mean the truth is constantly changing and what was the truth would now only become true. Who decides on the Truth, Can there be Multiple Truths?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E.G The Sky is Blue - this is the truth it cannot be doubted

 

 

 

The Sky is now changed and became Green

 

 

 

The Sky is Blue is no longer the Truth, it was once true that it was blue but this is now false as its actually green

 

 

 

The Sky is Green is now the Truth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So does this mean the Truth is not an absolute certain because the Truth is constantly changing?

[jamie]

^^ does it make sense or am i jumbled up?

[insane]

Yeah, I understand your point Jamie (is it jamie2002?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the sky question - I would say that it is *still* true that the sky was once blue, the present truth has changed, but it doesn't mean that we were wrong before, the state has just changed. I agree with everything else you said except for right and wrong - I believe that right and wrong tie into absolute truth - for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some people may firmly believe the opposite with all their hearts, IMO, they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the subjective truth people: when you say that truth is not absolute, is that absolutely true? :P (sounds stupid, but think about it :))

[Hannibal]

I agree with everything else you said except for right and wrong - I believe that right and wrong tie into absolute truth - for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some people may firmly believe the opposite with all their hearts, IMO, they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's your opinion, it's their opinion. If it's an opinion, how can it be absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the subjective truth people: when you say that truth is not absolute, is that absolutely true? :P (sounds stupid, but think about it :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course not, it's subjective, as is everything else. After all, you disagree with me, don't you?

[Bmw]

 

 

 

And for the subjective truth people: when you say that truth is not absolute, is that absolutely true? :P (sounds stupid, but think about it :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me saying that the truth isn't absolute, is not absoultely true. It's my opinion.

[insane]

 

I agree with everything else you said except for right and wrong - I believe that right and wrong tie into absolute truth - for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some people may firmly believe the opposite with all their hearts, IMO, they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's your opinion, it's their opinion. If it's an opinion, how can it be absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the subjective truth people: when you say that truth is not absolute, is that absolutely true? :P (sounds stupid, but think about it :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bleh :| [/offtopic tangent]

 

 

 

Of course not, it's subjective, as is everything else. After all, you disagree with me, don't you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's my opinion, that people can be wrong about moral issues and truth, etc. I only say this because people may differ from me, and if I say "this is the way it is" instead of IMO, people take it personally and get defensive, and usually flame the crap out of me. It's tricky defining your standpoint on an issue like this, because language is a huuuuge part of it :P and one little word slip anywhere can totally change what you're saying. So I withdraw the IMO from what I say - no matter what people believe, they are either right or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the second point - I understand that if I believe that truth is absolute - then my disagreeing with you would make you absolutely wrong (if I'm correct in truth being absolute). And if you, on the other hand, believing that truth is subjective - were to disagree with me, it'd just be a matter of opinion, leaving both of us with whatever we think is true (If you're correct in truth being subjective).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is very weird to think about :P but yes, I use words "I believe" or "in my opinion", to keep from sounding arrogant - and to keep users from feeling like they need to put their guard up. Because I believe that I can also be absolutely wrong :) and I take all users opinions as equally as I take my own - I just happen to have thought through my beliefs alot more than beliefs I have just so happened to have read. That's why you'll see me in a lot of arguments just playing a mediator, not siding with one side or another - I like to try and understand where people are coming from - I don't like to just shout "this is true, blah blah, listen to me", because it doesn't get anyone anywhere and only causes tension.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this is all a matter of my opinion :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in short - if my opinion (yes, opinion :P because it cannot be proven) turns out to be correct - then your opinions, are incorrect. I don't mean to sound arrogant by this, that's just the way it would be - you can't really argue against that :P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if your opinion happens to be correct, then my opinion is not wrong, it just is what it is - and that seems really shallow to me.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

This is just another one of those things that we can't argue properly on a message board -- we won't get anywhere... ...but I'm being pessimistic. If you ask me, the point is not whether truth is absolute -- the nature of truth is to be absolutely true (don't mention "half-truths"; in those cases, someone just isn't telling the whole truth, or is telling a lie that is close to the truth); no, I think the question is always whether or not a particular thing is true or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, we've all (probably) given examples to try and explain what we're talking about in this thread. In those examples, something was either true, untrue or a matter of oppinion (in which case it is true that one person thinks one thing, and true that another person thinks something else).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some examples: A thinks that the box is red, whereas B thinks that the box is blue. The box either gives out mainly red light or blue light (unless it's purple, in which case you could argue that they're both telling the truth (and that both statements are "absolutely" true)). On top of that you could start arguing whether or not the box exists, and then whether anything exists at all; that's just depressing, though, so don't let's start that one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A thinks that truth is "absolute", but B maintains that it is not: B says that "it being true for one person doesn't make it true for another person". B doesn't realise that this is beside the point, as in that case, either one person is wrong -- as is often the case -- or, more importantly, it is absolutely true for one person that the box is red, and absolutely true for the other that it is blue; one of the important things to remember is that absolutely does not = exclusively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that a lot of arguments about truth arise from the the fact -- and I use the term fact loosely :) -- that, while describing something quantitatively we have something to compare what we are describing against (e.g. "This box is bigger than that box", which is "true" or "untrue" -- absolutely so -- or "There are seven of these boxes", which is similarly "true"); when, however, we describe something qualitatively, we don't necessarily have something against which to compare that which we are describing: though the box is blue (let's just say that it is blue after all), who is really able to judge whether it is so? Without going into the science behind what makes the box blue, what method do we have of judging "blueness"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point I am trying to make is that, though the box either is or isn't blue (or red, or whatever: any colour you like -- great tune by Pink Floyd), arguments will arise as to whether or not it is blue, simply because people don't know what they're talking about (as I have no doubt demonstrated in this post). A might know something that B doesn't (why, for example, the box is blue -- hang on, was it A or B that thought it was blue? Ahhh, forget it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now on to other things: is murder wrong? To apply what I said earlier, either murder is wrong, and all those people who dissagree are wrong and, though they think they know why it isn't wrong, they are missing the point; or murder isn't wrong, and the opposite is true; or murder doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To quote Terry Pratchett in Small Gods: ...damn, I can't find the book. To paraphrase Terry Pratchet in Small Gods: "It's a funny old world, and you might as well have a laugh"* -- the philisophy of... and I would tell you the character's name, only, as I say, I can't find the book. The idea, though, is this: we can't argue about these things, as we don't know enough about them. I've said it in loads of posts about religion and science and I mean it (assuming I exist): we (or rather "I" -- I don't know about you) don't know enough about things like this to argue about them; they're too complicated, and we'll never change each others oppinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I'm pretty sure that's what he says, at least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I wrote "does = ", when I meant to write "does not ="

[____]

one of the important things to remember is that absolutely does not = exclusively.

 

 

 

Very good point ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the is murder wrong thing. I'd break out the Ethics graph to show you were I think it is but basically it will usually fall in the illegal half of the grid and where it is along the morality axis is dependant on the cause for the action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which reminds me...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone follows one of the following:

 

 

 

- Relativism

 

 

 

- Universalism

 

 

 

- - Consequentialism

 

 

 

- - - Utilitarianism

 

 

 

- - - Non-Utilitarianism

 

 

 

- - - - Egoism

 

 

 

- - Deontologism

 

 

 

- - - Kantianism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And depending on which one those applies to you, that will effect your decision on the original "is murder wrong" question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too complex to make a call ther than your own on almost everything to be able to call 'absolute' unless you happen to be refering to one of those exclusivly absolute sitations :P

[Hannibal]

But if your opinion happens to be correct, then my opinion is not wrong, it just is what it is - and that seems really shallow to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While saying that there's an absolute truth in morals, and everybody who does not assume the same morals as you is blatantly wrong is downright arrogant (no matter how many 'IMO' you insert into it). I really can't see why you call my opinion 'shallow', but even if you have any arguments for that, I'll be shallow instead of arrogant, thank you very much.

[Death_By_Pod]

Everything I say is my opinion and is not the truth, but an opinion nevertheless. There isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even absolute truth in what I say even though I try to bring an insight into the truth, we are just going in circles with opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, if you imagine there's a smallest particle in the world (which I don't beleive, but for the sake of this conversation) then you could make a microscope with that particle, and see that size particles in it, right? therefore it should be possible to make equipment as accurate as we could possibly need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about this, if you wanted to map the surface of a basket ball (lets also say this is the smallest object possible in the universe). Would it be easier to accurately map the surface of a basket ball by throwing another basketball at it or by throwing peanuts (which can't exist) at it? The obvious answer is by throwing peanuts at it because the peanuts will deflects at a greater variety of angles then the basketball.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the peanut (which is smaller then the smallest object) will not give the best map of the basket ball and you could use atoms (or even better electrons), which are smaller then peanuts and will deflect at more angles. Upon redrawing your map you will find there are little dimples in the basket ball (which you could not tell by throwing basketballs and peanuts). However the problem with using atoms and peanuts are that the smallest object in the universe is a basketball :lol:.

 

 

 

This is why I say we can never perfectly measure things, which is one thing that ticks me off (not knowing 100%).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you take a look at the universe, you will see at a small enough level uncertainty becomes too great to accurately measure things. This is a combination of Uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations. If there was anything much smaller then a quark (the stuff that makes the stuff that makes atoms) then it will be almost impossible to measure to any great accuracy. Therefore if there is no limit on size then it will be practically useless anyway (and will invalidate some scientific ideas that require a fixed minimum length).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree there, and maybe I should have worded it differently. We can estimate measurements, and so we can say that such and such is for an absolute truth around 10 meters long..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We estimated the whole framework of physics at one point and most physic teachers discouraged students to carry on physics because it was "complete". Then along came Quantum mechanics and Nuclear physics; Classical physics is useful for solving problems but it is not completely accurate and definitely not absolute truth no matter how much people thought so at the time. The problem is we can never know if the estimation is perfect because you have to stop somewhere and maybe if you went a few decimal places further you would discover an anomaly. This with the combination of the above creates doubt on the absolute in my mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with your point of view, but that doesn't make it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the tree has never been observed at all (i.e. has not interacted with anything) and is in an area where tree's are likely then the probability wave of the tree will say it is likely a tree to be there but until it is observed we will not know for sure, It will remain a probability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However the fact that the tree is falling/exists means it has interacted (and as a result been observed) then it will produce a sound. If the tree does not make a sound, it will violate the laws of the conservation of energy. So where does the potential energy of the tree go as it falls/grows/whatever? It will convert to heat and sound, but letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s assume that no sound is made and it all converts to heat. Then the tree can still make a sound but it will be thermal rather then audio since we can detect heat emitted from objects. Since the tree is out of thermal equilibrium it will emit or absorb heat, which can be measured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some people may firmly believe the opposite with all their hearts, IMO, they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well maybe you are keeping your part of the social contract so that you can get along with people and hence find a partner, not murdering people will help you achieve this easier then some who murder's. In the murderer's mind murder is not bad and the body might just be defective in telling him what will get them good mates. According to them (and the ethical theory I've applied) murder is not wrong but it certainly won't help in producing offspring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@DBP: Willing to bet that "other kid" lost out hard, yeah ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think he is a hobo or something now, I don't really know but everyone thought he was annoying. My English teacher just had to come out with the standard, "well it could be right."

[CoRnMaN]

 

 

 

"Did the tree fall if noone was there to see it?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmm, yes the tree did fall... ur post confused me very very much. but yea, i think that truth is absolute. no reason for me to think otherwise is there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27"you are a king, then! said pilate.

 

 

 

jesus answered, "you are right in saying i am a king. in fact, for this reason i was born, and for this i came into the world, to testify to the truth. everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

 

 

 

38"what is truth?" pilate asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw, god is my rock upon which i stand.

[insane]

 

But if your opinion happens to be correct, then my opinion is not wrong, it just is what it is - and that seems really shallow to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While saying that there's an absolute truth in morals, and everybody who does not assume the same morals as you is blatantly wrong is downright arrogant (no matter how many 'IMO' you insert into it). I really can't see why you call my opinion 'shallow', but even if you have any arguments for that, I'll be shallow instead of arrogant, thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not everyone who assumes the same morals as me - I believe that it is absolutely true that morals are God's character. You conform to God's character, you conform to correct morals. I don't claim to know these, but I certainly devote a huge part of my life to discovering and adhering to these. I don't think I claimed that my morals were correct - if I did, I misspoke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant shallow as in, blah, this is hard to explain. It just seems relativity is a way of smoothing things over, trying to make everyone happy - I'm not explaining it right, but, yeah, shallow wasn't the right word to use :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After some more thought I guess I do have one moral standpoint that I believe to be absolutely true. It's not a bunch of "don't do these things", it's one thing that I believe all should follow - and that is to love, everyone, without hope of reward, love everyone equally - it does no harm to anyone, it only builds up, it never tears down. If you love someone, you will not murder, etc. Love is the basis that all other laws are built on. So I guess this is what I see as an absolutely universal moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'd rather be "arrogant" and love, rather than not "arrogant" and not love everyone.

[Hannibal]

 

 

But if your opinion happens to be correct, then my opinion is not wrong, it just is what it is - and that seems really shallow to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While saying that there's an absolute truth in morals, and everybody who does not assume the same morals as you is blatantly wrong is downright arrogant (no matter how many 'IMO' you insert into it). I really can't see why you call my opinion 'shallow', but even if you have any arguments for that, I'll be shallow instead of arrogant, thank you very much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not everyone who assumes the same morals as me - I believe that it is absolutely true that morals are God's character. You conform to God's character, you conform to correct morals. I don't claim to know these, but I certainly devote a huge part of my life to discovering and adhering to these. I don't think I claimed that my morals were correct - if I did, I misspoke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F/N, I guess. Did you ever consider that you may find the wrong morals? Or that people who do not believe in God might 'accidentally' follow the right morals? :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I meant shallow as in, blah, this is hard to explain. It just seems relativity is a way of smoothing things over, trying to make everyone happy - I'm not explaining it right, but, yeah, shallow wasn't the right word to use :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More like trying to make everyone equal, instead of someone being 'right' and someone being 'wrong', which is exactly the basis on which you would be able to love everyone equally (see your own 3rd paragraph).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After some more thought I guess I do have one moral standpoint that I believe to be absolutely true. It's not a bunch of "don't do these things", it's one thing that I believe all should follow - and that is to love, everyone, without hope of reward, love everyone equally - it does no harm to anyone, it only builds up, it never tears down. If you love someone, you will not murder, etc. Love is the basis that all other laws are built on. So I guess this is what I see as an absolutely universal moral.

 

 

 

I think I might actually agree on that one. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'd rather be "arrogant" and love, rather than not "arrogant" and not love everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arrogance is, by definition, putting yourself on a pedestal, ie, thinking you or your opinions are better than (those of) others. This means that loving everyone (including yourself!) equally is not possible if you're arrogant, since that'd mean you love yourself more than others.

[insane]

Good point on the arrogance :) which is why I put it in quotes... and by the way, what does F/N mean? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And making everyone equal, yeah, bleh, I guess. I just don't like the idea of making pedofiles, murderers, and rapists "equal" - I mean, they believe that what they do is right (at least some of the more extreme cases) - so who are we to tell them that they are wrong? While this may seem ridiculous now, we're definately moving in the direction where in the future, that might seem commonplace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I believe that loving people does not exactly mean giving them what they want. Just like I'm sure pedofiles want more rights, I believe it would be more loving on the whole to put them in jail, and get them help, and keep them from hurting others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um yeah, I guess that's it, see you Monday ;)

[Crim_nimora]

Truth has to be absolute, if it isn't then it can change, and if it changes its no longer the truth.

[Crim_nimora]

 

 

 

It is true that murder is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While some people may firmly believe the opposite with all their hearts, IMO, they are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the subjective truth people: when you say that truth is not absolute, is that absolutely true? :P (sounds stupid, but think about it :))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between murder and killing someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that "He whosover sheds the blood of man in cold blooded murder, may his blood in turn be shed by man"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hold this as one of my ultimate values, In some parts of the world people who are proven guity of murder are shot on the spot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find this to be the correct action to the situation.

[Hannibal]

Good point on the arrogance :) which is why I put it in quotes... and by the way, what does F/N mean? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And making everyone equal, yeah, bleh, I guess. I just don't like the idea of making pedofiles, murderers, and rapists "equal" - I mean, they believe that what they do is right (at least some of the more extreme cases) - so who are we to tell them that they are wrong? While this may seem ridiculous now, we're definately moving in the direction where in the future, that might seem commonplace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I believe that loving people does not exactly mean giving them what they want. Just like I'm sure pedofiles want more rights, I believe it would be more loving on the whole to put them in jail, and get them help, and keep them from hurting others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um yeah, I guess that's it, see you Monday ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F/N = Fair 'nuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We tell them they are wrong because they violate the constitution put together and accepted by a democratic majority of the people in today's society. In other words, opinion of many > opinion of one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I know what you meant by love ;).