Quote:

---

shroomydan said:
OK, I'm a day late but back nonetheless. 

Psychoactive1984 objects that the principle of Identity only works if things don't change. If this were the case then it could not be considered absolutely true because it would not apply always and everywhere. He uses the example of gravity.

>That's of course, if we're assuming that the "identity" of them is wholly static... is that part of the premise? (might want to make that inclusive)<

->Kind of how we can call gravity, gravity... even though the constant changes in relation to the object, yet it's still gravity, but it's fundamental identity isn't constant as the constant is dependent on the variable (mass in this situation). So although it is gravity, we can't suggest that it as a force will behave as a phenomena the same on all instances of some mass "A" as it's identity is ever changing in respects to it's size. (I dunno if that makes much sense)<--

I understand what you are getting at here, but Identity is not threatened by change. The variable 'p' in - If p then p - is a place holder who's value does not effect the veracity of the axiom. For example, let 'p' represent the strength of the gravitational field between earth and the moon at time T1. At T1 Identity holds true because p=p.

1) Now assume an asteroid strikes the moon increasing its mass, and increasing the strength of the gravitational field. Time is now represented as T1+1.

At time T1+1 the gravitational field between earth at moon can no longer be represented as 'p' ; its value has changed so now it is represented as 'q'. The Principle of Identity still holds true, for q=q. The field is what it is even as it changes.

------- 

Psychoactive1984 also objects that all things with a given name are not exactly the same, so p may not always equal p. He sites the difference between varieties of apples. 

2) Once again you bring up an interesting point. Any attempt to say what a thing is leads to the problematic of universals and particulars and the notion of common essences. This however is beyond the scope of the Principle of Identity which applies to particular things.

If I have this particular Fuji apple, then I have this particular Fuji apple. If p then p still holds true.

---

Quote:

---

shroomydan said:
Hello the_phoenix

I can say with absolute certainty that your objection is either valid or it is not. The principle of non-contradiction assures this to be true. 

You have introduced a lot of religious premises which don't seem to pertain.

For instance you conflate being and non-being into one thing, and all I can say with absolute certainty is that this is either true or it is not true. If you are also conflating truth with falsehood, saying that they are the same thing, then your argument is circular, which of course makes it invalid.

---

Quote:

---

So being and non-being are contingent on one another and not totally separate...

---

Quote:

---

The fact of the matter is that truth is abundant in this world, and it is also absolutely subjective... if it wasn't, we'd all be in agreement as to what is true... as truth is in the eye of the beholder, and one truth contradicts another truth...

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
The escape form this quandary is the scientific method. reality is observed, patterns are noticed, and axioms are formed. This is inductive reasoning. Once inductive reasoning establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true, then that something is called an axiom and can be used as a first premise for a deductive argument.

But we're still left back where we started.

Identity is and always has been self-evident, granted. However, this does not mean that it is and always has been true; only that it reasonably can be considered to be true.

That's only good enough if you'd titled the discussion "Almost Absolute Truth".

Only by proving your founding axiom can you be justified in referring to your argument as Absolute Truth.

The problem is with the word "Absolute".

Form the dawn of time, always and everywhere the principle of Identity has been evident. If you can provide a single instance where a thing does not imply itself, where 'a' does not equal 'a', then we would have grounds to question the axiom. However such an instance cannot be found, nor is it conceivable that something could not be itself.

That we can't conceive of something only goes to our ability to conceive; it says nothing about whether or not such a thing could be. This is all well and good for "Almost Absolute Truth", yes, but not for "Absolute Truth" which can leave nothing to faith... nothing.

---

Kudos to you Diploid. Your argument is very convincing, and I was nearly ready to concede, but then I noticed the circularity.

You say that it is not good enough for first premises to be self evident; they must be proved. Furthermore, the scientific method cannot be used to prove a founding premise because inductive reasoning can only approach certainty. Inductive reasoning merely produces "almost absolute truth". But because no deductive argument can prove its own founding premise, any attempt to prove something using deductive reasoning will lead to an infinite regress in search of a foundational true premise. Therefore absolute truth cannot be demonstrated.

Herein lies the circularity. You have ruled out the reliability of both inductive and deductive logic, yet you used logic to make your case. You have effectively used logic to establish that logic is unreliable for discovering truth.

We are once again right back where we started. 

Perhaps you are correct in your assertion that faith is required to find truth. And perhaps one who is unwilling to believe those things which are self evident has no hope of finding it. However this does not mean that there is no absolute truth.

Try this for a foundational premise.

Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true.

Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Quote:

---

Some examples of simple truths that are relatively meaningless;
1) all humans breathe.
2) we need to take in external substances to survive.
3) If you're reading this you're alive.

As far as deeper "truths" that attempt to expand on a grand unification, and/or assert more then the obvious, their is usually a flaw in its analysis.

Examples;
1) everything is one.
2) god is male.
3) Perfection exists.
4) Good and evil are always defined the same by everyone, and their is a convergence of opinion as to exactly what is absolutely good, and absolutely evil.

---

Quote:

---

Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Prove it. 

---

OK.

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.
Here is an example of that form.

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.
2) If the moon is made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
3) If the moon is not made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
4) Even if there is no moon, 1 is still true because a non-existent moon would not be made of green cheese.
5) Therefore 1 is true.

The form of this argument guaranties that 1 will always and everywhere be true. It is objectively true in and of itself.

Let us apply the same universally true argument form to to absolute truth.

a) There either is or there is not something which is absolutely true.
b) If there is something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
c) If there is not something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
d) Even if one were to say that the existence or non-existence of absolute truth cannot be known, a is still true because both possibilities are represented.
e) Therefore it is true that There either is or is not something which is absolutely true.

Not only is a true in a relative sense, it is always and everywhere objectively true by virtue of the the universally true argument form which proved it.

Furthermore, truth statements about Absolute Truth must themselves be absolute, for to say that Absolute Truth exists relative to one subject, but not to another would be to say that absolute truth is relative, which of course would be absurd. Hence There either is or is not something which is absolutely true is an absolutely true statement.

Therefore there is at least one thing which is absolutely true.

Quote:

---

shroomydan said:

Quote:

---

Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Prove it. 

---

OK.

[1]

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.
Here is an example of that form.

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.
2) If the moon is made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
3) If the moon is not made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
4) Even if there is no moon, 1 is still true because a non-existent moon would not be made of green cheese.
5) Therefore 1 is true.

The form of this argument guaranties that 1 will always and everywhere be true. It is objectively true in and of itself.

Let us apply the same universally true argument form to to absolute truth.

[2]

a) There either is or there is not something which is absolutely true.
b) If there is something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
c) If there is not something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
d) Even if one were to say that the existence or non-existence of absolute truth cannot be known, a is still true because both possibilities are represented.
e) Therefore it is true that There either is or is not something which is absolutely true.

Not only is a true in a relative sense, it is always and everywhere objectively true buy virtue of the the universally true argument form which proved it.

Furthermore, truth statements about Absolute Truth must themselves be absolute, for to say that Absolute Truth exists relative to one subject, but not to another would be to say that absolute truth is relative, which of course would be absurd. Hence There either is or is not something which is absolutely true is an absolutely true statement.

Therefore there is at least one thing which is absolutely true.

---

Quote:

---

The only way to escape this quandary is to construct a framework in which to begin your proof. Mathematicians call this an Internally Consistent Formal System.

Inside this framework, you are God and anything you say by way of founding axiom is irreproachably true, but only inside the framework. From your founding axiom you can then construct a universe by logical deduction and it will Absolute Truth inside your framework. This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.

---

I think I disagree with this in its entirety, so I will take it line by line.

The only way to escape this quandary is to construct a framework in which to begin your proof.

The self evident framework is already in place. I didn't build it; it was already there for me to discover.

Mathematicians call this an Internally Consistent Formal System.
An internally consistent formal system is one that does not violate the principles which I have listed above.
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/


Inside this framework, you are God and anything you say by way of founding axiom is irreproachably true, but only inside the framework.

Isn't it interesting how any examination of absolute truth quickly leads to God.

If God exists, his absolute transcendent Truth would cut across all subjective constructs of reality. Any system which denies God's existence would be false, even within its own framework, if God does in fact exist. A subject may be able to convince himself that his founding axiom is absolutely true, within his framework, but if that founding axiom does not correspond to reality, then the whole system is merely fiction. Fiction is not absolutely true even in the mind of its author. So this statement could only be true if God did not exist, which has not been demonstrated.

This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.

There are different philosophies of Math. Perhaps it is merely a conventional language by which men communicate, and perhaps it is a fundamental aspect of nature discovered by rational beings. Either way it is not a subjectively determined framework. It relies on self evident theorems.

1=1

If someone says that 1 ~= 1, that person is not doing mathematics, he is writing fiction.