Home | Community | Message Board

Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/10/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4111982 - 04/30/05 01:49 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.

Wow, talk about circular arguments.  :tongue:

OK...

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.

This is where you fall short again.

You make your opening statement sans a reference to a previously proved statement. When you make a statement like this in-vacuo, you reduce it to faith.

Just because I agree that it seems inconceivable that the moon could have a condition other than green or not green doesn't mean that it cannot have such a condition, only that I can't conceive of it.

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

This may in fact be true, and I concede that as far as I can tell, it is, but that's not good enough for Absolute Truth, only for Almost Absolute Truth.

You're trying to side-step one of the rules of logic which requires that every statement be mechanically verifiable by tracing it back to it's supporting statement(s).

Your whole construct still rests on faith that your founding axiom is true.

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 be Absolute Truth inside your framework. This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.

However, the viewer outside your framework still sees your entire universe based on an unproven founding axiom; the whole thing stands on one leg (the axiom) which is accepted as true by faith.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Edited by Diploid (05/01/05 02:18 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4116167 - 05/01/05 04:39 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The green cheese moon argument above is a demonstration of the third founding premise of rational thought.

The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

So far we have:

1)The Principle of Identity

If p then p.
a=a


2)The principle of Non-Contradiction
 
If p then not ~p
a does not = ~a

3)The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

In an alternation of denials, one of the terms will be true.
p or ~p
p=true
or
~p=true

------------

Diploid said:
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. :smile:

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4116192 - 05/01/05 04:46 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

1 = 1

ALWAYS = 1!!! Provided we say that 1 is always = to 1.

The trouble with your argument is that you must provide constraints to assert absolution... where true absolution needn't any constraints, or it would be as Diploid suggested the almost-absolute truth.

We can say 1 = 1 and assume it to be true, but without specifying the constaints on our system, its all but meaningless.

1 car doesn't = 1 truck.
We can say that 1 automobile = 1 automobile, but we would need to apply a constraint on our defined system to make the methodology of absolution always stick... by doing so we negate absolution, but we must utilize a constrint to achieve a form of absolution.... it's absolutely insane how it works out, but an Absolute that is achievable is relatively meaningless.

As per earlier examples mentioned with the simple absolute truths always being applicable, we can additionally counter those arguments through our definition of language. One simply can't nor will they be able to find absolute truth as our language isn't precise enough to do so. Even then, provided we do achieve that, the absolution will be restricted to our defined system (that of the language we develop to make absolution possible), but by doing so, we place further constraints, and further negate the possibility of our original intention; by restricting absolution solely to said language (form of interpretation if we want to draw what I'm suggesting as language out). Simply put, Absolute truth is a mindfuck of a concept that really can't exist :smile:.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/10/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4117009 - 05/01/05 08:28 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

The self evident framework is already in place.

Self-evident isn't good enough for Formal Logic.

For a long time, it was self-evident that parallel lines never meet. Then along came non-Euclidean geometry and previously self-evident truth was shown to be seriously lacking.

This is why 'self-evident' is good enough for Almost Absolute Truth, but not good enough for Absolute Truth.

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

The same was said of the Euclidean parallel line axiom, which turned out to be less than correct.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4117013 - 05/01/05 08:29 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

:lol:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* absolute truth
( 1 2 all )
fearfect 2,249 22 09/01/17 07:46 PM
by Philosite
* Absolute Truth vs. Science
( 1 2 all )
infidelGOD 2,463 20 01/14/04 10:27 PM
by muhurgle
* The 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' is unnattainable.... nubious 1,139 8 10/22/02 03:02 AM
by Metasyn
* There is no Universal, Absolute Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Sclorch 5,744 61 07/10/02 02:03 AM
by llib
* Truth?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
Anonymous 16,374 205 10/21/02 11:08 PM
by Anonymous
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,065 3 05/03/04 05:38 PM
by TheShroomHermit
* truth?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
deep_umbra 5,622 66 05/21/02 06:12 PM
by Anonymous
* The Official Truth Thread - No jokes please!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 18,671 178 10/31/02 09:23 AM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,195 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2023 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.