What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

I came to this post way too late to reply to anyone so I'll just say this: Truth can only be absolute. If any part of it is untrue, then it is no longer truth. Two opposing "truths" can't exist. One is correct and the other is not. I'm sure you've all seen that picture of two guys standing on either side of a number on the ground. The idea being it can be either a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of view. Well, truth is the person who put that number there knows the truth. He either made it a "6" or a "9", Not both. Assuming it is a "9", the guy who thinks it's a "6" doesn't have "his truth" or "a relative perspective", etc. What that person has is incorrect data/assumptions about what they are looking at. I'm not getting into why this person has the idea he has or how to fix it or even if he's at fault. Either Truth is truth...or it's not and you can't trust anything ever because there is no truth. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Subject to change based on the preponderance of evidence. At one time the truth had the Earth as the center of the Universe.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I came to this post way too late to reply to anyone so I'll just say this: Truth can only be absolute. If any part of it is untrue, then it is no longer truth. Two opposing "truths" can't exist. One is correct and the other is not. I'm sure you've all seen that picture of two guys standing on either side of a number on the ground. The idea being it can be either a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of view. Well, truth is the person who put that number there knows the truth. He either made it a "6" or a "9", Not both. Assuming it is a "9", the guy who thinks it's a "6" doesn't have "his truth" or "a relative perspective", etc. What that person has is incorrect data/assumptions about what they are looking at. I'm not getting into why this person has the idea he has or how to fix it or even if he's at fault. Either Truth is truth...or it's not and you can't trust anything ever because there is no truth. Facts don't care about your feelings.

the only wrinkle i would put on this is scale
Newtonian Physics works on its scale. Quantum mechanics on its and Space/Time mechanics on it
if you try to scale Newtonian physics up or down too much it's no longer "true"

I think things can also be "true" on an individual or small group scale but my not be true for cultures and societies

 

[rajncajn]

I think things can also be "true" on an individual or small group scale but my not be true for cultures and societies

That's kinda the way that I see it as well. Something that may be true for one person may not be true for everyone. I do believe that truth can be subjective.

 

[kcirdor]

Also, didn't Kyle Dunnigan and Joe Rogan make this same car wreck joke on the JR podcast?

It was Kyle that made the joke on his Instagram page. Joe just promotes his IG nearly ever other show.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

I came to this post way too late to reply to anyone so I'll just say this: Truth can only be absolute. If any part of it is untrue, then it is no longer truth. Two opposing "truths" can't exist. One is correct and the other is not. I'm sure you've all seen that picture of two guys standing on either side of a number on the ground. The idea being it can be either a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of view. Well, truth is the person who put that number there knows the truth. He either made it a "6" or a "9", Not both. Assuming it is a "9", the guy who thinks it's a "6" doesn't have "his truth" or "a relative perspective", etc. What that person has is incorrect data/assumptions about what they are looking at. I'm not getting into why this person has the idea he has or how to fix it or even if he's at fault. Either Truth is truth...or it's not and you can't trust anything ever because there is no truth. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I think we all understand this.

The problem is when 6 guy convinces 2 other guys to believe that his conclusion is absolute truth, and then the 3 of them all go over to 9 guy and try to force their conclusion on him. This has the potential to turn out not too great for 9 guy.

 

[JimEverett]

i just stated it:
there's no evidence for it
or even consensus - those who believe in a universal truth, hold differing and sometimes opposite ideas abut what that truth would be
across religion or politics or sociology or psychology or science or art there is no compelling proof or even plausible ideas that supports the notion

I am not disagreeing with you. In fact, I think I started a conversation on this board where I argued for Einstein's view that the Earth can be viewed as the center of the universe.

But it does seem curious coming from you given what I have read from you on the politics board. Do you think this idea that truth is perspective-dependent is troubling for "factual" arguments in politics, for instance?

 

[JimEverett]

I came to this post way too late to reply to anyone so I'll just say this: Truth can only be absolute. If any part of it is untrue, then it is no longer truth. Two opposing "truths" can't exist. One is correct and the other is not. I'm sure you've all seen that picture of two guys standing on either side of a number on the ground. The idea being it can be either a "9" or a "6" depending on your point of view. Well, truth is the person who put that number there knows the truth. He either made it a "6" or a "9", Not both. Assuming it is a "9", the guy who thinks it's a "6" doesn't have "his truth" or "a relative perspective", etc. What that person has is incorrect data/assumptions about what they are looking at. I'm not getting into why this person has the idea he has or how to fix it or even if he's at fault. Either Truth is truth...or it's not and you can't trust anything ever because there is no truth. Facts don't care about your feelings.

I am not sure what you are saying.

Is it:
Every proposition/statement is either true or false?

As in - Person X asks Person Y "how many dollars did you pay the clerk?"
Y writes down a "6" X reads what Y wrote as "9"
X has an incorrect/non-true belief as to what Y wrote.

If so - then how do you assign a truth value to a proposition/statement such as: "I am lying"?

Or better yet, take a certain predicate/description - "bald" for instance (although it can apply to almost any predicate"
What is the truth or falsity of saying someone is bald? What if there is 1 hair on a person's head? Bald? what about 2? 3? . . . . . etc.?
There is a certain vagueness of meaning in language, and it seems (at least to me) to be a cheap way out to claim that there is a "truth" to the meaning if we could just find out. Vagueness seems built in language itself.

 

[GhostFace]

Baldness would be an implied truth. This chair is big. Big compared to what? Big compared to other chairs.

 

[JimEverett]

Baldness would be an implied truth. This chair is big. Big compared to what? Big compared to other chairs.

The point about baldness was an example of Wang's Paradox.
Presumably being "bald" is not dependent on a comparison with someone who is hirsute.
Even if it was, we are at the place where the truth of falsity of baldness is relative - something that "absolute" truth denies.

 

[tenordas]

i just stated it:
there's no evidence for it
or even consensus - those who believe in a universal truth, hold differing and sometimes opposite ideas abut what that truth would be
across religion or politics or sociology or psychology or science or art there is no compelling proof or even plausible ideas that supports the notion

Since you decided to bring up the Universe:

Einstein, and all those who followed, concluded without doubt that the Universe had a beginning point. All scientific and mathematical evidence point it out without any doubt. That is an absolute objective truth that is accepted by all in the Science community. For more than 100 years before Einstein, scientists insisted the universe was eternal, without a beginning. Einstein was so steeped in this belief, he fudged his own math to avoid the obvious conclusion that there was a starting point. After other theoretical mathematicians and scientists kept finding that in error, and coming up with a beginning point, Einstein admitted his foible, and stated it was a mistake to deny the data. Even then, scientists tried desperately t deny a beginning by coming with the expanding/contracting theory. Physical evidence proved that the universe cannot contract upon itself, proving that theory inaccurate, and leaving all with the inescapable conclusion that there indeed was a starting point of the universe.

Now, bottom line, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, period. As the OP pointed out, the Principal of Contradiction leaves no option that it somehow could be both. Either way (beginning or no beginning) would be an objective truth, and whatever scientists/deists/mathematicians/athiests/philosophers/etc. might say about would change what was true.
The objective truth turns out to be that it did have a beginning point. An almost innumerable amount of scientists have come to the same conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. Truth is truth, even though it was denied to be so for generations. That changed nothing. The truth that the universe had a beginning point (The Singularity as it is referred to by most scientists) continued to be true. What I or anyone else believes does not change truth. A tree will still be a tree no matter how many times I insist it is a dog. Objective does exist, and the scientific method has shown us that evidence of it surrounds us constantly.

 

[Taurus]

Are we talking about capital-T Truth, or facts?

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Since you decided to bring up the Universe:

Einstein, and all those who followed, concluded without doubt that the Universe had a beginning point. All scientific and mathematical evidence point it out without any doubt. That is an absolute objective truth that is accepted by all in the Science community. For more than 100 years before Einstein, scientists insisted the universe was eternal, without a beginning. Einstein was so steeped in this belief, he fudged his own math to avoid the obvious conclusion that there was a starting point. After other theoretical mathematicians and scientists kept finding that in error, and coming up with a beginning point, Einstein admitted his foible, and stated it was a mistake to deny the data. Even then, scientists tried desperately t deny a beginning by coming with the expanding/contracting theory. Physical evidence proved that the universe cannot contract upon itself, proving that theory inaccurate, and leaving all with the inescapable conclusion that there indeed was a starting point of the universe.

Now, bottom line, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, period. As the OP pointed out, the Principal of Contradiction leaves no option that it somehow could be both. Either way (beginning or no beginning) would be an objective truth, and whatever scientists/deists/mathematicians/athiests/philosophers/etc. might say about would change what was true.
The objective truth turns out to be that it did have a beginning point. An almost innumerable amount of scientists have come to the same conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. Truth is truth, even though it was denied to be so for generations. That changed nothing. The truth that the universe had a beginning point (The Singularity as it is referred to by most scientists) continued to be true. What I or anyone else believes does not change truth. A tree will still be a tree no matter how many times I insist it is a dog. Objective does exist, and the scientific method has shown us that evidence of it surrounds us constantly.

Or it’s possible that our notions of beginning and end limit our perception.

Maybe there is something else we haven’t thought of.

 

[kcirdor]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfbLJhRIa80

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Since you decided to bring up the Universe:

Einstein, and all those who followed, concluded without doubt that the Universe had a beginning point. All scientific and mathematical evidence point it out without any doubt. That is an absolute objective truth that is accepted by all in the Science community. For more than 100 years before Einstein, scientists insisted the universe was eternal, without a beginning. Einstein was so steeped in this belief, he fudged his own math to avoid the obvious conclusion that there was a starting point. After other theoretical mathematicians and scientists kept finding that in error, and coming up with a beginning point, Einstein admitted his foible, and stated it was a mistake to deny the data. Even then, scientists tried desperately t deny a beginning by coming with the expanding/contracting theory. Physical evidence proved that the universe cannot contract upon itself, proving that theory inaccurate, and leaving all with the inescapable conclusion that there indeed was a starting point of the universe.

Now, bottom line, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't, period. As the OP pointed out, the Principal of Contradiction leaves no option that it somehow could be both. Either way (beginning or no beginning) would be an objective truth, and whatever scientists/deists/mathematicians/athiests/philosophers/etc. might say about would change what was true.
The objective truth turns out to be that it did have a beginning point. An almost innumerable amount of scientists have come to the same conclusion from the overwhelming evidence. Truth is truth, even though it was denied to be so for generations. That changed nothing. The truth that the universe had a beginning point (The Singularity as it is referred to by most scientists) continued to be true. What I or anyone else believes does not change truth. A tree will still be a tree no matter how many times I insist it is a dog. Objective does exist, and the scientific method has shown us that evidence of it surrounds us constantly.

perhaps it's accurate to speculate that our truths are as good as our measurements
every advance in astronomy has provided factual challenges to our understanding of the universe - which 'we' eventually catch up with
i think it's safer to say that we observe this truth about the universe but recognize that once we get better telescopes and mathematical models, that truth will evolve

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Or it’s possible that our notions of beginning and end limit our perception.

Maybe there is something else we haven’t thought of.

that was kinda hawkings' thing - time is the direction in which we measure entropy