Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Truth is Relative
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 65 (415570)
08-10-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
08-10-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
No, some truths are relative, others are absolute.
An example of a relative truth is your coloured triangle. Colour is a private mental experience, and it makes a difference whether the experiencer is a human, a dog, or an ant. In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth.
An example of absolute truth is the fact that there are infinitely many rational numbers
Well said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2007 5:22 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 17 of 65 (415582)
08-10-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
08-09-2007 2:04 PM


Playing with words
quote:
It is argued in these forums, and in other places, that morality is a concept based on relative perspectives; a subjective not rooted in any one supreme belief, nor maintained by a grand master keeper of right and wrong.
If morality is the subject being considered here then I guess most of us can agree that a "grand master keeper of right and wrong" is not needed. As Christopher Hitchens rightly writes (in his book god is not Great), the Jews didn't need Moses to bring them the ten commandments for them to know what was right from wrong.The Jews and other cultures of different religions knew without the intervention of any god that things like rape, stealing, lying, murder, etc are immoral. Our morality is based (at least mine is) on the golden rule. i dont need a god to not do unto others what i dont want others to do to me.
When it comes down to a truth or Truth we better watch out and not fall into word games that come out from using to much logic(the type I've been reading in the previous posts). In my experience of talking to people about lots of things a Truth is never reached when different perspectives on the subject are present. A Truth can apparently be found only in math and science where there are no opinions only facts (I'm excluding theories here I'm talking about the unalterable laws only). 2+2 will always be 4 no matter our opinion on the subject.
Religion is subject to opinions and interpretations (the reason for the existence of so many sects especially inside Christianity) therefore I believe until now that finding a Truth in it would be highly improbable.

Mangekyo Sharingan. Youre trapped in my genjutsu now!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 08-09-2007 2:04 PM Jon has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 65 (415602)
08-11-2007 1:14 AM


Not clear that math has absolutes.
2 + 2 = 1 (modulo 3). There are just a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. Two parallel lines: 1) never meet; 2) always meet; 3) don't exist depending on what geometry you are considering. At one time, each of these mathematical statements was considered to be absolutely untrue and even to be absurd until a more advanced (more general) mathematical structure was discovered (or invented, depending on your beliefs). So, even if there was total agreement that some statement were absolutely true, might that just be a temporary consensus awaiting discovery of a larger but more tenuous truth?
Would the statement "There are no absolute statements, except for this one." solve the conundrum of the self-contradictory statements discussed in previous posts? Or, is this issue just a distraction from the intent of the OP?
Some logicians attempt to bypass the problems of the self-referential statement but still create the innately contradictory situation through use of set theory: Define "S" to be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as an element. Does S contain itself as an element? I actually don't see the difference or that anything has been achieved in this way.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 08-11-2007 8:26 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 28 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 9:59 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 65 (415605)
08-11-2007 1:27 AM


"Local" vs. "global" morality.
What we seem to see in actual practice is a distinction between "local" and "global" morality. The god of the bible commands: "Thou shalt not kill", but goes on to direct the Israelites to kill Canaanites, and dozens of other cultures. Apparently, what god really meant (it is obvious from the bible and our literalist friends that he is not too adroit with words) that the Israelites should not kill members of their own group. Almost all cultures seem to interpret their moral codes in this way. Psychological studies have found that most people will react with stronger emotional involvement to the death of one person in their community than to the death of thousands of people in distant lands. 'Charity begins at home' appears to be just a corollary of 'morality begins (and often ends) at home'.

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 20 of 65 (415624)
08-11-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
08-10-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
An example of a relative truth is your coloured triangle. Colour is a private mental experience, and it makes a difference whether the experiencer is a human, a dog, or an ant. In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth.
not quite all you are doing is showing that you need the right tools to identifie the truth and to use suitable language to label it .. what we see as green is the same as , the dog , and the ant ... its a specific , measureable wavelength of light , it has a absolute truth ... , the wavelenght is the same reguardless of who or what detects it ...
its also a absolute truth YOU saw it as green ..
rather than relative to say the light is green is a partial truth .. like saying the earth is ball shaped ... its true ..but is not ALL of facts , and uses evertyday language ..not language design to clearly define the facts about the thing ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2007 5:22 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 08-11-2007 11:36 AM ikabod has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 21 of 65 (415629)
08-11-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
08-10-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
quote:
In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth.
An example of absolute truth is the fact that there are infinitely many rational numbers.
By "outside world" do you mean nature?
If yes, then color does exist. Optically it may be viewed differently depending on the creature, but it does exist.
Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of.
If I have misunderstood what you meant by "outside world" I apologize and ask for clarification.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2007 5:22 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 08-11-2007 11:47 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 10:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 22 of 65 (415649)
08-11-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ikabod
08-11-2007 6:27 AM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
ikabod writes:
what we see as green is the same as , the dog , and the ant ... its a specific , measureable wavelength of light , it has a absolute truth ... , the wavelenght is the same reguardless of who or what detects it ...
The wavelength of light is not the same as the experience of a colour. When I look at light with a certain wavelength, my experience of it differs from that of, say, a dog. It's true that we're both looking at the same wavelength, but our experience of it is not the same.
Saying that light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm is green is the same as saying that boiling water is pain. Both are nonsense. It's better to say that boiling water (if touched) causes the sensation of pain, and that light with the wavelength mentioned above (if seen) causes the sensation of green.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ikabod, posted 08-11-2007 6:27 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ikabod, posted 08-12-2007 5:38 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 23 of 65 (415650)
08-11-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by purpledawn
08-11-2007 9:26 AM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
purpledawn writes:
By "outside world" do you mean nature?
By "outside world" I meant everything outside my (or your, or any other creature's) mental experience. See my reply to ikabod above. Can you say where in the outside world pain is?
Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of.
Even if numbers only "exist" in a sort of Platonic realm, then it is still an absolute truth that there "exist" infinitely many rational numbers.
Edited by Parasomnium, : added "(or your, or any other creature's)"

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by purpledawn, posted 08-11-2007 9:26 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 24 of 65 (415743)
08-11-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals
08-11-2007 1:14 AM


Re: Not clear that math has absolutes.
quote:
2 + 2 = 1 (modulo 3). There are just a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. Two parallel lines: 1) never meet; 2) always meet; 3) don't exist depending on what geometry you are considering. At one time, each of these mathematical statements was considered to be absolutely untrue and even to be absurd until a more advanced (more general) mathematical structure was discovered (or invented, depending on your beliefs). So, even if there was total agreement that some statement were absolutely true, might that just be a temporary consensus awaiting discovery of a larger but more tenuous truth?
Don't get to technical or you'll miss the point.
1) 2+2=1 (modulo 3) Please explain as I am not familiar with this. I haven't had a situation in my short engineering career or at any time in my life for that matter where I had 2 of something and 2 more of that same something and ended with 1 of it.
2) Missed why you mention that there are a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. If we are talking about finding a Truth I guess theres no point in limiting the field because then that would be a truth. Let the number line be what it is; infinite.
3) Don't understand as well why you bring up parallel lines. Is that a multiple choice question for me?
4) To answer your question I think I established a difference between theories and laws for my simple analysis. I guess I agree when you say that another truth can be discovered that would make 2+2=3 correct and the accepted 2+2=4 wrong. But since that is so highly improbable if not impossible, I'm sticking with it as a Truth and not a truth.
quote:
Would the statement "There are no absolute statements, except for this one." solve the conundrum of the self-contradictory statements discussed in previous posts? Or, is this issue just a distraction from the intent of the OP?
No. It would be better to just say "The only absolute statement is this one" and we would easilya void self-contradiction with it. I don't see a distraction if things are expressed correctly.
quote:
Some logicians attempt to bypass the problems of the self-referential statement but still create the innately contradictory situation through use of set theory: Define "S" to be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as an element. Does S contain itself as an element? I actually don't see the difference or that anything has been achieved in this way.
Agreed. It raises more questions than it gives answers

Mangekyo Sharingan. Youre trapped in my genjutsu now!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-11-2007 1:14 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 7:21 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 25 of 65 (415792)
08-12-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Parasomnium
08-11-2007 11:36 AM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
i totally agree that the "experience of a colour" is different , for you, dog ,ant ,cat ,fish and every other human being ... BUT the triangle is still displaying the same wavelenght of light .. the triangles truth is wavelenght ... your truth is experience of seeing green light .. which is why in my post i put the line ..
now what colour is the trianlge in a room with no light ???? infact its the triangles surface properties that give the Truth about it , not the wavelenght or the experience
its also a absolute truth YOU saw it as green ..
within the situation of you viewing the triangle there are many absolute truths .. they do not contridict each other, but many may not cover the whole event .. hence Partial truth ......
part of the issue is how deep you go to get your truth ....
1 i see its green
2. my eye processes the light , tells my brain which interperates the data , and indicates it is green
3. the shape relfects light of such a wavelenght that the coulur recepor cell in my head are activated to cause my nerons to fire and signal the area of my brain that considers colours .. this reports the single matches to what i have learnt is called green ..
4. i was taught by my mother that this visual imput is called green
5. i was taught in maths that this shape is called a triangle .. which means its internal angles equals 180 degrees ...on a flat plane .
all these are part of the truth that what you saw a green triangle .. but in everyday life we only use a small faction to know its a green triangle .
we you a short hand form of truth .....
the triangle is a triangle that reflects a certain wavelenght of light .. dont change cos you or your dog or a high tech detector looks at it , or if there is no light to reflect
as to
Saying that light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm is green is the same as saying that boiling water is pain. Both are nonsense. It's better to say that boiling water (if touched) causes the sensation of pain, and that light with the wavelength mentioned above (if seen) causes the sensation of green.
green is those wavelenght IF the detector is YOU .. because thats the measuring scale that YOU have , if you saw colours as fish you would say those wavelenghts are Tuna ... green is just a label humans use , they are not fixed .. take a baby and you can teach it the wrong colours labels .. we learn its green or red or blue ...
Pain is less calibrated it will not tell between say 80 and 100 or 200 degrees.. pain is a inbuild warning signal of harm its a different type sensor .
your last line goes back to what i was saying above .. how deep do you want your truth .....
"that light with the wavelength mentioned above (if seen) causes the sensation of green" in a human being that has learn the labels of colours , and has its functioning eyes open ,( skin does not distingish colours) , has a normally functional brain ,and is currently looking at the triangle ... please add any more facts you like .....
also
" boiling water (if touched) causes the sensation of pain" at sea level , at higher altitudes it does not cause pain , just the sensation of warm .. note in both cases the boiling water aslo causes the sensation of wet and fluid ..
all statements are limited by how deep we are willing and/or able to go looking for the "truth" .....and by how much truth is need for the use we put that truth to ....
Edited by ikabod, : more thinks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 08-11-2007 11:36 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 26 of 65 (415863)
08-12-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
08-10-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Relatives
So are you saying that reality is a matter of perception?
If I ceased to exist, would reality thus cease to exist?
No. That would be the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Jon said "Now, my problem with the idea of 'truth' is that it is only as good as the body determining the conformity of a statement to the reality." My reply to this is that the body determining conformity is reality itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 08-10-2007 5:32 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 27 of 65 (415893)
08-12-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 8:56 PM


Re: Is truth relative?
There is nothing paradoxical or meaningless about it, DG. Better yet, is what you said absolutely true?
i think it is meaningless, since you seem to think asking the same question over and over again adds anything to the debate.
But by saying it, you are using one, in which case, if there really were not, then what you've just said is meaningless. Saying there are no absolutes is employing an absolute in order to deny it at the same time.
but i no longer said that, did you bother to not read my quote? it is saying it might as well be, which i agree with.
i think the fact is nothing related to humans is absolute, after all the meaning of absolute can not be used with humans. an absolute truth would be something that is right all times in any context without contradicting itself.
i've never heard of one that deals with humans that is absolute.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 8:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 28 of 65 (415917)
08-12-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals
08-11-2007 1:14 AM


Re: Not clear that math has absolutes.
AnswersInGenitals writes:
quote:
2 + 2 = 1 (modulo 3). There are just a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. Two parallel lines: 1) never meet; 2) always meet; 3) don't exist depending on what geometry you are considering.
And thus, we see why one who is not versed in a subject should not speak on it. This is the same error made by people who try to apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to sociology.
Despite your claims, all those things are true since we understand the concept of axiomatic theory. The attempt to claim that somehow a true statement in one axiomatic system is in question because we've moved to another axiomatic system shows that one doesn't understand the concept of axioms.
By the way: Modulo arithmetic doesn't deny the existence of numbers beyond the modulo. "Modulo" is a function, not a field.
Too, the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry was spurred by the attempt to disprove Euclid's Fifth Postulate. For those who don't know, the Fifth Postulate is that if two straight lines are crossed by a transversal, the lines will meet on the side where the interior angles are less than two right angles. This can be restated equivalently that parallel lines never meet, but that was the reason why people were trying to disprove it. The phrasing of it seemed suspect and it was thought that it should somehow be derivable from the others.
And yet, the only thing they could conclude is that it is, indeed, true all on its own, independent of everything else. But in the process, they discovered that they could simply replace the Fifth with other, similar postulates and come up with new geometries. Some of those geometries conform to objects we can easily conceptualize (spherical geometry) while others are a bit more difficult to handle.
None of that detracts from Euclidean geometry. The truth of the Fifth Postulate is simply by fiat: It is true for it is a Postulate.
Mathematics isn't going to help us in dealing with a question of sociology.
quote:
So, even if there was total agreement that some statement were absolutely true, might that just be a temporary consensus awaiting discovery of a larger but more tenuous truth?
No, because you misunderstand the mathematics involved. All of those statements are true. No, there is not some "more advanced (more general) mathematical structure" surrounding them. They simply are true.
quote:
Some logicians attempt to bypass the problems of the self-referential statement but still create the innately contradictory situation through use of set theory
See, here we go: The attempt to invoke the Incompleteness Theorems to solve a question not of mathematics but of sociology.
Hint: There are consistent, complete axiomatic systems out there. The Incompleteness Theorems only apply to axiomatic systems of set theory that are powerful enough to model integer arithmetic.
Do you really think that sociology is an axiomatic system of set theory that is powerful enough to model integer arithmetic? If not, then math isn't going to help you solve the problem.
The findings of science only make sense in the context and field in which they were formulated. They do not function outside of those realms no matter how much the metaphor seems to apply.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-11-2007 1:14 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 65 (415918)
08-12-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by purpledawn
08-11-2007 9:26 AM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
purpledawn writes:
quote:
If yes, then color does exist. Optically it may be viewed differently depending on the creature, but it does exist.
Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of.
How is number not an intrinsic part of existence whereas color is?
Are you saying that one object isn't really "one"?
After all, the color of an object is relative depending upon how the two are moving with respect to each other. So why does number, which is relative to the relationships of objects to each other, get the short shrift?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by purpledawn, posted 08-11-2007 9:26 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 08-13-2007 8:07 AM Rrhain has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 30 of 65 (415973)
08-13-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
08-12-2007 10:02 PM


Re: Some truths are relative, others are absolute
My response was an effort to understand what Parasomnium had stated in Message 12 concerning the term "outside world."
Parasomnium writes:
No, some truths are relative, others are absolute.
An example of a relative truth is your coloured triangle. Colour is a private mental experience, and it makes a difference whether the experiencer is a human, a dog, or an ant. In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth.
An example of absolute truth is the fact that there are infinitely many rational numbers.
My comments came from a viewpoint that he meant nature. Instead he was talking about the individual experience.
I understand that a male gold finch sitting on the fence will look different depending on what eyes he is being viewed through, but the pigment in his feathers remains consistent for this species. Just as the pigment for the male cardinal is appropriate for his species. No matter how each species differentiates the gold finch from a cardinal, the pigment stays the same. Again, that's in nature.
Given Parasomnium's explanation of "outside world" in Message 23 I understand the comment concerning the rational numbers, but I would not agree that to be an absolute truth in nature.
As far as I know, numbers do not exist in nature. How each species relates that there is a gold finch and cardinal sitting on the fence is relative to the species, but the birds are not a two. (Language Without Numbers)
Again, I understand what Parasomnium was saying now that I understand what he meant by "outside world." Of course since there is apparently one language without numbers, does that negate the absoluteness of his statement?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 08-12-2007 10:02 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 08-14-2007 5:12 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024