Re: The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:1) There is an Exception to everything.
2) The only constant is change.
What do you guys think ?
OKay...
1) Exception to what?
2) What changes?
Re: The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hey everybody. I think that these two facts are the only Undeniable truths that exist. I don't beleive religion, science, or any other source of information can disprove this:1) There is an Exception to everything.
2) The only constant is change.
What do you guys think ?
Just because something's not disproven doesn't mean it's absolute. There is no absolute truths we possess, because we do not have access to absolute knowledge. And again, anyone making the assertions above needs to provide proof; there's no way you could prove those. Ergo, they are not absolute truths.
For one, you'd need to find out the truth about everything, and then establish that there is an exception to everything. You cannot do this.
For two, you cannot prove that change is the only constant. Indeed, you would need to clarifiy and define constant as it applies to absolute reality, provide the knowledge of all things, and then make a claim. Again, you cannot do this.
So really, you have no absolute truths.
The only known absolute truth...is that you exist.
Again, how would you verify this? Aside from being pseudo-mysticism rhetoric nonsense, this statement means and proves nothing.
Again, how can you prove the absolute truth of your own existance? You can't. Yes, you think. In a manner of speaking, so does a computer. Having internal processes isn't a value that indicates existance in absolute reality.
You don't prove that you exist by thinking; you infer that you exist by thinking. I think, therefore I am. And since the only proof lies in your head, it cannot be put up for significant testing with any real knowledge. So really, you assume that you exist because you think you exist.
And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic.
...oh God, not again...
(*takes a deep breath and delivers the short speech*)
Reality is an absolute: whether it's a Big Newtonian Machine, God's Dream, a Matrix, an Illusion, a program in a superalien's Gameboy, I am aware of something, absolutely.
This of course includes my favorite absolute: "There are no absolutes."
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Again, how can you prove the absolute truth of your own existance? You can't. Yes, you think. In a manner of speaking, so does a computer. Having internal processes isn't a value that indicates existance in absolute reality.You don't prove that you exist by thinking; you infer that you exist by thinking. I think, therefore I am. And since the only proof lies in your head, it cannot be put up for significant testing with any real knowledge. So really, you assume that you exist because you think you exist.
And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic.
You can only infer that a computer thinks, but that is not absolute knowledge. *You* thinking is absolute knowledge, by the act of just thinking. If you couldnt think, then you wouldnt even be able to infer that you could think.
"And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic. "
Lol.
Originally posted by Templares
Methinks, the closest thing, if not the only absolute truths, are mathematical truths . . . . this is why science relies on them so much.
For mathematical truths to be absolute, first you would have to assume that the reality we perceive is absolute. Mathematical concepts are the result of the information we receive through sensory input, if our sensory input isnt true reality then that cascades upward making all of our rational thinking invalid including mathematics.
Originally posted by Mindship
...oh God, not again...
(*takes a deep breath and delivers the short speech*)Reality is an absolute: whether it's a Big Newtonian Machine, God's Dream, a Matrix, an Illusion, a program in a superalien's Gameboy, I am aware of something, absolutely.
This of course includes my favorite absolute: "There are no absolutes."
I think thats just an extension of what I said about consciousness being absolute, like you said we perceive *something* whether or not this is *true* reality is irrelevent.
Re: Re: The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
OKay...1) Exception to what?
2) What changes?
I don't think you get it.
1) There's an exception to everything....basically means not nothing is absolutely 100% without having some sort of loophole or way out. Even if the way out is a retarted miniscule option, I beleive there is always a "loose end" to even the most strict of rules.
2) Throughout history, in our lifetime, through TIME period...the only thing that keeps going forever is change.
These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.
Re: Re: Re: The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't think you get it.1) There's an exception to everything....basically means not nothing is absolutely 100% without having some sort of loophole or way out. Even if the way out is a retarted miniscule option, I beleive there is always a "loose end" to even the most strict of rules.
2) Throughout history, in our lifetime, through TIME period...the only thing that keeps going forever is change.
These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.
Read what Janus said, for what you said to be true you would have to have absolute knowledge of everything. Your argument is self-defeating.
These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.
Do I know this for certain ? No....
I don't think anyone can prove or disprove it. And since Omnipotence is impossible, we have to just justify why we agree or disagree.
All we can do is think of everything that we do know, and apply.
One example: Quantam Physics contradicts much of what we know from Physics itself.
I believe that there is always another truth that we are unaware of, even when we think we've found the absolute.
Now do i TRULY know that "To everything there is an exception"...Nope, because i am not exposed to EVERYTHING....
But to almost every rule that exists I have found something that can contradict it.
I beleive the latter more: Change is the only Constant.....Mindship pretty much beleives this as well, as he claimed in the "Why do we Die?" Thread.
Mindship:
Reality is an absolute: whether it's a Big Newtonian Machine, God's Dream, a Matrix, an Illusion, a program in a superalien's Gameboy, I am aware of something, absolutely.
lol... But reality... is relative to the person observing it. That is, unless you can find a neutral, all seeing all knowing observer... That would constitute a being that could look on reality and define what is absolute, since nothing would be obscured, hidden, or subject to the slightest possibility of failure. And yes, thinking of this stuff sometimes hurts my head too. No worries.
GV:
You can only infer that a computer thinks, but that is not absolute knowledge. *You* thinking is absolute knowledge, by the act of just thinking. If you couldnt think, then you wouldnt even be able to infer that you could think.
Again, you aren't the absolute frame of reference for what is "absolute reality", unless reality is all in your head. And when you recognize that you think, there is some basic logic going on inside of your head. The problem with Descartes' philosophy is that it's pure rationalism; that is, it attempts to divine truths about the world... without resorting to observing it. Descartes discards any sensory data and output, claiming that his senses can deceive him. Therefore, he creates purely rational arguments a priori to establish truths about things, like the nature of God, the mind, etc. This may not seem like a totally bad thing, but the problem with pure rationalism is that it attempts to divine reality from a definition. That is, instead of observing something in reality and then attributing a nature to it, it makes a definition and then a logical argument that neccessitates that object. It's really, really slanted logic, to be quite honest.
Anyways, you can "hear" your own thoughts, but those aren't subject to an objective study. That is, you can claim that you exist, and others can claim that you exist, but none of you can actually "prove" it in an absolute frame of reference (i.e. the mind of God, if you really want to give it a name). It's an inference, based on you having a mind.
Urizen:
These are more metaphorical truths than literal truths in many ways.
How is a metaphorical truth an absolute one? Metaphors are symbolism and figures of speech.
Do I know this for certain ? No....I don't think anyone can prove or disprove it. And since Omnipotence is impossible, we have to just justify why we agree or disagree.
All we can do is think of everything that we do know, and apply.
But since none of that is absolute knowledge, we cannot determine absolute truths. I really don't see why you find that so hard to believe. Unless you're mucking up the definition of "absolute" (Besides the Vodka brand name) and assuming it's "absolute in reference to the human mind", your not making any sense.
But in reason, one who makes an assertion must prove up. If they can't, there is no argument. I don't see any proving up here.
One example: Quantam Physics contradicts much of what we know from Physics itself.
No, quantam physics shows us that on a certain scale, things behave differently. Microphysics is different from macrophysics. This is a new discovery; it isn't proof that there are always exceptions.
Here's one for you: 2 + 2 = 4. Where's the exception to that?
I believe that there is always another truth that we are unaware of, even when we think we've found the absolute.
Erm... yes, of course. So why are you claiming that ANY of the above are absolute truths? More importantly, why are you so intent on proving that change is constant and there are always exceptions? Don't those contradict each other? Is this "validate an old metaphor" week? Metaphors are used like common sense- for most situations. They do not hold up as bonafide truth. Ask any scientist.
Now do i TRULY know that "To everything there is an exception"...Nope, because i am not exposed to EVERYTHING....
End of argument.
But to almost every rule that exists I have found something that can contradict it.
So you assume, based on your limited exposure to the world, that this metaphor is absolute and binding? I thought you just admitted you didn't know?
I beleive the latter more: Change is the only Constant.....Mindship pretty much beleives this as well, as he claimed in the "Why do we Die?" Thread.
But we haven't seen everything yet, so we don't know if there's something out there that remains constant. Indeed, the idea of "constant" is a human mental construct; what we think of as constant may actually be in flux on a different time scale. For example, you can watch bread mold over a week exposed, but you would be hard pressed to notice the deepening of the ocean. In any case, unless we've observed everything, there's no way we could claim that change is the only constant. And indeed, the word constant is a slippery one to work with. There may actually be no constants at all.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
You can only infer that a computer thinks, but that is not absolute knowledge. *You* thinking is absolute knowledge, by the act of just thinking. If you couldnt think, then you wouldnt even be able to infer that you could think."And of course, few know how Descartes died. He walked into a bar, sat down dejected, and when asked by the bartender if he wanted a drink, Descartes replied "I think not" and disappeared in a puff of logic. "
Lol.
Perhaps you think, perhaps you don't. It can't be shown that you think, only that the brain behaves in a certain way following a stimulus and prior to a response. Do you really think, or is there just a process that you physiology goes through that results in a response? Perhaps thinking is not really what occurs, perhaps it is just the bi product of the series of physiological responses that lead to an overt response. Perhaps, due to the fact that we are the automaton we have difficulty stating that we do not in all actuality think. Perhaps we have just been a series of responses set in motion at conception and we merely have continued to respond to various events/stimuli we have come into contact with since that moment. Are we really just bouncing through existence with no real control, all our "thoughts" controlled by the series of response and consequence, and not really thought at all?
Before you rant at me about why you really do think, at least consider the possibility. It is not necessarily my opinion, but it is a possibility. The fact that you even consider this is really just a response to the stimulus I presented as a response to various stimuli that I encountered following a response I made....roflmao 🤣
The only absolute is that I don't know, you might, but I don't, and that is absolute. Or perhaps I just think I don't know. But all the same I don't know if I know. Or perhaps I just think I don't know I don't know. But all the same I don't know if I don't know if I don't know. Or perhaps... hysterical
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
How about this, how about we take away our five main detectors, sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell... without those five things there's really no telling how we'd perceive our reality. The question would then be, would we still be aware of 'something'? Or not?
We would still be aware of our minds, our consciousness. So let me take your thought experiment one step further...
...What are we aware of when we are unconscious or in a coma?
Well, I've never been unconscious or in a coma, so I can't respond from personal experience. But even when one comes out of a coma and doesn't remember anything, the only thing we can say for certain is that one doesn't remember anything; we can only infer that, perhaps, there was 'not something' to be aware of.
And certainly, when we awaken, we are aware of that 'something' again, plus we can assume with certainty (or at least, I do) that that 'something' was still around even when we were momentarily unaware of it, as evidenced by my still being aware of 'something' when others are unconscious or in a coma. Or dead.
'Something' is out there; of this much I am absolutely certain. 😉
If there is no absolute truths we will never know. We can only know that is impossible to prove that something is an absolute truth, but we cannot say that "there are no absolute truths" or we will need to prove that. To prove that means to prove a contradiction since we would be proving the sentence "there are no absolute truths" an absolute truth, so we do not know if there are absolute truths or not.
Actually, that only means logic cannot be used to prove absolute truths in case they really exist. Logic just dont give us any information about if absolute truths exists or not.
Hmm...I can I sum up my stance here....Janus, great points BTW ! 👆
First off, I said i BELEIVE there are only Two Absolute Truths. I am not claiming that as facts. I have no way of proving OR disproving it, but that's the fun in debating how true or how false this can be.
I should have written that I beleive there is an
"Exception to every rule"
1+1=2 is not a rule, it's a fact.
However, if you look at this through more than a literal point of view, you can come up with a few examples (even if they are stupid ones) to that would present an exception to even THIS solid fact.
There are two people. One is a "normal" adult man, and the other is a female Siamese twin. Now if you add these two people together by thier physical being, then you have 1 person + 1 person = 2 people.
However, if you add them together by thier Psychological being you 1 + 1+ 1 = 3. So even when you add two bodies together, you end up with 3 people.
Now lets say one of the Siamese Twins is in a coma. If you define a person by "a being who is self aware", then you add the siamese twin with the normal adult, and you have 2 people right ?
But...that doesnt make sense? Don't you have 3 people ? A normal separate person, and two people fused together?
I know this example may be WAY OFF....but it still kind of confuses the absolute truth that One + One equals Two. Ofcourse from a purely Mathematical perspective 1+1=2. But from a million other perspectives? There is an exception somewhere, even if its a "bulls*hit" one.
AS for Change.....So far there are no known constants we are aware of, OTHER than change.