Is There An Absolute Truth? (moral, America, experience, moral)

[ch'ang]

I personally believe that absolutes exist, but by the nature of consciousness and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we can't know them.

Let me direct you to a wonderful story about a man and his invisible dragon http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

Heres the important part

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

Also read a little more about Quantum Mechanics it does for a fact state that not only can we not know a particles speed/velocity with exact certainty but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity.

[stemann]

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

One of them exists. I believe that absolutes exist, just as the person in the story believes in dragons. There is no way to prove this, because of the impossibility of interaction between the dragon and one's mind. Similarly, I believe there is no way to know or perceive absolute truths, except maybe a priori ones such as 2+2=4, but then maybe this is not provable- its provability is based on itself. Logic in itself is circular, and thus so is mathematics.

Originally Posted by ch'ang

Also read a little more about Quantum Mechanics it does for a fact state that not only can we not know a particles speed/velocity with exact certainty but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity.

I willfully admit my disgracefully miniscule magnitude of apprehension of Quantum Mechanics (considering I mentioned it, one would think I would at least be able to justify my assertions with some linkage).

I believe Quantum Mechanics to be of inestimable value to philosophy, and I actually have a book ("In Search Of Schrödinger's Cat") that I will read sometime soon. Promise.

The little I currently know of Quantum Mechanics leads my intuition to make me believe there is something very important in it that right now I can only guess at.

And I have problems with the concept of "...but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity," which I presume the book will help me clear up, but if not, I will think about it a lot more and surely let the good folk at rf.com know about it!

[PureX]

Originally Posted by stemann

I believe Quantum Mechanics to be of inestimable value to philosophy, and I actually have a book ("In Search Of Schrödinger's Cat") that I will read sometime soon. Promise.

The little I currently know of Quantum Mechanics leads my intuition to make me believe there is something very important in it that right now I can only guess at.

And I have problems with the concept of "...but until the object is observed it is in a state of limbo is nothing that we would call matter merely probablity," which I presume the book will help me clear up, but if not, I will think about it a lot more and surely let the good folk at rf.com know about it!

They don't call it "quantum weirdness" for nothing. *smile* You're in for a treat.

[ch'ang]

I believethat absolutes exist, just as the person in the story believes in dragons. There is no way to prove this, because of the impossibility of interaction between the dragon and one's mind. Similarly, I believe there is no way to know or perceive absolute truths

This is where you lose me, you say that there is no way to know or persive your absolute truths, but yet you claim that they exist, with no evidence and effectivly voiding any evidence that may or may not be availible in the future. Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as a little odd to me.

I willfully admit my disgracefully miniscule magnitude of apprehension of Quantum Mechanics (considering I mentioned it, one would think I would at least be able to justify my assertions with some linkage).

After reading my pervious post I just realized that it did sound condesending, arrogant and pretty rude, I apologize. But yes most if not all aspects of QM are completely contradictory to our everyday understanding of the world, and I find it quite enjoyable to read about, and I hope you do as well.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by ch'ang

This is where you lose me, you say that there is no way to know or persive your absolute truths, but yet you claim that they exist, with no evidence and effectivly voiding any evidence that may or may not be availible in the future. Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as a little odd to me.

I don't claim that they exist.

I don't void any evidence that may (or may not? What?) be available in the future.

Belief in things that are unfalsifiable always comes off as very very odd to me. I don't know why I believe it to be true, except for a few small glimpses of haphazard intuitions my mind has, which I fully intend to capitalise on by reading that darn book.

Originally Posted by ch'ang

After reading my pervious post I just realized that it did sound condesending, arrogant and pretty rude, I apologize.

Don't worry, I am guilty of a lot worse than this relating to rf.com posts. And your previous post looked pretty good to me; there was no offensiveness, and it got to the point very well.

Originally Posted by ch'ang

But yes most if not all aspects of QM are completely contradictory to our everyday understanding of the world, and I find it quite enjoyable to read about, and I hope you do as well.

Exactly, I should have read it when I was a bit younger (ie when I bought it, and intended to read it) so that false preconceptions pertaining to the empirical world would not be too entrenched in my head for me to grasp said aspects.

Here's hoping I can still do it.........

[Circle_One]

Is There An Absolute Truth?

Yes, that I'm an idiot and have absolutely horrible taste in men. That's definitely an Absolute Truth.

Sorry, had to say it. I'll run away now.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by stemann

The phrase "Outside the mind" is non-cognitive (no pun intended). You can't speculate about "Outside the mind" because the only way to perceive reality is with some sort of mind.

...And so the only way to perceive truth is with some sort of mind. It's not an objective property of existence, like color not being a property of light, it's something subjectively perceived.

If we cannot speculate "outside of the mind", then how do scientists know that color is not a property of light, but a sensation in the brain?

[caminante]

i just see it this way:

have you ever heard of the nazca lines?

they are like some pictures of animals and "gods" on the ground, and they extend for miles.
many people do not know what were they used for. But imagine this:
you are standing on one of the nazca pictures, the only thing you can see is a long, long path, you only see the line, but you have no knowledge of what that line means. You can walk over that line for ever, and it will bring you to the same place. Lets imagine that the line are that we call "truth"...you we might be part of it, we might walk over truth all this time, we are part of this thing called truth, which, we don't know what it is, or why is there for, until one day, we can see it from "up there"...

i don't know if my analogy is clear...do not worry about finding truth, i believe that everything you see is truth, is REAL, there is no such thing as in one side-truth, and in the other-us, this planet, this universe.
do not try to find truth, even if you go, and go over and over again these lines, you will se them only when the right time has aproach...enjoy truth, you are part it, enjoy this life.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by caminante

... i believe that everything you see is truth, is REAL, there is no such thing as in one side-truth, and in the other-us, this planet, this universe.
do not try to find truth, even if you go, and go over and over again these lines, you will se them only when the right time has aproach...enjoy truth, you are part it, enjoy this life.

I agree. I also tend to define "truth" as what is: as reality. But the question here is, is truth (reality) absolute? Or, is there an ultimate truth (ultimate reality)?

I can't think of any way to answer the first question. In a way, reality by definition is self-contained, and therefor would likely be absolute by it's own definition. But at this point it becomes somewhat irrelevant, as anything not contained within reality is "unreal". So the claim that reality is absolute is pretty much meaningless, as everything else doesn't exist, anyway.

As to the second question, I don't really understand what's being asked. What is an "ultimate reality"? Isn't reality "ultimately" real by definition? Seems to me that any answer to this question is probably going to be a tautology.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Cynic

...And so the only way to perceive truth is with some sort of mind. It's not an objective property of existence, like color not being a property of light, it's something subjectively perceived.

I know! That's why I said:

Originally Posted by stemann&sons inc. part exchange service- new quotes for old!

I personally believe that absolutes exist, but by the nature of consciousness and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle we can't know them.

Originally Posted by Cynic

If we cannot speculate "outside of the mind", then how do scientists know that color is not a property of light, but a sensation in the brain?

They don't know this any more than they know mercury is liquid at room temperature, or how many feet antelope have. They discover these "facts" through empirical testing but, like me and many others have said, the empirical testing can never be 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by PureX

I can't think of any way to answer the first question. In a way, reality by definition is self-contained, and therefor would likely be absolute by it's own definition. But at this point it becomes somewhat irrelevant, as anything not contained within reality is "unreal". So the claim that reality is absolute is pretty much meaningless, as everything else doesn't exist, anyway.

This is a tautology; you don't necessarily have to dismiss it, just realise its truth.

Originally Posted by PureX

As to the second question, I don't really understand what's being asked. What is an "ultimate reality"? Isn't reality "ultimately" real by definition? Seems to me that any answer to this question is probably going to be a tautology.

I don't know what your distinction is between 'absolute' and 'ultimate,' so yes, this also would be a tautology.