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

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

(from post #30) "The definition of an absolute truth requires that it not be dependent upon or conditioned by an external criteria (ie: not relative). In the case of "2+2=4", un-applied, it's a meaningless presumption. But the moment we apply it to something real, it's truthfulness becomes dependent upon the criteria of the application. Two 20 pound sheep do not equal two 30 pound sheep. Two adult sheep don't equal two newborn sheep. Two sheared sheep don't equal two unsheared sheep. In fact, depending upon how refined the criteria, no sheep has ever or will ever equal any other sheep. So the truthfulness of "2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep" is relative to the criteria being applied to the sheep. If no criteria but that they are "sheep" is applied, then the equation remains true. But if almost any other criteria is added, the equation is no longer true. A proposition that's truthfulness depends upon such external criteria can't by definition be absolutely true."

Originally Posted by PureX

The mathmatical equasion "1+1=2" is a meaningless proposition until it's been applied to something. But the moment it's applied, it's truthfulness becomes relative to the criteria of the application. Since an absolute truth cannot also be relative, this mathmatical proposition is not an absolute truth.

PureX, I am considering a reply to your posts, but I need to clarify one thing first.

2 + 2 = 4
2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep
2 newborn sheep + 2 newborn sheep = 4 newborn sheep
2 adult sheep + 2 adult sheep = 4 adult sheep
2 20-pound sheep + 2 20-pound sheep = 4 20-pound sheep
etc.

To me, it seems the relativity is imposed only because of misapplication of the equation. Can you explain further?

Originally Posted by PureX

The designant "male" is an idea defined by it's not being female, and likewise, the designant "female" is an idea defined by it's not being male. Both concepts are being defined relative to each other, and relative to other concepts of sexuality, and thus they can't be absolute.

The definitions of the things --what is being compared here --are relative to each other only when taken in the context of each other (a comparison). Can you explain further what you meant?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

PureX, I am considering a reply to your posts, but I need to clarify one thing first.

2 + 2 = 4
2 sheep + 2 sheep = 4 sheep
2 newborn sheep + 2 newborn sheep = 4 newborn sheep
2 adult sheep + 2 adult sheep = 4 adult sheep
2 20-pound sheep + 2 20-pound sheep = 4 20-pound sheep
etc.

To me, it seems the relativity is imposed only because of misapplication of the equation. Can you explain further?


The definitions of the things --what is being compared here --are relative to each other only when taken in the context of each other (a comparison). Can you explain further what you meant?

Notice that in the above examples, the reality of the sheep's uniqueness has to be ignored for the formula to be true. The formula is only true as long as the application of it remains an abstracted idea of "sheep", rather than an actual representation of them. But the moment the unique actuality of the sheep is considered, the formula's truthfulness becomes relatively suspect. And this is true of all applications of such mathematical equations. They're perfect (absolute) as abstract ideas, but the moment we try to apply them to actuality, their truthfulness becomes relative to how willing we are to overlook the endless individual details that make everything unequal, and the equasion untrue.

Equality doesn't exist in reality. No matter how similar two phenomena may be, they can't be the same and still remain two separate and individual phenomena. Absolute equality would make them the same phenomena. The proposition of absolute equality thus contradicts itself. Equality can only represent conditions in the real world if we're willing to overlook all the ways in which things are not equal. Thus, the "equality" of a proposition is only true relative to the degree of vagueness we are willing to accept in our application of it.

Any two sheep are "equal" only as long as we're willing to overlook all the ways in which they aren't really equal.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

Notice that in the above examples, the reality of the sheep's uniqueness has to be ignored for the formula to be true. The formula is only true as long as the application of it remains an abstracted idea of "sheep", rather than an actual representation of them. But the moment the unique actuality of the sheep is considered, the formula's truthfulness becomes relatively suspect. And this is true of all applications of such mathematical equations. They're perfect (absolute) as abstract ideas, but the moment we try to apply them to actuality, their truthfulness becomes relative to how willing we are to overlook the endless individual details that make everything unequal, and the equasion untrue.

But, the uniqueness of the sheep is irrelevant to the mathematical forumla. If it is to be kept in its context as a mathematical formula applied to a characteristic or trait, following the rules of mathematics, then that characteristic or trait that is evaluated must appear on both sides of the equation.

The unique sheep is not evaluated in relation to other sheep in any forumula context to determine truthfulness.

I think that you are trying to state something important to our discussion, here, but that your mathematical example is inadequate to demonstrate it. So, I don't get it.

As far as I can see, there is still only one "kind" of truth, and it is absolute.

Originally Posted by PureX

Equality doesn't exist in reality. No matter how similar two phenomena may be, they can't be the same and still remain two separate and individual phenomena. Absolute equality would make them the same phenomena.

I am totally with you.

Originally Posted by PureX

The proposition of absolute equality thus contradicts itself. Equality can only represent conditions in the real world if we're willing to overlook all the ways in which things are not equal. Thus, the "equality" of a proposition is only true relative to the degree of vagueness we are willing to accept in our application of it.

Any two sheep are "equal" only as long as we're willing to overlook all the ways in which they aren't really equal.

Ah! A glimmer of hope! I think I see what you are getting at, but... equality, such as in the equation for sheep above, does not apply to the sum of all the properties of a unique individual --it does not apply to identity.

One identity cannot be equated to another. This says nothing about truth (except in that it is true).

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

The Baha'i scriptures are quite explicit that EVERYTHING in creation is relative, and that the only absolute is God Himself!

So yes, there is an absolute truth, and this is God and only God!

Best,

Bruce

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

But, the uniqueness of the sheep is irrelevant to the mathematical formula.

I don't agree. I would submit that a mathematical formula is only a proposition of truthfulness until it's applied to something.

Originally Posted by Willamena

If it is to be kept in its context as a mathematical formula applied to a characteristic or trait, following the rules of mathematics, then that characteristic or trait that is evaluated must appear on both sides of the equation.

Exactly, and therein lies the external qualifier that disqualifies the equation as an absolute. The formula proposes to be equal, but can't remain equal when applied to any actual phenomena unless the criteria for it's truthfulness becomes relative.

Originally Posted by Willamena

I think I see what you are getting at, but... equality, such as in the equation for sheep above, does not apply to the sum of all the properties of a unique individual

Why not? What logical reason would there be for excluding the properties of the phenomena being equated?

Originally Posted by Willamena

... it does not apply to identity.

I disagree with Aristotle on this, somewhat, but that's another discussion. In this discussion, I'm not referring to the identity of a given phenomena, but to actual phenomena. A sheep (or any other "identity" that exists) is a collection of actual phenomena. No matter how we choose to define and identify that collection of phenomena, it remains unique, and cannot be absolutely equal to any other collection of phenomena. We can identify two separate collections of phenomena as equal, by being deliberately vague, but in actuality they will not be equal. Thus, any proposal of equality as an absolute truth is false, because in actuality there is no such state as "absolutely equal".

What's happening ,here, is that we're identifying sets of phenomena vaguely enough so as to consider them equal. But they aren't actually equal. And the equality of the equation is then dependent upon the vagueness of our identification (two "sheep" rather than these two specific sets of phenomena that we are vaguely identifying as "two sheep"). That makes the truthfulness of this (and any) equation relative to that vagueness, and relative truthfulness is not absolute truth.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

I don't agree. I would submit that a mathematical formula is only a proposition of truthfulness until it's applied to something.

But why do you disagree? Unequatable things are not equatable; to try to squeeze them into the mathematical formula of equation is to take both them and the formula out of context.

Originally Posted by PureX

Exactly, and therein lies the external qualifier that disqualifies the equation as an absolute. The formula proposes to be equal, but can't remain equal when applied to any actual phenomena unless the criteria for it's truthfulness becomes relative.

I don't understand this at all. Why does the unique identity, which is unequatable, invalidate the absoluteness of the truth of the equation, which applies to equatable things? The formula's proposition of truth is not independent of things being on both sides of the equation --that is the requirement, a "condition", for the equation to be evaluated. That there is something that cannot be equated is irrelevant.

I don't understand how you bring "relativity" into it, either --relative to what? How is its relativity to any else in the universe significant, and what does that have to do with the truth of the equation?

Originally Posted by PureX

Why not? What logical reason would there be for excluding the properties of the phenomena being equated?

Not the properties, the sum of all the properties, i.e. the thing that makes it unique: the identity. You said it yourself, I believe, earlier: two things cannot have the same identity or they would be indistinguishable. That means that identity is not equatable --there is nothing to put on the other side of the equation in order to evaluate the equation.

Originally Posted by PureX

I disagree with Aristotle on this, somewhat, but that's another discussion. In this discussion, I'm not referring to the identity of a given phenomena, but to actual phenomena. A sheep (or any other "identity" that exists) is a collection of actual phenomena. No matter how we choose to define and identify that collection of phenomena, it remains unique, and cannot be absolutely equal to any other collection of phenomena. We can identify two separate collections of phenomena as equal, by being deliberately vague, but in actuality they will not be equal. Thus, any proposal of equality as an absolute truth is false, because in actuality there is no such state as "absolutely equal".

What's happening ,here, is that we're identifying sets of phenomena vaguely enough so as to consider them equal. But they aren't actually equal. And the equality of the equation is then dependent upon the vagueness of our identification (two "sheep" rather than these two specific sets of phenomena that we are vaguely identifying as "two sheep"). That makes the truthfulness of this (and any) equation relative to that vagueness, and relative truthfulness is not absolute truth.

It is not the proposition of equality that is false, but the attempt to take it out of context that is inappropriate. Anything taken of out context in such a way cannot help but be false.

In other words, you're saying "the formula of equality doesn't work when you apply it to things that are not equatable." D'uh. It does work when you use it properly.

You've not demonstrated that it is false, you've demonstrated what false itself is.