TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL

millie · Post by **millie** » February 5th, 2009, 1:26 pm

In philosophy to exact a truth from a theory or from your thoughts - is difficult - one that stands up to everybody and everything. How far does "we feel sensation of pain" go as a universal truth for people. Animals and insects also react to pain / touch.

mz · Post by mz » February 5th, 2009, 6:55 pm

Well if you feel pain, then the truth would be that you (as an individual) is feeling pain.

I believe that there are deep underlying truths, that are dictated by some inherent logical reasoning, like 1+1=2.
From these basic truths, everything builds up into more abstract truths, that still are true, but are occasionally diluted with things that aren't necessarily true.

I think some people (reasonable people) are the better at picking up these inherent truths than other relatively ignorant people. And these reasonable people can derive truth much easier than the ignorant minds.

If the truth changes, or varies, it was never the truth to begin with.
Merely opinion or an Incomplete Perspective.

nameless · Post by **nameless** » February 6th, 2009, 4:09 am

millie wrote:In philosophy to exact a truth from a theory or from your thoughts - is difficult - one that stands up to everybody and everything. How far does "we feel sensation of pain" go as a universal truth for people. Animals and insects also react to pain / touch.

There are (broken) people who feel no pain.
Bye bye 'universal' truth.

mz wrote:I believe

Then rational discourse would be fruitless.

that there are deep underlying truths, that are dictated by some inherent logical reasoning, like 1+1=2.

1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water.
Bye bye 'universal' truth.

(and I'm not interested in hearing sudden 'additional requirements' to make the failed assumption work. If it needs a particular 'context', it is not a 'universal'!

Merely opinion or an Incomplete Perspective.

All Perspectives are limited, to one extent or another, by definition.

"In Silentium, Verum!" ("In Silence, Truth!") - Book of Fudd (1:1)

mz · Post by mz » February 6th, 2009, 8:44 am

mz wrote:
I believe

Then rational discourse would be fruitless.

Bah! What rational discourse? We all have to believe, or have faith in some sort of underlying reasoning behind it all.

Because if there isn't, we can know absolutely nothing to be sure. Rational discourse is thrown too.

Universal logic and reasoning implies truths.

We all have to "believe" in that, or accept that we can know absolutely nothing, and go live as hermits in the wild.

(anyway, I understand it to be highly audacious to announce anything as Absolute fact, than the humility we all should face at the root of any argument we might propose with "I believe it to be this way" or "I understand it to be this way")

Kool-aid · Post by **Kool-aid** » February 6th, 2009, 9:13 am

1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water.
Bye bye 'universal' truth.

Remember that this is not coherent with the mathematical operation addition. 1+1=2 is a direct consequence per definition (In fact: it can be used as a definition of addition) - independently of our interpretations or practical uses of it. Given that formal logic is coherent - then mathematics will always give objective truths according to what your base axioms are if and only if they are not inconsistent. Every statement in mathematics is on the form "If A, then B". That the axioms we currently use are intuitive is just because we find that if we assume those axioms - then we can use mathematics to interpret and solve real world problems.

The axioms of Quantum Mechanics can be somewhat non-intuitive. Nevertheless, the results do coincide with observation - and thus it is natural to have these bas axioms. The predictions in QM are objective truths IF the axioms holds as universal truths in nature AND logic is coherent. I feel I need to make this clear distinction because I often see that people mix together this. I am not saying that you do - for I am not certain of that I am interpreting your statement correctly, but I'd like to make the point.

millie · Post by **millie** » February 6th, 2009, 11:06 am

the above made me think How do you make a assumption based on what? (assuming infers I don't know) (( You had two drops of water then created one ture?))

Am I right in saying an assumpatin is related to the back and white (good and bad)and grey concepts?

Morals/Morlity- How are they formed?(Informed = Phil uninformed = general)

Violence, stealing, rape, murder etc
(How does a philospher decide that these actions are immoral) But of course some people like being raped, or beaten up. - But not all. - Why?
Empathy = understaing = where does understaing come from = ------ = Just points

nameless · Post by **nameless** » February 6th, 2009, 3:17 pm

mz wrote:
mz wrote:
I believe

Then rational discourse would be fruitless.
Bah! What rational discourse? We all have to believe, or have faith in some sort of underlying reasoning behind it all.

I have found no evidence of any 'reasoning' (underlying or otherwise) other than that which one experiences (to whatever degree) in their own thoughts (a 'nail' universe appears to a 'hammer' mentality).

Are you attempting to state a universal truth? "We all"?!? What makes you think so? Because that is how your reality works? What a 'fundamentalist' remark! Irrational, to be expected from a 'believer'. But in such a case, there can be no rational discussion (the very 'ground' of this forum), just psychological processes; defend, attack, rant and run.

And no, I, for one, hold no 'beliefs'. You'll just have to trust me on that as I have already successfully answered all the common knee-jerk 'challenges'. But that is 'rational/logical' and cannot expect you to accept that. I have found that 'believers' have a very difficult time accepting that there can be other people who do not have beliefs (again, the viral nature of a 'belief'; in this case, a '(ego)self'-defence mechanism).

Because if there isn't, we can know absolutely nothing to be sure. Rational discourse is thrown too.

Exactly! It is only a fundamentalist that can "know" for certain. Science, logic, intellect, intuiytion, day to day experience shows someone capable of critical thought that there is, in evidence, NOTHING of which one can be 100% sure. Nothing. It takes a fantasy/belief to bridge the gap between 'reality' and the 'reality' that you need to 'believe' for whatever psychological/egoic reasons. Just communicating in this fashion (linearly) requires rational logic due to the context; empathic communication (communion) needs none.

Universal logic and reasoning implies truths.

There is no such thing in evidence. "Universal logic"?? Are you serious? "Universal reason"??
Your statement is completely fallacious and circular; if this and this (assumed and unevidenced or proven) then 'this'. Nonsensical thinking. Sorry.

We all have to "believe" in that, or accept that we can know absolutely nothing, and go live as hermits in the wild.

More nonsense. I do not "live as hermits in the wild", but there might be another who might. (Your feminine illogic is showing.)
Critical thought and 'beliefs' are diametrically opposed, the more of one, the less of the other (and vise versa).

(anyway, I understand it to be highly audacious to announce anything as Absolute fact, than the humility we all should face at the root of any argument we might propose with "I believe it to be this way" or "I understand it to be this way")

Good. But 'beliefs' dont work like that. A 'mature belief' is what an ego identifies with as 'Truth'. There is great ego support and power in 'Knowing THE Truth'! "Me! It's mine! I know The Truth!!" Ego ego ego...

nameless · Post by **nameless** » February 6th, 2009, 3:41 pm

Jarle10 wrote:
1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water.
Bye bye 'universal' truth.
Remember that this is not coherent with the mathematical operation addition. 1+1=2 is a direct consequence per definition (In fact: it can be used as a definition of addition) - independently of our interpretations or practical uses of it.

There you go, having to place all sorts of limitations on such a simple concept, making it more complex and to satisfy the 'human' need for 'stability and security'.
What next? Demanding that only 'base ten' counts? When you have to keep adding to a 'theory' to make it fly, it has already failed! (see; Occam's Razor)
The results of 1+1 depends completely on context/Perspective. Unfortunately, that truth 'attacks' the ego's fantasy of 'stability and security through consistency'.

Given that formal logic is coherent

Formal logic is of no more relevence than Rubic's cube. It is a tautology and only 'valid' within the game between those who choose to accept those weird and freakish rules. It is no more valid in the real universe than a game of chess to a goose.

- then mathematics will always give objective truths

No 'objective truth' (ess; egoic need for stability) can come from an artificial and synthetic and isolated from 'reality' game. Sorry, it is all 'egomotionally' based on 'need'...

according to what your base axioms are if and only if they are not inconsistent.

Axioms are probabilities, nothing more.
Every moment is different (a different universe) than another, all are unique.

Every statement in mathematics is on the form "If A, then B". That the axioms we currently use are intuitive is just because we find that if we assume those axioms - then we can use mathematics to interpret and solve real world problems.

Yes, there are those who accept the game and the 'rules' and 'enjoy' the results (bombs?) Again, only a vary local 'truth' and far from universal. We would still exist, although differently, were there no math, hypothetically, of course.

The axioms of Quantum Mechanics can be somewhat non-intuitive.

Hmmm, axioms of QM... Can you tell (or link) me one?

Nevertheless, the results do coincide with observation - and thus it is natural to have these bas axioms.

Always probabilities, and building on probabilities is a rather 'non-linear' thing requiring great flexibility rathure than rigid structure, wiggles rather than straight lines.

The predictions in QM are objective truths IF the axioms holds as universal truths in nature AND logic is coherent.

And if it holds throughout 'eternity', to ever be shown to be such. "Universal truths" are always hypotheses, unfounded on evidence.
'Nature' is too unstable to 'contain' a 'universal truth'. It must be a 'feature' of such 'Truth'.

I feel I need to make this clear distinction because I often see that people mix together this. I am not saying that you do - for I am not certain of that I am interpreting your statement correctly, but I'd like to make the point.

Understood. Now you know, perhaps a bit better, 'this' Perspective, Now!

Peace

mz · Post by mz » February 6th, 2009, 6:54 pm

"You'll have to trust me on that as I have already successfully answered all the common knee-jerk 'challenges'."

How audacious! I guess you understand everything at this point now. Tell me, O' Wise Philosopher, about the importance of humility. I have deeply pondered many questions in my life, and instead of "successfully answering" them, I discovered how far more complex they can be. I've grown very aware of my own ignorance. So to hear someone stating confidently that they've found the "answers" makes me chuckle.

But that is 'rational/logical' and cannot expect you to accept that.

What? You're 'rational/logical', and I am not? That means you at least believe in the power of Reason, and that is all I stated of myself. When it boils down to it we all have to have faith in Reason. But of course, everything I say is nonsensical, only lowling babbling to the ears of a truly wise man.

I have found that 'believers' have a very difficult time accepting that there can be other people who do not have beliefs (again, the viral nature of a 'belief'; in this case, a '(ego)self'-defence mechanism).

Of course, I am a "believer" because I think the universe is rational. Know that by objecting to this you are objecting to any argument you might of built in its defense.

(Your feminine illogic is showing.)

Oh thanks.

Good. But 'beliefs' dont work like that. A 'mature belief' is what an ego identifies with as 'Truth'. There is great ego support and power in 'Knowing THE Truth'! "Me! It's mine! I know The Truth!!" Ego ego ego...

How cute and ironic that you make that statement.

Honestly, I don't claim to understand anything! I know but one truth, and have but one faith. That I am consciously contemplating this. And that the universe can be rationalized.

And I might even change my mind on this one day!

You very well could be correct. But if you were, I would have to take your word for it. You offered just opinions and nonsense as your supporting evidences. Not to mention the displays of blatant arrogance and obvious hypocrisies.

I haven't been around long, but I've been here long enough to realize the importance of courtesy and humility.

Now let's be gentlemen, why don't we?

nameless · Post by **nameless** » February 7th, 2009, 2:49 am

mz wrote:....

Pardon me if I didn't bother reading past your first few words of ruffled ego sarcasm.
What IS audacious is that your ego appears to be threatened because when i said that i heard all the knee-jerk arguments to my 'belief' statement, you became insulted in my implication that you couldn't/wouldn't come up with anything original and were thusly, rather directly and perhaps a bit harsh in that honesty, dismissed. Thats my take, anyway.
If you should, perhaps, toss something original at me that, by some stroke of god, 'sticks', then I shall admit that my evaluation of the probabilities might have been in error regarding your contribution, and recant my statement in light of your overarching logic and wisdom. It would be like you attempting to (and somehow managing to) convince me that I have no itch when I know damn well that I do! Ypu can try. Your mere disagreement is "audacious" and arrogant and presumptuous.
But, unless you can perform this little trick, I realize, at this point, that further discussion would be fruitless, for reasons previously illustrated.
Perhaps when the ego heals a bit? Who knows..
Happy trails

mz · Post by mz » February 7th, 2009, 3:09 am

Honestly, why should I bother?

I'm done here.

Kool-aid · Post by **Kool-aid** » February 7th, 2009, 8:42 am

There you go, having to place all sorts of limitations on such a simple concept, making it more complex and to satisfy the 'human' need for 'stability and security'.

'All sorts of limitations'? 'Stability and security'?
One 'limitation' is of course that we must assume logic works. The other 'limitation' I suppose you refer to is the 'axioms'. These are not limitations, but necessary assumptions in order to gain analytic truths in a satisfying extent. The axiom set used most in mathematics is ZFC set theory. Check it up. Mathematical models does not necessarily model the behavior of nature exactly, but if we assume that the world's behaviour coincides with the mathematical model, then we can gain analytic truths of it. This is my point. Of course the world does not exactly coincide with our assumptions - but we do them as we get results that agrees with observation in a satisfying degree.

such a simple concept

Oh really, just because you learned to use it in school from you were five does not mean that it is a simple concept. Do you think tensor analysis is a simple concept? The point is not that it is easy to use, the point is that as an operation it must be defined in a way. And it's definition implies consequences, such as 1+1=2.

What next? Demanding that only 'base ten' counts?

Counts? What kind of suggestion is that?

When you have to keep adding to a 'theory' to make it fly, it has already failed! (see; Occam's Razor)

No, the ZFC set axioms are necessary assumptions we need to make in order to get satisying results. Cut off either one of them and you get a theory\axiomatic system which is drastically retarded to the extent of futility. It doesn't matter how many axioms you make - their goal is not to agree with the world - it is only a 'fortunate byproduct', although it is no lie that mathematics has widely succeded in solving real world problems.

The results of 1+1 depends completely on context/Perspective. Unfortunately, that truth 'attacks' the ego's fantasy of 'stability and security through consistency'.

Nope, this is completely wrong. The definition of the operation 'addition' makes 1+1=2 a direct result. Check the Peano axioms. If you decide that 1 drop of water +1 drop of water = 1 drop of water then water drops cannot be modeled with numbers in which the operation addition is consistent with the axiomatic system we currently use.

Formal logic is of no more relevence than Rubic's cube. It is a tautology and only 'valid' within the game between those who choose to accept those weird and freakish rules. It is no more valid in the real universe than a game of chess to a goose.

Of course, why do you think I suggested that? It is a necessary assumption to make, however, in order to make use of logic and it's apparant applicance to real world problems.

No 'objective truth' (ess; egoic need for stability) can come from an artificial and synthetic and isolated from 'reality' game. Sorry, it is all 'egomotionally' based on 'need'...

Perhaps I should have said 'analytic truths'? Of course they do not give analytic truths of nature, that would be absurd, but they give analytic truths in the axiomatic system according to the axioms. If we decide to model nature with mathematics (a very effective way of describing it), then we do not require that nature itself coincide exactly with our model, but to a satisfying degree such that we can benefit from it.

Axioms are probabilities, nothing more.

Probabilities? They are statements, and to the contrary of what you may think, we do not require that they are true in nature. We only need that they do not contradict themselves. Check up Russels paradox for a story where this has happened. We never suggest that they indeed do coincide with nature. That would be absurd as mathematics deal with purely abstract objects. We can of course form these abstract objects so that they are similar to natural objects to the extent that we can desribe them in a satisying way. (for example like treating the earth as a perfect sphere when calculating the gravitational force)

Yes, there are those who accept the game and the 'rules' and 'enjoy' the results (bombs?) Again, only a vary local 'truth' and far from universal. We would still exist, although differently, were there no math, hypothetically, of course.

Of course, and it seems that you insist that I suggest that mathematics indeed suggests truths of nature. It does not. It does not make assumptions of nature. Mathematics is all A then B, so if we assume our axioms in our mathematical system, then the theorems proved will be analytic truths according to our system - not nature.

Hmmm, axioms of QM... Can you tell (or link) me one?

Well, one of them is that 'particles can be described with a wavefunction'. This is an assumption one has to make in order to use wavefunctions to describe nature. One does not say that particles has the exact properties their wavefunction suggest.

Always probabilities, and building on probabilities is a rather 'non-linear' thing requiring great flexibility rathure than rigid structure, wiggles rather than straight lines.

Of course it's probabilities, but they do satisfy coincidement to nature in a satisfying degree so that we can make use of it.

And if it holds throughout 'eternity', to ever be shown to be such. "Universal truths" are always hypotheses, unfounded on evidence.

Of course! I never suggested otherwise. My point is that if we assume that QM models the world exactly, then we could know analytic truths of nature. It does evidently not, as QM use some mathematical shortcuts which gives minimal effect to the result. Look at it as degrading nature to a mathematical system. We do not assume that QM coincide exactly with nature, we assume that it coincide with nature in a satisfying degree. This is affirmed with our experiments which suggest that QM coincide with nature in a satisfying degree.

mz · Post by mz » February 7th, 2009, 12:37 pm

One 'limitation' is of course that we must assume logic works.

This is what I mean when I said everyone has to have faith to an extent that their universe can be reasoned with.

nameless is limited to the same "local truths" as everyone else is, so that's all he had to derive his argument about the nature of "universal truth". In this case, for an argument to attack logic itself is utterly absurd. Just a paradox.

"Underlying logic does not exist."
is like saying
"This statement is false."

"Local truths", I can agree with that, those are the only "truths" we are capable of unlocking, because anything else requires us to venture out of our perspective, and that's impossible.

But who's to say there aren't any universal truths? How can you actually prove such a statement either way?

If all truths are local truths, then we all are "believers" and if we aren't, then we have no base for our arguments.

I would suggest for "nameless" to have come to his conclusions, he would of had to of "believed" something for which to base the entirity of his arguments on. Something very basic that eludes one's general capacity to self-examination.

We all have to "believe" to a very basic extent, if we don't, then we are effectively devoid of opinion, and subsquently the ability to "argue" any position.

This belief in Reason is at the heart of every kind of logical argument, position, assumption. To believe any more than just that would be naive, to believe any less than that would be simply unproductive.

Like it or not, all arguments take assumptions.

Kool-aid · Post by **Kool-aid** » February 7th, 2009, 1:26 pm

But an assumption does not imply a belief. However, if we assume something to begin with - we can find consequences of the assumption - and if these consequences appears to be consistent with our world, then there is less a reason to reject the assumption. It does not in any way prove the assumption. You don't have to believe in the Big Bang theory to understand that it is now a necessary assumption of the creation of the universe in order to gain beneficial scientific results. We use what works - reject what doesn't.

I don't 'believe' that logic is true, but I find it a rational assumption to create order in my mind. I, and presumably everyone else, find it a very reasonable assertion to make in order to live our lives. One does not have to be convinced of it's validity, one does not even have to accept it in order to reap the beneficials of it.

mz · Post by mz » February 7th, 2009, 3:36 pm

Okay, well after thinking about it, I think a great deal of dispute was over actual definitions of words.

I looked "Assumption" up in the dictionary,

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true without proof
Make no assumptions before looking at the evidence.
"Cruelty will be slyly advocated by the assumption that its only opposite is sentimentality." (C. S. Lewis Reflections on the Psalms 1961)

2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without having any proof
3. act of undertaking something: the act of taking something upon yourself
With the assumption of power comes responsibility.

4. acceptance of responsibility for something: the act of taking over responsibility for something
5. inclination to high expectations: the tendency to expect too much
6. logic unproved starting point: something taken as a starting point of a logical proof rather than given as a premise

I was thinking of definitions 2 and 6
"Belief" in the dictionary was,

1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
belief in an afterlife

2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
belief in democracy

3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one
5. religious faith: faith in God or in a religion's gods

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

and I was considering definition 4

(these were the definitions that I had been considering, but I can see how they could be confused with the "religious, blind-faith" definition of Belief)

Anyway, I maintain that we all have to at the very least assume things are dictated by logic. The moment we discover something that doesn't seem to be logical, we will study until we realize that it too is dictated by a kind of logic, only playing by rules we had previously not observed.

If something doesn't make sense, it's only because we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I maintain that everything can be made sense of.