What is truth?

[Nocturoe Nara]

(I decided I do not need to be here for long to start posting topics as good as a discussion I believe this one will be.)

What is truth?


There is only one truth and everyone has their own way of looking at that truth, just like a stone, one person from one angle would say it is smooth as the other would disagree from their view of the rock which is rough.

Of course all of us are looking at the stone and interpreting it, we may get close, but never to a full knowledge.

Also, some may say there is no stone, or it is yellow or red, even though it is grey.

Relativism on many subjects is true, like when it comes to how much a person should eat a day; 'that is relative to peoples bodies'

But all out relativism (universalism is the extreme of it) believes everyone can be right.... Well that does not work, if whether or not a ball was round was relative we would get nowhere.

And this brings the cosmic war between Truths and Lies.

~"(Cosmic War)"~
Truth=Evidence
Vs.
Lie=Illusion


We need one truth that everyone builds from, or our world, built on illusions, speculation and false assumptions will utterly fall to ruin.

What do you believe is truth?

(Also do you agree, or disagree?)

 

[Dizzy - atari]

The truth is not so much about relativity as it is about personal and universal perception.

The theory of perception would state that the stone from your example only exists because it is perceived and that as it is no longer perceived then it will no longer exist. By this theory even if i were to look at the rock, turn away and then look back the rock i am looking at the second time would no longer be the same rock as the first time.

The issue then arises that if this theory is true what is it the perceives use. is it our own self perception that allows our mutual existence, or is there a high all seeing being that perceives all. in the case of the later what would perceive the all seeing being?

Another example of this theory works like this. if you were to go back to when galileo first looked through his telescope you would actually be able to witness the creation of a whole nother level of depth to our universe.

An interesting think to think about while examining this theory is the idea of existence, as we know it or ever could possibly know it, last moment of life. after all of the stars have burnt out and the last living organism dies and all of creation has been swallowed by darkness. in other words when there is no longer anything to perceive existence. Would existence start a new? ever so slightly changed as was the rock the second time i looked at it? And if so how many times have we gone through this cycle? how many more times could we go through it?

(interestingly enough these are my ever day thoughts...)

As to everyone being right or wrong it would have to come down to a majority thing. not because we live in that type of society but because that is the only way to determine right from wrong. What is the norm and what is not, anything that is the norm would be considered right and the opposite apply to the odd things. So if 49% of people said the rock was round were 51% of people said it was egg shaped the rock has become egg shaped. As the rock is no longer being perceived by just a single person but by a people and so it is the perception of the people as a whole not as the individual that determines the shape and colour of the rock.

I also agree with you. you have the right to post any kind of thread you want and if you want to keep them this epic then power to you.  

[Obscurus]

Truth is complicated.

Going by what you've said though, if Truth requires evidence then is it true before that evidence has been discovered? Is it true whether we can prove it true or not?

If Truth is built upon evidence then there must be no Truth before their is evidence to support it, right? Evidence (in the scientific method) is tested multiple times and the outcome that happens the most is considered to be the true outcome. Majority rules. Does that mean that the shape of reality is determined by how it's perceived by the majority?

If you take the position that everything originates in the mind then perhaps majority does rule in a deep-seated form of cosmic democracy. Is that the Truth then? Majority? What establishes the majority? The Truth?

This is why I abandoned philosophy.  

[Nocturoe Nara]

I just was thinking about it and wanted to see other people's thoughts on the subject, because it is very difficult and though it may seem simple it is very controversial and complicated.


Especially on right or wrong, I try to answer everything independently of everything else, just logic, but it can only get you so far when our world is so odd.

I am best with questions and general answers, specifics I leave to others, I agree, it is pretty epic, though I am not the first to ask it. (In the Bible Ponctus Pilate asked Jesus 'What is truth?' because he said he came to be the truth for us, I personally believe it is God, but I keep that personal because that brings too many subjects and I'd rather argue them individually than all in one topic.)

Of course, philosophy is only to ask a good question, though they may answer it is generally not as good as their question.

I may find more topics, but I like to read most of them, but post here and there to show I am active. razz  

[Adice_Adice]

Nocturoe Nara

I just was thinking about it and wanted to see other people's thoughts on the subject, because it is very difficult and though it may seem simple it is very controversial and complicated.


Especially on right or wrong, I try to answer everything independently of everything else, just logic, but it can only get you so far when our world is so odd.

I am best with questions and general answers, specifics I leave to others, I agree, it is pretty epic, though I am not the first to ask it. (In the Bible Ponctus Pilate asked Jesus 'What is truth?' because he said he came to be the truth for us, I personally believe it is God, but I keep that personal because that brings too many subjects and I'd rather argue them individually than all in one topic.)

Of course, philosophy is only to ask a good question, though they may answer it is generally not as good as their question.

I may find more topics, but I like to read most of them, but post here and there to show I am active. razz

The issue with looking at things from a logical point of view is that humanity idea of logic I.E the logic that has been instilling into the very fabric of our culture and being. is completely bias. Who originally decided what would and wouldn't be logical?

If your looking for an un bias truth then your out of luck however. As Dizzy and Obscurus said the truth is decided by a majority vote. And so true logic is also decided that way.

the truth i would like to know is the galactic one. If you were to poll the entirety of existence on a question of is the rock round or egg shaped? what would there answer be? We can only say what is true untill it is proven to be untrue. this is the truth in all things. Fire is hot. One would say that this is true how ever there lies a possibility that one could create cold fire. if such a thing were created the statement fire is hot would no longer be true.  

[Obscurus]

Adice_Adice

Nocturoe Nara

I just was thinking about it and wanted to see other people's thoughts on the subject, because it is very difficult and though it may seem simple it is very controversial and complicated.


Especially on right or wrong, I try to answer everything independently of everything else, just logic, but it can only get you so far when our world is so odd.

I am best with questions and general answers, specifics I leave to others, I agree, it is pretty epic, though I am not the first to ask it. (In the Bible Ponctus Pilate asked Jesus 'What is truth?' because he said he came to be the truth for us, I personally believe it is God, but I keep that personal because that brings too many subjects and I'd rather argue them individually than all in one topic.)

Of course, philosophy is only to ask a good question, though they may answer it is generally not as good as their question.

I may find more topics, but I like to read most of them, but post here and there to show I am active. razz

The issue with looking at things from a logical point of view is that humanity idea of logic I.E the logic that has been instilling into the very fabric of our culture and being. is completely bias. Who originally decided what would and wouldn't be logical?

If your looking for an un bias truth then your out of luck however. As Dizzy and Obscurus said the truth is decided by a majority vote. And so true logic is also decided that way.

the truth i would like to know is the galactic one. If you were to poll the entirety of existence on a question of is the rock round or egg shaped? what would there answer be? We can only say what is true untill it is proven to be untrue. this is the truth in all things. Fire is hot. One would say that this is true how ever there lies a possibility that one could create cold fire. if such a thing were created the statement fire is hot would no longer be true.

And to build on what you're saying, the statement that fire is hot depends on the perspective you're coming from. To the Sun, a campfire would be rather cold. Hot and cold, or any duality for that matter, is dependent on where you start from. It's subjective.  

[Nocturoe Nara]

Obscurus

Adice_Adice

Nocturoe Nara

I just was thinking about it and wanted to see other people's thoughts on the subject, because it is very difficult and though it may seem simple it is very controversial and complicated.


Especially on right or wrong, I try to answer everything independently of everything else, just logic, but it can only get you so far when our world is so odd.

I am best with questions and general answers, specifics I leave to others, I agree, it is pretty epic, though I am not the first to ask it. (In the Bible Ponctus Pilate asked Jesus 'What is truth?' because he said he came to be the truth for us, I personally believe it is God, but I keep that personal because that brings too many subjects and I'd rather argue them individually than all in one topic.)

Of course, philosophy is only to ask a good question, though they may answer it is generally not as good as their question.

I may find more topics, but I like to read most of them, but post here and there to show I am active. razz

The issue with looking at things from a logical point of view is that humanity idea of logic I.E the logic that has been instilling into the very fabric of our culture and being. is completely bias. Who originally decided what would and wouldn't be logical?

If your looking for an un bias truth then your out of luck however. As Dizzy and Obscurus said the truth is decided by a majority vote. And so true logic is also decided that way.

the truth i would like to know is the galactic one. If you were to poll the entirety of existence on a question of is the rock round or egg shaped? what would there answer be? We can only say what is true untill it is proven to be untrue. this is the truth in all things. Fire is hot. One would say that this is true how ever there lies a possibility that one could create cold fire. if such a thing were created the statement fire is hot would no longer be true.

And to build on what you're saying, the statement that fire is hot depends on the perspective you're coming from. To the Sun, a campfire would be rather cold. Hot and cold, or any duality for that matter, is dependent on where you start from. It's subjective.

Well as much as we try to kick bias out that is a bias in itself, so I say let bias in and then rationalize and compete, but I do agree it's interesting to just get the the base of everything and realize it is nearly impossible to prove something when it comes to that.

It is very subjective, but of course both can be quite hot to our sense though one is much worse in opinion of that matter.  

[Rustig]

Regarding "A majority of people thinking that Statement A is true means that Statement A is true".

I have two rooms, both with five people in them. People in Room One believe Statement A is true. People in Room Two believe Statement B is false. Is Statement A true or false? (For bonus points: what constitutes a majority? More people in one room than another? All the people on earth? All the people on all inhabited planets in the universe?)

The question can't be answered from that data alone. You could argue that it is both "true" and "false", and cite Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment to show how this could be the case. However, that would be a horrific misinterpretation of what that thought experiment was designed to show -- it does not demonstrate that something can be in two mutually exclusive states at once (and note that it must be states that are actually, literally mutually exclusive - not states that in common parlance we /say/ are mutually exclusive but can and do occur at the same time).

Further, since when did a majority constitute if something was true or false? If this was the case, it would be impossible for /anyone/ to have discovered that the earth orbits the sun, because the majority of people will have believed/perceived that the Sun orbits the earth - unless you wish to attest that it was not the majority of people who believed that the Earth orbited the sun, just educated Westerners: this rebuttal relies on a majority of people on earth having believed that the earth orbited the sun. Thus, the only thing that a majority vote determines is the determination of that majority - 51% of a population believing a stone is round only proves that 51% of a population believes a stone is round, not that a stone is round. Otherwise, "Ask the Audience" in "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" would be a woefully overpowered option.

Moving on...

My belief here is that, as an identifier (such as names, labels, symbols and so on) rely on there being a seperation between "The Thing Being Identified" and "Everything Else", it's impossible to create a system that can perfectly model "The One Truth" to us - every system we create, from Orthodox Christianity to Phlogiston Theory to the Scientific Method to Aunt Miranda's Belief in Reptiles Running the Planet will always and by necessity exclude some elements, and therefore will not be capital-T "Truth". It may contain statements that are "true", but they will only be "true" within the context of the system. (To use an example from Patrick Dunn's Postmodern Magic: Is it true or false that the letter 'c' represents the sound 'ts'? It is:

• false: In English, this letter never represents the sound 'ts' in any context.
  
• true: In Polish, this letter always represents the sound 'ts' except when followed by 'z'.

So which is it? Both can be true, depending on the context you're using. Note also this being a case of non-mutual exclusivity.)

We can model more of The One Truth's truths (if there is one/are any) in some systems than we can in others (e.g. the scientific method over your aunt's whacky religion), but no one system can model all of them, and modelling more of them does not necessarily make that system better than all the others.  

[Adice_Adice]

Mitsh I have always admired your mind. I feel that we would be able to have some very interesting conversations. such talks would only be equalled by the likes of Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen or Elaine Simpson and Aleister Crowley.

In response to your post I have this to say.

First off if room one things A is true and room two thinks B is false and only these two options exist then they both agree that A is true.

And for my bonus points it would by the condenses of all sentient life through out the universe. and by this i prove your earth orbit point moot. If we were to state that yes every thing is based of of a majority vote then it would stand to reason that some where in our infinite universe that some other life form(s) has discovered the laws of physics long before man kind ever looked up at the sky. Now yes this idea has a lot of issues with it but for the sake of argument we can just ignore them.

The thing about the truth is that it is only the truth for as long as it takes to disprove it. this of coarse is different if we are talking about the past tense. If in a crowed of people i were to punch so random person then the truth would be that i punch some one. if i did a bunch of jumping jacks then that would be the truth.

I also believe that this theory must be applied to similar things. for example.
if sally swings a baseball bat at billy's head with every intent of cracking it open like a watermelon then we would all believed that if she were to connect the head would go splat. now then im fairly sure that if we were to recreate that scenario but this time have 51% of every thing in the universe believe that sally's bat will turn into a harmless paper fan or magically pass through billy's head that it wouldn't happen.  

[Nocturoe Nara]

I completely agree, majority votes are only important on ethical issues such as what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. Positive morality has been pushed and works very well, just as long as they all unite in a community of their own, not forcing their principles on others.

It's why people in one country like America, as diverse as it is, needs states so people may live in a community which has laws for their beliefs and live with those who share that same belief. Of course since the civil war there is almost no difference between federal and state government which then causes all the problems we see today in discrimination, bias, abuse of the minority.

Before civil war, one state could be as socialistic as soviet Russia, and another state could be as capitalistic as America, (or Hong Kong which has the least restricting laws on trade which is why it is the home for trade and technology.)

But the only truth we may depict with positive morality as Mitsh said so well;
"51% of a population believing a stone is round only proves that 51% of a population believes a stone is round, not that a stone is round."

Of course it only works well with positive morality and in their own state/community.


When it comes to determining facts, facts such as; "water freezes under 32 degrees Fahrenheit."

Is only determined scientifically, which is a series of experiments happen in repetition so we can accept if we do it anywhere under 32 degrees we can freeze water.

But when it comes to proving some things with science is nearly impossible because science can only prove materialistic things.

But that's my input.  

[Adice_Adice]

Nocturoe Nara

I completely agree, majority votes are only important on ethical issues such as what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. Positive morality has been pushed and works very well, just as long as they all unite in a community of their own, not forcing their principles on others.

It's why people in one country like America, as diverse as it is, needs states so people may live in a community which has laws for their beliefs and live with those who share that same belief. Of course since the civil war there is almost no difference between federal and state government which then causes all the problems we see today in discrimination, bias, abuse of the minority.

Before civil war, one state could be as socialistic as soviet Russia, and another state could be as capitalistic as America, (or Hong Kong which has the least restricting laws on trade which is why it is the home for trade and technology.)

But the only truth we may depict with positive morality as Mitsh said so well;
"51% of a population believing a stone is round only proves that 51% of a population believes a stone is round, not that a stone is round."

Of course it only works well with positive morality and in their own state/community.


When it comes to determining facts, facts such as; "water freezes under 32 degrees Fahrenheit."

Is only determined scientifically, which is a series of experiments happen in repetition so we can accept if we do it anywhere under 32 degrees we can freeze water.

But when it comes to proving some things with science is nearly impossible because science can only prove materialistic things.

But that's my input.

majority vote doesn't only apply to morality based issues. it also is applied to any form of perception.
if i were to show you a colour swatch that was blue you would say its blue. if i showed it to ever person on earth im sure that over 51% of people would say that it is indeed blue. However some people are colour blind or have other issues with there sight. In this case some people would say that the colour is something other then blue. However since the majority of people see the colour as blue it is labelled as such.
the same can be said to any form of perception or sensory input. 2% of people in this world have the ability to smell cyanide how ever it is labelled as a scentless poison. Why? because only 2% of people can smell it and 98% of people can't.

So what is it does cyanide have a sent or not? obviously to some people it does but to most it doesn't.  

[Obscurus]

Adice_Adice

Nocturoe Nara

I completely agree, majority votes are only important on ethical issues such as what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. Positive morality has been pushed and works very well, just as long as they all unite in a community of their own, not forcing their principles on others.

It's why people in one country like America, as diverse as it is, needs states so people may live in a community which has laws for their beliefs and live with those who share that same belief. Of course since the civil war there is almost no difference between federal and state government which then causes all the problems we see today in discrimination, bias, abuse of the minority.

Before civil war, one state could be as socialistic as soviet Russia, and another state could be as capitalistic as America, (or Hong Kong which has the least restricting laws on trade which is why it is the home for trade and technology.)

But the only truth we may depict with positive morality as Mitsh said so well;
"51% of a population believing a stone is round only proves that 51% of a population believes a stone is round, not that a stone is round."

Of course it only works well with positive morality and in their own state/community.


When it comes to determining facts, facts such as; "water freezes under 32 degrees Fahrenheit."

Is only determined scientifically, which is a series of experiments happen in repetition so we can accept if we do it anywhere under 32 degrees we can freeze water.

But when it comes to proving some things with science is nearly impossible because science can only prove materialistic things.

But that's my input.

majority vote doesn't only apply to morality based issues. it also is applied to any form of perception.
if i were to show you a colour swatch that was blue you would say its blue. if i showed it to ever person on earth im sure that over 51% of people would say that it is indeed blue. However some people are colour blind or have other issues with there sight. In this case some people would say that the colour is something other then blue. However since the majority of people see the colour as blue it is labelled as such.
the same can be said to any form of perception or sensory input. 2% of people in this world have the ability to smell cyanide how ever it is labelled as a scentless poison. Why? because only 2% of people can smell it and 98% of people can't.

So what is it does cyanide have a sent or not? obviously to some people it does but to most it doesn't.

Since we understand the wavelength of light that most people perceive as "blue," wouldn't it be safe to say that it's going to be "blue" regardless of what we call it or how many people agree?

I'm not sure if smell is as well understood as sight, but I'm sure there's some chemical process by which some people can smell cyanide that people that can't smell it can understand and thus accept the olfactory perception of cyanide as fact.

The problem we run into with "majority rules reality" situations is that the majority may agree to call something one thing, or to ignore some fact, but does that make calling something another name wrong, or that ignored fact any less true?  

[Ask Jappleack]

What i think is truth can either be what is true for everyone or can be true for everyone, or individually so i think there r two truths but when i say truth i mean the first one usually. Like if a person lies and everyone believes the lie then some owuld argue its the truth, when in fact it isnt, the truth is its a lie lol and thats the truth i typically mean, like can fish swim? can you see? can we tell if this rocks alive? the answers to those shouldnt vairy so the answers to those r the truth, truth is solid, if people say, well its true cuz god said so or w/e then its like not solid, people shouldnt bring that up when talking of truth its not solid, and peopel have different veiws of it and such, its such a hassle no mater what anyone thinks on soemhtign like that you cannot disprove it or prove it its a waste of time.  

[Chieftain Twilight]

Truth? Truth is an Illusion. there is no Sense, no Logic, to Reality. it's not even appropriate for me to use the Word Reality. there is no Reality.

all things, all concepts, all anti-concepts.... they are nothing more than a Matrix so that we might have Experiences. Existence is a lie.

even the God of the Abrahamic Faiths is only a portion of the Origin. I refer to Allah/Jehova/YHWH as the Creator, and this Being has a Counterpart. individually, one is the Lord of all Matter and Concepts, and the other is the Master of all Anti-Matter and Anti-Concepts. together, the Origin (that which cannot even begin to be described).

there is no Truth. don't waste yourself on it. we pretend there is one, so that we can function. that's all.  

[Lovely Lolita Love]

To all and Cheiftain Twilight particularly, I'd like to go back to the color example... (It's a bit long, but please read` there's a point! sweatdrop )

Actually, the color of something is just a reflection of what it ISN'T. For instance, say we see a pink flower. Why do we call it pink? Well, we see the pink, so we assume "Haha! It looks pink inside and out, so it is pink!"

However, it only appears pink to us because that's the only color it is NOT. In other words, the flower absorbs all the colors of the light spectrum save for pink, so it reflects that, in turn only appearing pink.

With this example in mind, yes science can prove many great things, but in the same thought it cannot account for everything. Does that mean that what we cannot see isn't there? No.

With that, truth is a universal being that transcends all of existence. It can't be twisted or destroyed, killed or overlooked. Though at times it may be hidden, Truth within itself remains above and beyond all.