What is truth?

[Chieftain Twilight]

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.

but you see, that fact about the Colour is exactly my basis for my belief that their is no Truth.

it goes back to the Origin. all things and nothings stem from the same undefinable Origin. to give this Origin any definition or trait is only to deny it.

that is what our entire reality is; a Dualization, which affords us a medium by which to Exist and Experience. but this Reality is an Illusion, and the "real Reality" is that there is nothing to compare to everything else; it's all just Undefined.  

[Lovely Lolita Love]

But Chieftain Twilight- the color example further proves that there IS a truth, despite misgivings or fluff to shift through.

By exposing that the flower is indeed everything BUT pink, we came to the Truth.

Our world isn't some cold, barren dimension created by nothingness.
This universe- this world- this entire existence is filled with creatures and experiences (some known; most unknown.)

Suppose one did in fact come from an undefinable origin- The Orgin, as you said- then we would all be a part of a sort of Oversoul, as it were. That provides an even greater source of evidence that Truth transcends all. To be from the heart of the source itself, perhaps we are Truth.  

[Chieftain Twilight]

only if you count the Origin as Truth itself, but then we hit a Paradox, because the Origin cannot be defined. not even to call it undefinable, which means that all attempts (like my own) to explain it are moot. there is no Truth.  

[Lovely Lolita Love]

I wasn't surmising that the Origin was Truth itself; I was contemplating that, should we indeed be a part of the Origin (then in effect being a part of the source of all life), we could be considered truths by the mere fact that we are from the source.

If all things are from the Origin, they are to be truth in that they come from the cause of creation itself. If you were to suggest that there was no Truth- wouldn't that be the same aas surmising that Existence or the Universe is a fallacy?  

[Chieftain Twilight]

that's exactly what I am saying. o.o after all, we are merely an Illusion ripped out of the Origin.

that is to say, we are the Origin, minus everything that isn't us.  

[Rustig]

Eccentric Kei

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

Can Fish Swim?
Yes: Haddock in the sea swim.
No: Dead fish cannot swim. Starfish do not swim. (Bonus points: Do fish inside fictional books swim?)
Mu: This question can be true in different contexts.

Can You See?
Yes: I can see the computer screen.
No: I am blind. I cannot see certain things, such as ultraviolet, or you.
Mu: This question can be true in different contexts.

Can We Tell If This Rock Is Alive?
Yes: We have the technology to test if it has vital signs.
No: We do not yet have the technology to test all the ways in which an organism can be considered "alive".
Mu: This question can be true in different contexts.

These things don't appear to be as solid as you say they are: perhaps they're only solid in certain contexts?

Lovely Lolita Love

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.

I actually really loved this idea, simply because it hits home that when we settle on a "Truth", it turns out it's not technically true within the context. We'd have to be very, very precise in order to word exactly what the "truth" regarding the colours of objects is - perhaps so precise that we may not have the time or vocabulary for it to actually be a useful definition for us.  

[Lovely Lolita Love]

Squee! Mitsh quoted me 4laugh heart xd

As to Chieftain Twilight, I'm afraid that I must beg to differ sweatdrop
While I can agree that Life (or, what stems from the Origin,) is a continuous aspect that transcends all, I feel that that within itself qualifies it as Truth.

Mere existence is Truth- are we there or here? Yes, and going on the premise that being of the Origin, we are entensions of Truth. So, one could conclude that there IS in fact (in one way or another,) Truth.  

[PrometheanSet]

Does 1+1=2? Define 1 and 2. Must they be exclusively 1.0000...? or can they be something that rounds to one?

If we take 1 and two to be integers, 1+1=2 without a doubt. However, if we round at awkward times, .55 + .55 = 1 + 1 = ... 1.1 = 1
Or 1.4 + 1.4 = 1 + 1 = 3

Hence, there is a joke among computer geeks that "2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2".

Outside of philosophy and logic, plainly observable axiomatic facts, and the use of logic to derive new things from these, there is no objective truth. And even this is much is questionable, because our perception of facts as a group may be twisted.


Then we must discuss subjective truth: I love my girlfriend. I know this to be certain. She loves me, (I can tell by her actions). I know this to be true, but you don't, because you're not around to see it, being somewhere else in the world.

But now, being made aware of this assertion, you have the opportunity to accept this as subjective truth, or reject it as either complete hogwash or something unknowable.

Mitsh

Can Fish Swim?
Yes: Haddock in the sea swim.
No: Dead fish cannot swim. Starfish do not swim. (Bonus points: Do fish inside fictional books swim?)
Mu: This question can be true in different contexts.

Since (living) fish inside of fictional books usually reside in and move through fictional water, they swim (in this fictional universe of the book). In the physical realm where we live, fictional fish are simply conceptions which have no bearing to literal water, nor any other medium in which they can literally swim.

But then again, that also depends upon your definition of the words "swim" and "fish".

Also, I've heard of this non-answer "mu" before, but the guy who explained it was really schizophrenic - his info was jumbled and suspect as a result. Where does it come from, and can you explain the concept?  

[Obscurus]

I think the Mu that Mitsh is referring to may be this one, but I hope to be corrected if I'm putting words in his mouth/on his fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)  

[PrometheanSet]

Obscurus

I think the Mu that Mitsh is referring to may be this one, but I hope to be corrected if I'm putting words in his mouth/on his fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

Yeah, that's kinda what I had been informed of, without the references to any culture but that Zen school.

What still bothers me about it is the koan where it is used as a definitively negatory indication, unless the translator is misrepresenting it. Is it true? xp  

[Obscurus]

PrometheanSet

Obscurus

I think the Mu that Mitsh is referring to may be this one, but I hope to be corrected if I'm putting words in his mouth/on his fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

Yeah, that's kinda what I had been informed of, without the references to any culture but that Zen school.

What still bothers me about it is the koan where it is used as a definitively negatory indication, unless the translator is misrepresenting it. Is it true? xp

I've noticed that the various schools of Buddhism like to take words and give them more technical meanings suited specifically to Buddhism. This is really obvious in the Pali canon, and I suspect that Zen is just as fond of this as the older traditions.  

[Chieftain Twilight]

Lovely Lolita Love

Squee! Mitsh quoted me 4laugh heart xd

As to Chieftain Twilight, I'm afraid that I must beg to differ sweatdrop
While I can agree that Life (or, what stems from the Origin,) is a continuous aspect that transcends all, I feel that that within itself qualifies it as Truth.

Mere existence is Truth- are we there or here? Yes, and going on the premise that being of the Origin, we are entensions of Truth. So, one could conclude that there IS in fact (in one way or another,) Truth.

:shudders.: just somehow, that very belief is uncomfortable to me. xd however, I do find it enjoyable and satisfying that we can agree completely on the symptom and it's trail, but have completely opposite conclusions.  

[Adice_Adice]

Chieftain Twilight

effectively what your saying is that reality its self is a fabrication of the origin. If this is in fact the case and everything that we perceive is nothing more then a dream. and that this dream is nothing more then a lie. then it stands to reason that the dreamer its self I.E the origin is nothing more then a lie as well. if the origin is nothing more then a lie but is also the truth but can not be defined as anything the it its self can not exist.

If the origin that you refer to can not and so does not exist then it can not dream. If its not there to dream then we can not exist. Since we exist then we can assume that the origin that you speak of does not exist. since its very existence would be the absence of its existence.

truth can be nothing more then perception. defined by the majority of the people and things that perceive. Our perception is defined by the input that we receive with regards to the perceived object. if an alien race were to give use some new technology that would show use that the rock that we have so long perceived as round is actually oval then we would have no choice to state that the rock is now oval. How ever the rock hasn't change but our perception of said rock has.

Much like how we perceive right from wrong changes so does the perceived truth.

a few hundred years ago making love to a child was wildly accepted how ever times have changed and this is now perceived as something that is wrong. like wise if i were to give you a string and told you to pull it taunt and then asked you to tell me if it was straight you would likely say yes. However if i were to take the string and show it to you under a microscope then you would be able to see the zig zag pattern to the string. and even though nothing about the act or the item have change our perception of them has.

And so to conclude(this is for all the tl.dr people) the only truth is change.  

[Chieftain Twilight]

Adice_Adice

Chieftain Twilight

effectively what your saying is that reality its self is a fabrication of the origin. If this is in fact the case and everything that we perceive is nothing more then a dream. and that this dream is nothing more then a lie. then it stands to reason that the dreamer its self I.E the origin is nothing more then a lie as well. if the origin is nothing more then a lie but is also the truth but can not be defined as anything the it its self can not exist.

If the origin that you refer to can not and so does not exist then it can not dream. If its not there to dream then we can not exist. Since we exist then we can assume that the origin that you speak of does not exist. since its very existence would be the absence of its existence.

truth can be nothing more then perception. defined by the majority of the people and things that perceive. Our perception is defined by the input that we receive with regards to the perceived object. if an alien race were to give use some new technology that would show use that the rock that we have so long perceived as round is actually oval then we would have no choice to state that the rock is now oval. How ever the rock hasn't change but our perception of said rock has.

Much like how we perceive right from wrong changes so does the perceived truth.

a few hundred years ago making love to a child was wildly accepted how ever times have changed and this is now perceived as something that is wrong. like wise if i were to give you a string and told you to pull it taunt and then asked you to tell me if it was straight you would likely say yes. However if i were to take the string and show it to you under a microscope then you would be able to see the zig zag pattern to the string. and even though nothing about the act or the item have change our perception of them has.

And so to conclude(this is for all the tl.dr people) the only truth is change.

the problem here though, is that you are trying to use logic in a realm where there is no logic. once we get to the Origin, we are talking about something impossible to conceive. there is no logic to apply there. it is not Dreaming, the Origin is my interpretation of the Chaosphere, which I liken to the Pre-Genesis, or to the beginning of the mythology of an MMO called Lineage 2. here is the page for it. the following is the relevant excerpt, to help you get an idea of what I am trying to explain.

Quote:

Long ago, in a time before thought, there was only a globe in which all creation was mixed. As there was nothing with which to compare it, the globe was big and small, dark and bright, everything and nothing.

we are not a Dream of the Origin. we ARE the Origin, minus everything that is not us. we are dilutions/purifications, in a sense. though, given that even then there is still so much that makes up what we are, I suppose that isn't a very accurate explanation either...

point is, Pre-Genesis does not follow our rules, or our Physics.

look, I'm no Scientist. I may love to learn about Science, I may have a particular fascination with BioChemistry, and have Physicists for Heroes.... but I'm a Philosopher, not a Scientist. the answer I'm giving is not a Scientific one, and I honestly think Science fails to Define Truth.  

[Adice_Adice]

Ok so what your saying is that the origin that your talking about is creation its self. the very fabric of being. It is every thing and because it is every thing it also occupies the area of nothing.

The issue with that is that if this origin is every thing from the keyboard im typing on to the air i am breathing to my very body its self and every thing else including non existence its self then it has to be subject to our rules of physics and reality. or at least some of the time.

If it is us even some of the time then it can be subject to our rules of being.
we can also assume that this origin or creation its self is subject to the one universal truth ... change. If it wasn't that it would have stayed in its original form and not been forced into creating us... in other words the big bang never would have happened.

The only issue i have with the origin theory is that if it is every thing and every thing that is not then its a completely and utterly moot. if i were to draw a line dead through the middle of all of existence i can honestly tell you that there would be 50% positive and 50% negative. This means that even if the origin existed it would be constantly cancelling its self out. thus it would have nothing to do with us. Even if you believe that the universe is infinite there would always be a 50/50 to it and so your origin can not and does not exist. simply do to the fact that if it did exists it would force its self into non existence.