Absolute Fact / Universal Truth

[vanir]

*takes notes for anthropology paper*

 

given choice: have fun with topic, argue with each other...

Okay well evil people aside where they belong.

 

Correlation does not infer causation. Facts may be impervious but their context never is. So facts can be absolutely true. Can be

 

Any establishment of conclusion must necessarily follow strict scientific protocols however. Truth be told, many facts are in fact conclusions (sic).

[Web Rider]

There are some facts that are fact - ie true in all cases.

 

Water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fact.

 

Care to try and disprove that one?

 

_EW_

 

 

it's late, i'm tired, and that means I'm bored, so yes, I will.

 

Water is not made of oxygen and hydrogen. Water is is made up of many molecules containing two hydrogens and one oxygen. Additionally, there are multiple types of "water", such as "salt", "mineral", "rain", and "muddy", among others.

 

Additionally, "water" is just the english word for this mostly-clear generally consumable liquid. Yes, some people cannot consume water, they tend to die quickly, but not always. But anyway, you could say that all words for water mean the same thing, but some cultures have different words for choppy water or dirty water, does that make the truth of the water different?

 

It would be more correct to say: "water contains hydrogen and oxygen" as the statement is vague enough to apply to both it's chemical composition, and what may actually be held within the water, but not be part of the water's composition.

 

Some of the most simple things in the world we take for granted as not so grounded in fact as we like to think.

 

For example: You say water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, I say, everything is made of energy, what comes between your perceptions and the energy state are irrelevant, water is made of energy. Who is right? Is my truth different from yours because my understanding of the makeup of the universe is different?

[vanir]

omg I just saw obi wan get channelled

 

[True_Avery]

Water is not made of oxygen and hydrogen. Water is is made up of many molecules containing two hydrogens and one oxygen. Additionally, there are multiple types of "water", such as "salt", "mineral", "rain", and "muddy", among others.

Yes, but is it not fact that "water" contains two hydrogen and one oxygen?

 

I say water in the sense of pure, filtered, plain old water. Placing dirt, salt, etc is arguing semantics, as it is still water with additives unless that water has been fundamentally changed.

 

As far as I know, salt and dirty don't fundamentally rearrange the molecules that make up water. If they did, by definition, it would no longer be water. It would be a different substance entirely.

 

I'm just working off of the top of my head here, so feel free to correct me.

 

Additionally, "water" is just the english word for this mostly-clear generally consumable liquid. Yes, some people cannot consume water, they tend to die quickly, but not always. But anyway, you could say that all words for water mean the same thing, but some cultures have different words for choppy water or dirty water, does that make the truth of the water different?

And Eskimos have like, 50 words for snow.

 

While the snow may be different levels of frozen, cold, hard, soft, etc, it is still frozen water. The different densities tend to have more to do with the percentage of water density.

 

That does not change the fact that it is essentially frozen, and packed together water molecules that change density depending upon environmental factors.

 

Just like you example with water, just calling all these variations "snow" is incredibly general. But the word has more of a social meaning than the scientific meaning of Snow as a type of precipitation in the form of crystalline water ice, consisting of a multitude of snowflakes that fall from clouds.

 

Calling it something else does not fundamentally change the way it is created. Only the way we perceive it. And what we generally all perceive on a basic level would be "frozen water (translate to any language you want)" I'd assume.

 

It would be more correct to say: "water contains hydrogen and oxygen" as the statement is vague enough to apply to both it's chemical composition, and what may actually be held within the water, but not be part of the water's composition.

Depends on what you are calling "water"

 

If by water you mean the entire ocean, or a lake, then there would be more than hydrogen and oxygen. But, I believe Ender was speaking more for plain water. Again, it would not be technically water if something had fundamentally changed its molecular composition.

 

For example: You say water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, I say, everything is made of energy, what comes between your perceptions and the energy state are irrelevant, water is made of energy. Who is right? Is my truth different from yours because my understanding of the makeup of the universe is different?

I'd say it is "correct" from a different angle. It isn't so much a different understanding as it is you putting Ender's understanding under a stronger microscope.

 

While it is correct to say our arm is covered in skin to protect our body, it would also be correct to say that your arm is made up of slow moving energy that has formed a pinkish matter over more slowed energy that has formed muscle tissue and bone.

 

Its just a progression downwards. Like Snow.

 

Snow

 

|

V

 

Frozen Water

 

|

V

 

Ice particles made of compressed 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen molecule.

 

|

V

 

etc as far down as we can find

 

|

V

 

Energy

 

|

V

 

Anything lower.

 

While going down the branch to describe snow, they are all technically correct. None of them are incorrect if that is the answer you want.

 

I'd be correct in saying that its Ice particles made of compressed 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen molecule, and you'd be correct by just going to the answer all and saying everything is made of energy, for example.

 

But, again, choosing the answer and which to stick to is more for social interaction purposes. Scientifically, I'd presume they are all acceptable answers for the definition of snow.

 

Unless, of course, all of the above is the construct of humans incorrectly trying to assume we know anything. In which case, all of the above are neither correct nor incorrect.

[Yar-El]

Its kind of funny on how all this got started. Prior to this very discussion, I stumbled on this problem while in a mathematics class. I couldn't wrap my head around a science without reason. 1 + 1 = 2 was not the original problem. The original question was why do we move the decmal point two places to the left? I asked a simple question, and I was given the answer I don't know. This is not a mathematics logistics course. I fought with this question for years until I heard from several scholars facts we teach in schools and colleges are based on trust. They are not absolute; however, their merit is taken with blind faith. Don't take my word for it; thus, ask someone with superior knowledge the question. You will be surprised from their answer.

 

History books are written by the victor; thus, historical facts we learn are not based on absolute truth.

 

Philosophical thinking becomes science when tests finds some type of credible resolution; however, the results are trusted to be accurate. There is no absolute answer. We are learning this now from our study on gravity. NASA has taken Einstein's facts, and they are altering them due to new discoveries. Nothing in current mankind's sciences and religions are absolute. Its all taken on trust and faith.

[mimartin]

History books are written by the victor; thus, historical facts we learn are not based on absolute truth. [/Quote] JFK was killed in Dallas = fact.

 

Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman = Theory.

 

No, not everything written in history books are absolute truths, but there are facts in those books. It is just up to the reader to be able to differentiate the difference between fact, theory and opinion.

 

NASA has taken Einstein's facts THEORIES, and they are altering them due to new discoveries.

Fixed.

[True_Avery]

The original question was why do we move the decmal point two places to the left? I asked a simple question, and I was given the answer I don't know. This is not a mathematics logistics course.

A good question and an interesting answer to try and find.

 

But, considering how many thousands of years that Mathematics has been around, you might be hard pressed to find who first thought it up, in what way, and how it may have differed from today.

 

It is a very broad question to ask, as I'm sure you realize. It isn't like asking "Why did the German's support Hitler?" Its like asking...

 

"Who invented the brick" or "Why do we love domesticated dogs and cats?" or other such questions. You get where I'm going I hope.

 

The best answer I can give you is... Because it works?

 

A lot of these "Why do we do this" questions will lead you to many different answers and theories, but in the end a lot of it has just been lost due to the hard process known as time. Fallen out of History.

 

Your mathematics question is pretty spot on. Why do we move the decimal to the left? Why do we carry the number?

 

Again, the best answer I can give you is... it works.

 

Why do we use fire to cook our food? Why do we live in close knit groups? Why do we identify ourselves with names? Why do we rub cactus on wounds to numb pain?

 

Someone, along the long course of history found out that these things worked. Some things over time we've dis proven, changed, but in the long run we've simply improved and continue to improve upon our trial and error method that is the cornerstone of our intelligence.

 

The reason for moving the decimal to the left is, in its own way, self proven by the fact that it can give you a percentage. Self-evidence is a terrible argument, but like I said... we tend to do and pass on what works. Your reasoning is that when you run the numbers, you get the number you need to cut that wood, or count how much tax you owe, etc.

 

While its a fantastic question to contemplate, we may never know. History was much harder to record than it is now with computers, video, and photos. Before them, things were passed on by word of mouth to one another over generations.

 

That practice is still done today. Its about as impossible to escape as our own mortality. But, just because this happens does not make the word false. It just makes the original reasoning lost. But, isn't the fact that it is still passed on give it reason?

 

It would not be passed on if it was without any reason. It would be abandoned. The question you probably should be asking is:

 

"Why do we -still- move the decimal to the left"

 

To which the reply would be... well, you know the math.

 

I fought with this question for years until I heard from several scholars facts we teach in schools and colleges are based on trust. They are not absolute; however, their merit is taken with blind faith. Don't take my word for it; thus, ask someone with superior knowledge the question. You will be surprised from their answer.

Superior knowledge?

 

If there are no facts, then why ask anyone anything? What is "superior knowledge" even mean then?

 

Your argument is running circles around itself.

 

History books are written by the victor; thus, historical facts we learn are not based on absolute truth.

Point. But, as I stated above, you have to distinguish the line between scientific truth and opinion.

 

If I open up a History book in America, and then one in Europe, I'm sure I'll get 2 similar but subtly different renditions of World War 2. You can paint a pretty good picture with all of this, but you are correct in saying that subjective bias has gotten in the way of the complete story, which we will probably never absolutely know.

 

However, if I put every human on the planet in a room and then vacuumed it of Oxygen, 100% of the humans inside would die. Making the fact that current day humans need oxygen to survive an absolute.

 

Being that the OP states that facts can be absolutely true, the application of all fact and not simply that of subjective word of mouth must be applied.

 

Nothing in current mankind's sciences and religions are absolute

Nothing? Saying nothing is an absolute. By claiming that you've ran this through some type of hypothesis, you are in fact using human science. And the conclusion you've come to is: Nothing. Again, the argument eats itself.

 

If I put you into a vacuum, you will die. You are a human. Your mother is female. There is grass in my backyard right now. I am sitting on a chair. I typed this post.

 

While some of those are subjective to me, I can assure you they are all absolute facts.

 

Unless, of course, you'd like to call them subjective. Again, I go back to my point that you might as well argue that we live in the Matrix and nothing we see, do, feel, etc is real at all and just a figment of our imagination as we are used to power an army of robots, and at any moment we can simply decide "that is not fact" and then jump 500 feet in the air.

 

Its all taken on trust and faith.

By saying its all taken on trust and faith, you are attempting to state an absolute fact. Again, your argument eats itself.

 

Bush did 9/11 = Theory.

 

Planes hit the Twin Towers = Absolute Fact.

 

Philosophical thinking becomes science when tests finds some type of credible resolution; however, the results are trusted to be accurate. There is no absolute answer.

Ok, I'm confused.

 

Is this thread about some facts being absolutely true, or is this some existential thread that talks about some "ultimate, all encompassing" absolute truth about everything?

 

Because, if I recall, the op says this:

 

"Facts can be absolutely true."

 

Not

 

"What is the truth to all life, the universe, and everything?"

 

This thread is rapidly becoming existential, which has little to do with the topic of this thread.

[Achilles]

We are learning this now from our study on gravity. NASA has taken Einstein's facts, and they are altering them due to new discoveries.

Please enlighten me as to what you are talking about. I am well aware of several experiments and observations made by several agencies which have confirmed predictions made my Einsteins Theories, however your statement smacks of something fabricated by someone that misunderstood what they read.

 

I'm pretty sure that if a discovery refuted Einstein's work, it would be all over the papers.

[Ray Jones]

If Universal truths exist, we don't know any of them. Humanity cannot, period, be objective enough to construct a universally true concept.

I can.

 

When someone can tell me that the green they see is the green that the person next to them sees and prove it, then I'll be willing to concede that there are absolute facts.

When two, three, four, or who knows how many people see the same green light from one source, they do in fact receive electromagnetic radiation of the same colour/wavelength. What happens in their brains I a totally different story.

 

Everything is subjective, everything is different, and everyone sees differently from you.

Seeing and perceiving. Two pair of spaghetti.

 

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

Their is no meaning in this.

 

 

The original question was why do we move the decmal point two places to the left? I asked a simple question, and I was given the answer I don't know. This is not a mathematics logistics course.

"This is not a mathematics logistics course." Hm. Perhaps some learning of mathematics concerning logistics would give you a certain understanding why we move the decimal point around, then.

 

 

 

Apropos water. I'd like to point out that it is made out of the same stuff as anything else, stones, wood, our brains, the air, iron, helium, silver, uranium -- that would be electrons, neutrons, protons, I mean if I remember that correctly. And those are made of the same stuff again, quarks and so on and so on. It really isn't that hard to see where this is going.

[Web Rider]

I say water in the sense of pure, filtered, plain old water. Placing dirt, salt, etc is arguing semantics, as it is still water with additives unless that water has been fundamentally changed.

Scientifically, the "water" in question hasn't changed, it now shares it's space with other molecules of things.

 

As far as I know, salt and dirty don't fundamentally rearrange the molecules that make up water. If they did, by definition, it would no longer be water. It would be a different substance entirely.

Before there was "hard science" there was society, and we learned by trial and error much the same way. Mud is really dirty water. So dirty, that there is often more dirt than water. We apply these modifiers to words for social reasons, which can be just as much important to the truth as anything.

 

For example, what are characteristic factors of water? Well, it's made of two hydrogen and one oxygen. Okay, it's also transparent. It's also drinkable for most of the human population. It has reflective and refractive properties. It can be a gas, a liquid, and a solid.

 

When we add modifiers to "water" we can rule out some of these qualities. If the water is now "dirty" then it will probably lose it's transparency, and it's drinkability. Now, if you can't drink it and you can't see into it, you might not be as inclined to call it "water". There is another non-drinkable, semi-tranparent liquid out there, and that's gasoline. But gasoline has other features, such as smell. If you have dirty, smelly water, and a pool of gasoline, at casual glance, you might be more inclined to think of the gasoline as the drinkable one(until you tried).

 

So social definitions are important to truth. Imagine another race has massive oceans of Mercury, a liquid similar to dirty water. For them, it is drinkable, for us, it is not, yet their word for their semi-transparent, reflective and refractive drinkable liquid, translates to our "water". Yet, we do not describe the same scientific things, but we do describe the same social things.

 

Just like you example with water, just calling all these variations "snow" is incredibly general. But the word has more of a social meaning than the scientific meaning of Snow as a type of precipitation in the form of crystalline water ice, consisting of a multitude of snowflakes that fall from clouds.

 

Calling it something else does not fundamentally change the way it is created. Only the way we perceive it. And what we generally all perceive on a basic level would be "frozen water (translate to any language you want)" I'd assume.

No, it doesn't. But it can. If I call water "air" and in reverse, call air "water", then it stands to reason, I am a fish. I breathe water and die in too much air, even though like a human, I require some air to survive. Social meanings are just as important as scientific ones. Can they cause more confusion? Sure, because social truths are more flexible. Water on this planet will always maintain the same chemical combination until something changes it.

 

But, again, choosing the answer and which to stick to is more for social interaction purposes. Scientifically, I'd presume they are all acceptable answers for the definition of snow.

Sure, science will mostly say it's made out of certain elements in certain combinations. But socially, if you define water as something radically different, then even if you are still talking about a semi-transparent, reflective and refractive, drinkable liquid, that can be a solid, liquid, and gas, then science will back you up when you say that it's not the same as dihydrogenmonoxide.

[Ray Jones]

If I call water "air" and in reverse, call air "water", then it stands to reason, I am a fish. I breathe water and die in too much air, even though like a human, I require some air to survive. Social meanings are just as important as scientific ones. Can they cause more confusion? Sure, because social truths are more flexible. Water on this planet will always maintain the same chemical combination until something changes it.

Hmm. Read too much Kafka, recently?

 

 

 

Also, "social meanings" are not facts.

[Web Rider]

Also, "social meanings" are not facts.

 

Then you agree that in my hypothetical, humans won't die from drinking alien water which is actually mercury? I'd think that is a pretty good sign that social facts are important, and that "water" is only a random word assigned to a localized phenomenon.

[Ray Jones]

The fact that alien "water" is mercury doesn't change that it's just that, mercury. I would also not be surprised to die from drinking "alien water" instead of water. But why go the alien route, anyway? If you drink pure water here from earth, made of oxygen and hydrogen, you can die as well because it might burst your cells.

 

The point is, whatever you call it will not turn it into something else, or another, different fact. It is fact that you call mercury "alien water", and it is fact that what we call "water" is usually just a solution, a mixture from water and stuff.

[Darth InSidious]

When Adam delved and Eve span, What then was two? From the beginning all men by nature were created one, and our two-ness or division came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any two-men from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be two, and who one. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ( if ye will ) cast off the yoke of duality, and recover unity.

[True_Avery]

Before there was "hard science" there was society, and we learned by trial and error much the same way. Mud is really dirty water. So dirty, that there is often more dirt than water. We apply these modifiers to words for social reasons, which can be just as much important to the truth as anything.

On this context, I'd be inclined to agree.

 

So social definitions are important to truth. Imagine another race has massive oceans of Mercury, a liquid similar to dirty water. For them, it is drinkable, for us, it is not, yet their word for their semi-transparent, reflective and refractive drinkable liquid, translates to our "water". Yet, we do not describe the same scientific things, but we do describe the same social things.

Hm, very good point.

 

Then you agree that in my hypothetical, humans won't die from drinking alien water which is actually mercury? I'd think that is a pretty good sign that social facts are important, and that "water" is only a random word assigned to a localized phenomenon.

Agreed.

 

But, within the context of the thread, would you say its absolutely true that a substance containing two parts hydrogen and one party oxygen exists on planet earth?

 

While the words we give this substance can radically effect the way we interact with it, it does not change its chemical composition. I cannot simply look at my computer, call it a Ferrari, then drive away.

 

For sake of argument, I'll stick to human American English for now. While the aliens may treat their sea of mercury like water, it does not change the fact that its chemical composition is that of mercury, mixed with things like various dirts and such. While our word of "water" will overlap with their word of water, drinking it, as you stated, would kill us.

 

Thus, as has been stated, the subjective factor within his does play a large roll in social truths. However, is it still not absolute truth to say that humans need "oxygen" to live, even though oxygen is interchangeable with water, to a fish, in language?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

When Adam delved and Eve span, What then was two? From the beginning all men by nature were created one, and our two-ness or division came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any two-men from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be two, and who one. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ( if ye will ) cast off the yoke of duality, and recover unity.

well i believe this settles this issue

[Achilles]

^^^^

 

I was just gonna say that.

[Adavardes]

There are inviduals who hear voices and see people that don't really exist. Yet to them, they are as real as you or me. Some people, when on certain illegal substances, hallucinate, and see things that aren't really there. Whenever you dream, you are put into a world that does not really exist, yet when you're there, you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that what is happening to you is really happening.

 

You see that as a fact. In the dream, that is.

 

Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.

 

What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.

 

And what if they don't see it at all, and are really just constructs of an insane mind trying to create the perfect mental world? I know it sounds all like science fiction, but it is a possibility. Can you disprove that it's possible, with your sciences, and your math, which, by the way, were created by humans with human brains, who saw what they, as individuals, saw, and nothing more. It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.

 

You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.

 

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

There are inviduals who hear voices and see people that don't really exist. Yet to them, they are as real as you or me. Some people, when on certain illegal substances, hallucinate, and see things that aren't really there. Whenever you dream, you are put into a world that does not really exist, yet when you're there, you believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that what is happening to you is really happening.

 

You see that as a fact. In the dream, that is.

 

Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.

 

What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.

 

And what if they don't see it at all, and are really just constructs of an insane mind trying to create the perfect mental world? I know it sounds all like science fiction, but it is a possibility. Can you disprove that it's possible, with your sciences, and your math, which, by the way, were created by humans with human brains, who saw what they, as individuals, saw, and nothing more. It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.

 

You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.

 

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.

hallucinations can't be confirmed by others or measured in the same way as light, radiation, sound, or whatever else can be.

[Achilles]

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.

The premise here seems to be that because we can create we are incapable of observing. Could you please help me understand why any of us should accept this? Is there a particular reason why you consider the two to be mutually exclusive?

[Adavardes]

hallucinations can't be confirmed by others or measured in the same way as light, radiation, sound, or whatever else can be.

 

Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.

 

The premise here seems to be that because we can create we are incapable of observing. Could you please help me understand why any of us should accept this? Is there a particular reason why you consider the two to be mutually exclusive?

 

Can you explain why you should accept anything as real? My proof is that we have imaginations, we lie, we create fictional works of literature or abstract images of visual art that have no basis in "fact". If we are capable of constructing such vastly unreal things, who's to say we should take anything for granted as "real"? Maybe we're just a race of sentient beings that are letting our imaginations run wild. Our brains, that inexplicably have the ability to feel emotion, to create the abstract, the diverse, the unique, even when those things are tethered to boundaries of logic for others to understand, could very well be bending or constructing a world around us filled with both real and unreal things. So, without a way to recognise which is which, because we aren't omnipotent beings, how are we supposed to know what is fact, and what is fiction?

 

This is all hypothetical, mate. None of it is neccesarily true. I can't tell you what's true, because I simply do not know. My imagination might be creating this, just like yours might be creating this. If we are to assume that everything is real, and that what we see, regardless of how we see it, is the same object, solid, and real, then we can safely assume that there are absolute truths. And that humanity knows some. Prove to me that everything you see is real. I've proven to you why everything isn't real, necessarily.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.

geiger counters and solar panels dont take kindly to suggestions

[Adavardes]

geiger counters and solar panels dont take kindly to suggestions

 

And who were those made by? Pretty sure it was humanity, and, based on the fact that humanity can be so easily swayed to see certain things makes me doubt whether or not they built them to have that kind of objectivity. I fail to see how subjective hands can create objective things. Our logic is very much intertwined with our imaginations, so anything we create may have our logic without or imaginations, but the taint of what may be unreal could still be present.

 

If, of course, geiger counters or solar panels exist at all.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

420 smoke weed everyday

yeh bro

[True_Avery]

An absolute truth can exist. I concede that. I'm sure it can. But for humanity, we can't see them, because we can create. We have imaginations, and we can create what is not real in our minds eye. Due to that, and that alone, the dilution of any absolute facts is lost to what we could have created.

Please, stop with the existential, off-topic comments.

 

The thread is not "What is the truth to all life, the universe, and everything?"

 

The thread is "Facts can be absolutely true."

 

This is not "does god exist" "what is the point of life" "what is the ultimate answer"

 

The OP simply states that a single fact. Single. Just one. Can be absolutely true.

 

You are bringing in massive, all encompassing questions which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Why?

 

Because, if I deprive you of oxygen for a week you will -die-. Eventually you will die. My mother is female. etc etc etc

 

 

 

Human beings are wired by a brain, an organic device that is different to each person, and sees, invariably, whatever it wants to see. That's not to say that it doesn't see what other brains see, but that also means that it could be true that every brain sees something differently. To most, if not all, "sensible" people, water exists. But what if two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen isn't what they see when they look at it. What if, to them, two is one, or one is three? They don't necessarily see the quantities you see, but they do see something, and to that effect, it is similar, so they can label it what you label it.

It doesn't matter what you want to see.

 

Just because someone does not percieve gravity does not mean that, to them, it does not exist. They are still being held onto the ground.

 

No-one can just say "gravity is all in my mind" and then just fly away like superman. This is not the matrix.

 

Have you ever heard of the concept of mass suggestion? Of the idea that, if one person says that something is real, or that something looks like a certain thing, then others bend their perceptions to fit his definition. Now, apply that same theory, that same concept, to society. You are taught to see that some things are facts, but how do you actually KNOW they are absolute? Because someone told you so? Because people like you, who were told the same thing, confirm it? And what if they're being subjected to a massive state of mental suggestion, where labels act as a sort of conformation to what things are. That doesn't mean that it's a universal truth, just that one individual said it was, and the perspectives of others followed suit. And, as a human, what he says is absolute isn't absolute.

Ok. Here is a test.

 

Seeing as you can bend time and space around you, do this:

 

Put a plastic bag over your head, tie it around your neck, convince yourself you do not need Oxygen, and just breath as much as you can.

 

If you don't die, then I will worship you. If you do, then you prove the absolute fact that humans require oxygen in what they breath around them for them to survive and not suffocate.

 

Your brain needs Oxygen. I am not trying to convince you of this. I am not using the power of suggestion on you.

 

I am telling you, straight up, that no matter how much anyone wants to have faith and believe, they will still need oxygen to of some sort to live. That you cannot will yourself out of society's standards and fly away. You cannot will yourself to become a character from dragonball z.

 

You can hallucinate that you are, but it is a world that is entirely subjective to your own mind.

 

However, if I clap my hands and other recognize that I have done so, then it is absolute fact that I have clapped my hands.

 

Maybe you can in a drug hallucination, but that hallucination is entirely subjective. Are bugs actually crawling out of their skin? No, because you can put that person in front of a crowd of people and they would all say "no, there are no bugs crawling out of his skin and eating his flesh".

 

What if you are actually a mental patient suffering from severe schitzophrenia, and none of what you're doing is actually happening? What if you're dreaming, the most vivid, elongated dream you've ever had, and you're on the brink of waking up? These are all possibilities, truths that could exist, that would supply us with absolutes, but here's the problem. As humans, with human brains, the only way we can say something is an absolute fact is if we assume that what we really see, what we're really doing, is real, and also, is exactly what someone else sees, regardless of whether or not they see something that they label the same thing as what you see. Labels do not mean that they see the same thing as you. Just that they consistently the same thing, even if what you see and what they see is different.

So, we live in the matrix?

 

Nothing is real?

 

Absolutely nothing exists, not even you?

 

Really? Absolutely nothing in infinity has, or will ever exist for infinity?

 

I hate philosophy.

 

It is pure arrogance to say that just because something is right before you, and considered, unquestioningly by most individuals, that it is fact, does not make it a fact.

Double Standard.

 

It is pure arrogance to say that you are absolutely correct in the same sentence as saying "nothing is absolute".

 

You're the one seeing this as black and white fact, not us. Don't be so arrogant and high-horse when it is your argument that lacks any form of rational reasoning.

 

You want to say that my logic eats itself, but my logic is derived from your logic, and I have come to the logical conclusion that humanity cannot see all sides of the board and absolutely know they they are seeing all sides of the board, because they are all subjective. And, sorry, but you need an absolutely objective viewpoint to see and know an absolute truth. Otherwise, you're saying that I can see all the colours of the rainbow with eyes that can only see blue and red.

Color is a horrible comparison.

 

You don't need color to live.

 

You do, however, need water and oxygen. There are no "oxygen" blind humans walking around.

 

You exist. Absolute Fact, even if you are a computer program.

I exist. Absolute Fact, but thats harder to prove as you are not seeing me right now.

We both need oxygen to live. Absolute fact.

You posted a message on Lucas Forums. Absolute fact.