Absolute truth

leo

After millennia of philosophy it seems we have only arrived at one absolute truth:

Something exists.

We know the usual arguments that lead to this conclusion, for instance even if there was a demon that would make us believe we exist while we don’t, if it makes us believe then that means we exist, or at the very least that the demon exists, so something necessarily exists.

Are we doomed to never advance any further than that? No because there is a second absolute truth we can arrive at, it is much harder to see, but many people in history have had a glimpse of it. It takes enormous effort to see it, but once we see it the problem is then to find a way to show it to others so that they can see it too, as it is not easy to arrive at. But recently I’ve had a breakthrough and now I believe I should be able to show it to you with your help. By this I mean that I am going to advance an argument supporting this second absolute truth, that argument probably won’t be foolproof at first, but with your objections we will find a way to patch the holes and make it foolproof, thus proving a second absolute truth.

Recently you may have seen me tinkering with the ideas of good and evil, existence and non-existence, unity and separation, love and hate, happiness and suffering. At some point I thought that everything could be explained if we saw everything as the struggle between Good and Evil, but then I thought that it could also be possible that everything that happens occurs in the mind of a single consciousness, that the whole reality is a game played out in the mind of a fundamental consciousness, a game with rules in which one side fights to spread love/happiness/unity/understanding while one side fights to spread hate/suffering/separation/ignorance.

However I came to realize that if all of existence was played out inside a single mind, how could a mind imagine feelings that it has never experienced before? How could a mind imagine happiness and suffering out of nothing? In order for there to be things that can be distinguished, the fundamental mind itself cannot be made of a single thing, it needs to have at least a duality within it. Or if it is made of a single thing that has the ability to create different things, then when it creates other things there is more than one thing that exists.

Now consider the universe that we see. We come up with theories to explain how it behaves. In fundamental physics there are forces that attract and other forces that repel. It is a necessity that there be both attractive and repulsive forces, a unified theory of physics will not be able to describe the universe in terms of only one attractive force or one repulsive force. Because if there were only an attractive force, everything would quickly collapse into nothingness, our body would collapse onto itself along with all matter. And if there were only a repulsive force, there would be no body, no planet, the fundamental particles would all be separated from one another, and that’s not the universe we have (and if there are several particles then more than one thing exists anyway). So a unified theory of physics will necessarily have at least a fundamental duality at its core. Not complete unity, but a duality.

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now, there is at least a fundamental duality, there are at least two things that exist. I know I haven’t formalized the argument yet but this is to show you the way. I would love to hear your objections so that we can address them and conclude that this is the second absolute truth, that at least two things exist. I know what these two things are but I haven’t found a way yet to show them to you, but for now simply proving that at least two things exist, that there is a fundamental duality, will already be a big step forward.

ovdtogt

one absolute truth:

Something exists. — leo

Absolute truth does not exist. If you are looking for absolute truth I would suggest you join a religion. There are plenty of them.

leo

Absolute truth does not exist. — ovdtogt

So “something exists” is not an absolute truth? What is it then? Show me your reasoning where you conclude that it’s possible that nothing exists. What are you doing on this forum if it doesn’t exist or if you don’t even exist, or if you’re not even a brain in a vat? Even if you’re a solipsist don’t you see something?

When I say absolute truth I don’t mean it will always remain an absolute truth (it’s possible that at some point in the future nothing exists anymore), but for now it is and it can’t be any other way.

Also when you say “absolute truth does not exist”, is that an absolute truth? If not what is it? Your personal truth? And that personal truth exists or not? Is it an illusion? If it’s an illusion what is creating the illusion? Something, right? :brow:

Pantagruel

Absolute truth does not exist — ovdtogt

Let's see. The "truth" of anything resides in a statement or at least a cognition "about" something, right? So for there to be truth of any kind, there must bare minimum be something about which the truth is true. That would be a Kantian Transcendental Argument.

Now, what is the difference between "truth" and "absolute truth"? Well, nothing really. I think that the sense in which @leo is using the term "absolute" is, most basic or fundamental, or general. A truth that is applicable to the most broad set of referents. If A is true, and B is true, and C is true, then there must be some common aspect of A and B and C such that you can say (A,B,C) which is the intersection the A,B, and C, is true. Quarks exist. Mathematics exists. Thought exists. So there must be something common to them all, maybe "Reality" of which it is "universally true" to say "Reality exists". Kind of a tautology. Or is it a synthetic a priori? Either way, I'd go along with this general line of reasoning.

ovdtogt

After millennia of philosophy it seems we have only arrived at one absolute truth:

Something exists. — leo

Okay I grant you that: To have this discussion, something has to exist. That is an absolute truth. Not that this truth is in any way enlightening and does not require any philosophical insight, just everyday 'common sense'.

Furthermore we can state: Everything is either an hallucination, as in the Matrix or there is indeed a tangible reality outside of our consciousness. And I don't think we will ever solve that little conundrum.

Pacem

After millennia of philosophy, it seems you've been in a crab basket that you can't go outside of it.
Let it go.

Athena

Those believe they can know absolute truth and absolutely dangerous people.

"Okay I grant you that: To have this discussion, something has to exist. That is an absolute truth. Not that this truth is in any way enlightening and does not require any philosophical insight, just everyday 'common sense'."

So Descartes is sitting in the bar and the bartender asks him if he wants another drink. Descartes says, "I think not." and disappears.

BC

↪leo

The matter has already been brought up, but I'll do it again: "truth" is unitary and doesn't need an adjectival intensifier like 'absolute'. What is true is true. 2 + 2 = 4 is true, period. "Something exists" is true.

After millennia of philosophy it seems we have only arrived at one absolute truth:

Something exists — leo

I haven't followed your writing here, so the following may be a misapprehension: your view of philosophy may be hermetic: thinking that is closed off from the flow of validating (or invalidating) experience, and cut off from the range of thought. People think about this world where "a lot of stuff exists" using various techniques -- science, literature, art, philosophy, labor, religion, and so on. If there are truths to be discovered, a wideness in our methods will yield better results.

leo

↪ovdtogt

The point of this thread is to show that we can prove something more than “something exists”, namely that “at least two things exist”. It might seem insignificant but this is a very important observation. There is currently a fundamental duality at the heart of existence, it cannot all be reduced to one single thing.

You were believing that there is no absolute truth, now you agree there is one, and I’m saying we can prove a second one. It is a step towards understanding existence, it is a useful stepping stone. Eventually we will find more.

leo

↪Bitter Crank

2 + 2 = 4 isn’t always true, if you mix 2 ml of liquid A with 2 ml of liquid B, the volume of the resulting liquid is not always 4 ml. You can build mathematical frameworks in which 2 + 2 is not equal to 4. So the truth of that statement is limited, whereas “something exists” is true regardless.

“I see the color red” may be true or not. Even if it is true to me, you cannot know for sure whether I’m lying or not, you cannot know for sure what I am experiencing, you can only guess. However if you are a being who has experiences, “something exists” is necessarily true for you as well, and even if you are only in my mind “something exists” is still true.

There are plenty of personal truths that contradict one another, I would call personal truth a belief. Absolute truth goes beyond that, it is true regardless of what we assume. Whatever you assume about the world, about existence, you can be certain that something exists, and further than that you can be certain that at least two things exist. Whereas if you assume that other people only exist when you see them, then it isn’t true to you that other people exist even when you don’t see them. However regardless of what you assume, you can be certain that at least two things exist. That’s important.

Regarding your other remarks, my thinking isn’t removed from experiences, sure I see plenty of stuff, however as we have seen from physics what we interpret as different things can be explained as being fundamentally made of the same thing, for instance all objects we see can be described as being made of a few fundamental particles, there are many less fundamental particles than there are objects or even colors that can be distinguished. There is the idea that we could go even further than that and see all these different particles as being deep down the same thing (a vibrating string). Some people have the idea that deep down there is only one single thing, say a single God, or a single consciousness, or a single particle, or a single force. However what I am explaining here is that necessarily, there has to be at least two things at the root of our existence.

People keep disagreeing about pretty much everything and yet somehow you guys don’t find it important to find things we can agree on. Earlier someone disagreed that it is true that “something exists”, now he agrees. Now maybe some people will disagree that “at least two things exist”, but I’m saying that we can all come to agree on that because whatever we assume leads to this conclusion. Even if you assume that “only one thing exists” you are led to a contradiction and so you conclude that “at least two things must exist”. This is more important than you guys seem to realize.

ovdtogt

There is currently a fundamental duality at the heart of existence, it cannot all be reduced to one single thing. — leo

Again I agree with you there. I too am a believer in the duality of things. To have matter, anti-matter must also exist. For something to arise from nothing, anti-something also has to come into existence.

People keep disagreeing about pretty much everything and yet somehow you guys don’t find it important to find things we can agree on. — leo

BC

2 + 2 = 4 isn’t always true — leo

True. If 2 half-assed philosophers meet 2 other half-assed philosophers for lunch, their discussions might not add up to anything. 2 + 2 in that case may equal less than zero. I'm not suggesting that you are one of the 4.

People keep disagreeing about pretty much everything and yet somehow you guys don’t find it important to find things we can agree on. — leo

A forum such as this one brings out the urge to distinguish differences, even if they are minute. In the decade that I've participated in this and the previous incarnation of Philosophy Forum, people have agreed on a good many things. But we are all here to express ourselves, and "I agree with you." just isn't as much of an opening as "Let me explain the facts of life to you."

In any case, carry on with enthusiasm.

BC

However what I am explaining here is that necessarily, there has to be at least two things at the root of our existence. — leo

I believe in the existence of many things. The many are made up of a few particles combined in particular ways. Without the plethora of things made from a dearth of different particles, we would not exist. Is this a truth? Seems like it to me, but you don't have to accept it.

leo

True. If 2 half-assed philosophers meet 2 other half-assed philosophers for lunch, their discussions might not add up to anything. 2 + 2 in that case may equal less than zero. — Bitter Crank

Why the snarky remarks? What is it exactly you don’t like about what I am saying? There is something that bothers you and instead of addressing it directly you’re beating around the bush.

I gave you an example where 2+2=4 doesn’t always hold (adding liquids). In mathematics you can create a group in which 2+2=4 doesn’t hold, see https://www.quora.com/Is-2-plus-2-always-4

2+2=4 isn’t always true depending on what you assume, however “something exists” and “at least two things exist” are true regardless of what we assume, that’s important. That’s not half-assed philosophy.

A forum such as this one brings out the urge to distinguish differences, even if they are minute. In the decade that I've participated in this and the previous incarnation of Philosophy Forum, people have agreed on a good many things. But we are all here to express ourselves, and "I agree with you." just isn't as much of an opening as "Let me explain the facts of life to you." — Bitter Crank

Great, yes some people agree on some things, yet through philosophy we see that we can almost always find a way to doubt some statement, to prove that it may not be true.

Now what I’m saying, and which you don’t seem to want to admit, is that “something exists” and “at least two things exist” are facts of life that are true now regardless of what we assume, we can’t doubt these statements without arriving at a contradiction. These statements have universal validity now, they may not hold in the future but now they do.

I believe in the existence of many things. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and many people do, however someone can come and tell you “maybe the whole of reality happens in the imagination of a single consciousness, or maybe only you exists, or maybe eventually a theory of everything will prove that only one thing exists”, however as I explained it is possible to prove that at least two things exist, even if we assume solipsism or that there is only one consciousness or whatever.

The many are made up of a few particles combined in particular ways. Without the plethora of things made from a dearth of different particles, we would not exist. — Bitter Crank

If we assume that the material world is part of consciousness rather than the other way around then we don’t have to see ourselves as being made of particles. If we assume that materialism is correct, then there are many things, but we don’t know that materialism is true (personally I do not believe in it), however regardless of our philosophical assumptions, materialism idealism solipsism or whatever, “at least two things exist” is true now.

BC

↪leo

Sorry about the snarky comment. As I said, it wasn't about you, personally.

I might be willing to take "something exists" or "at least two things exist" as a starting point. Moving on, we have come to understand that many things exist. So I am not willing to entertain that idea as an account of reality.

Yes, and many people do, however someone can come and tell you “maybe the whole of reality happens in the imagination of a single consciousness, or maybe only you exists, or maybe eventually a theory of everything will prove that only one thing exists”, however as I explained it is possible to prove that at least two things exist, even if we assume solipsism or that there is only one consciousness or whatever. — leo

Quite a few 'someones' over the last decade have come forward to announce that solipsism or a single consciousness accounts for everything. These claims are then dismantled by various other 'someones'.

I suppose one could claim that the universe, and the fullness thereof, resides in the single consciousness of God. If so, God seems to have thought a very complex reality made up of many parts. The problem with this theory is that we do not have the means to parse the consciousness of God, if God exists in the first place. Still, the universe as the dream of God has a certain aesthetic appeal and weightiness.

leo

Sorry about the snarky comment. As I said, it wasn't about you, personally.

I might be willing to take "something exists" or "at least two things exist" as a starting point. Moving on, we have come to understand that many things exist. So I am not willing to entertain that idea as an account of reality. — Bitter Crank

Okay thank you.

By the way to say that “at least two things exist” is not to say that “only two things exist”, and so is not to say that “many things exist” is false. A lot of existence can be understood as a duality, but it doesn’t imply that the duality is all there is. For instance there can be many beings on each side of the duality.

I suppose one could claim that the universe, and the fullness thereof, resides in the single consciousness of God. If so, God seems to have thought a very complex reality made up of many parts. The problem with this theory is that we do not have the means to parse the consciousness of God, if God exists in the first place. Still, the universe as the dream of God has a certain aesthetic appeal and weightiness. — Bitter Crank

Indeed that’s one possibility, and one I ascribed to for a little while, however one wonders why would this single consciousness dream or imagine so much suffering if it could imagine anything. In another thread I hypothesized that it would dream suffering because it is eternally alone and suffers from this loneliness which it tries to forget, however loneliness doesn’t necessarily imply suffering, loving oneself makes one feel not alone. So if all there was is this single consciousness, we are left wondering whence suffering?

And even if we say that only this single consciousness exists, as soon as it dreams something there are at least two things that exist, the consciousness and what it dreams. And even if we identify that consciousness with what it dreams, as long as we can distinguish things within this dream then at least two things exist. Whatever assumption we start from always leads to the conclusion that at least two things exist. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has reached this result but I never heard it before.

Descartes gave the Cogito ergo sum (“I think therefore I exist”), which was criticized because his reasoning only proves that “something exists” (or “thinking exists”), however we can go further than that and say that “at least two things exist”. That’s something we can use as a secure foundation for knowledge, rather than the mere “something exists”.

And when we consider that there is a fundamental duality at the heart of this existence we can come to explain a lot of things that otherwise don’t seem to make sense. But of course we don’t have to assume a fundamental duality (we could assume a trinity or a multiplicity), and even if we assume a duality this doesn’t imply that only two things exist (we can see many things existing on each side of the duality).

However it is interesting to notice the duality between attraction and repulsion, unity and division, connection and separation, understanding and indifference, love and hate, we can explain so much by seeing existence as a struggle between two forces, one which acts to unite/attract/connect and one which acts to divide/repel/separate. Especially when we notice that unity/attraction/connection is associated with positive feelings (love, beauty, happiness) whereas division/repulsion/separation is associated with negative feelings (hate, ugliness, suffering).

I believe that in this way we can come to a unified picture of existence, where emotions are not a mere byproduct of motion but are as fundamental, where emotion and motion are two facets of a more fundamental thing. I believe that only in this way we will come to a unified understanding of existence, and not by seeing emotion as a byproduct of motion, as stemming from laws of physics or motions of particles or brain states, as is customarily believed in the materialist picture which appears to lead into an impasse.

Metaphysician Undercover

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now, there is at least a fundamental duality, there are at least two things that exist. — leo

I think this second truth negates your first truth as contradictory to it. If there is a multiplicity of things existing then they exist in relations to each other, and these relations are changing, as the passing of time, and relativity theory, demonstrates to us. An existing "thing" therefore cannot be composed of parts, because the thing would be changing, always becoming something other than it is. The thing composed of parts does not "exist" because it is always something other than it is as time passes. So we must consider the particular "things" which make up the multiplicity, the elements which exist in relation to one another. Since they are all particulars, they cannot all be the same thing. Therefore we cannot refer to these as "something" which exists, they are things which exist, and we no longer have the first truth "something exists"..

ovdtogt

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now, there is at least a fundamental duality, there are at least two things that exist. — leo

↪Metaphysician Undercover

For something to emerge from nothingness, it and it's exact opposite have to emerge simultaneously. This is the duality of things.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪ovdtogt

I don't think anything ever comes from nothing. Isn't that a fundamental truth?

ovdtogt

I don't think anything ever comes from nothing. Isn't that a fundamental truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you know anything about Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum? Google it.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪ovdtogt

If there are quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, then very clearly that vacuum is not "nothing".

ovdtogt

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Yes with your Metaphysician' mind you must know far more than the brightest scientists working on that problem as we speak.
What is that 'nothing' then? Give us your hypothesis.

Metaphysician Undercover

What is that 'nothing' then? Give us your hypothesis. — ovdtogt

As I said, it doesn't make sense to speak of that as nothing. And, it isn't bright scientists who speak of it as nothing, they speak in terms of fields, it's only you who wants to call this "nothing".

ovdtogt

speak in terms of fields — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes empty fields. Zero-point field. You know what zero is right?

Metaphysician Undercover

↪ovdtogt

Whatever number the field is assigned, as a value for energy, is irrelevant to the fact that the field which is assigned that value, must be something.

To assign to a thing zero energy, and then argue that because it has no energy it is nothing, is self-contradicting, because it is already premised that there is the thing which has no energy, as the premise of the thing which is assigned zero energy.

ovdtogt

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Nothing has zero energy. So are we talking about nothing?

leo

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the comment, at last someone is trying to challenge what I said without attacking me.

I think this second truth negates your first truth as contradictory to it.
[...]
we must consider the particular "things" which make up the multiplicity, the elements which exist in relation to one another. Since they are all particulars, they cannot all be the same thing. Therefore we cannot refer to these as "something" which exists, they are things which exist, and we no longer have the first truth "something exists" — Metaphysician Undercover

Note that when I say that “something exists” I’m not saying that “only one thing exists” but that “at least one thing exists”. So “at least two things exist” does not negate “at least one thing exists”, it is simply more precise, they are both true as long as we prove that at least two things exist.

Some thoughts on the rest of what you said:

If there is a multiplicity of things existing then they exist in relations to each other, and these relations are changing, as the passing of time, and relativity theory, demonstrates to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

There could be several things existing completely in isolation from one another, in which case there would be no relation between them. However I would agree that we couldn’t know of these things if they were completely isolated away, so regarding this existence I agree to think of existing things as being related in some way.

I wouldn’t appeal to the theory of relativity in the argument since it is based on several unproven assumptions, and here we are trying to find what we can be certain of regardless of what we assume. We can’t appeal to scientific theories which are based on induction which is unproven itself, so we’re left considering existence in the now.

An existing "thing" therefore cannot be composed of parts, because the thing would be changing, always becoming something other than it is. The thing composed of parts does not "exist" because it is always something other than it is as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover

It could be that a thing composed of parts remains unchanging as long as it is not influenced by another thing, and that when it is influenced only parts of the thing changes. So I don’t agree that a thing composed of parts necessarily always changes.

Some thoughts on what you said to ovdtogt:

I don't think anything ever comes from nothing. Isn't that a fundamental truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be doubted, maybe existence came from nothing or maybe it was always there. From a limited point of view within existence we can’t say, and there is no point of view outside existence by definition. There is already something so we don’t see anything coming from nothing, even if something seems to come from nothing we can say that it came from something that exists but that we don’t see. But without seeing the whole of existence we don’t know, so it can’t be said to be a fundamental truth, it’s rather a working assumption.

If there are quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, then very clearly that vacuum is not "nothing". — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you here, quantum fluctuations or however we call them are clearly something.

And in reply to ovdtogt:

Nothing has zero energy. — ovdtogt

There is positive and negative energy, so a system that exists can have zero energy as a whole, while parts of the system have positive energy and other parts have negative energy.

The zero-point field only has zero energy on average, on tiny scales it fluctuates between positive and negative energy.

What people call empty space isn’t empty, isn’t nothing, it is bathing in radiation coming from all the rest of the universe, wherever you are there is radiation coming from distant galaxies.

ovdtogt

here is positive and negative energy, so a system that exists can have zero energy as a whole, while parts of the system have positive energy and other parts have negative energy. — leo

Exactly. That is how something can emerge from nothing. The penny has dropped.

leo

That is how something can emerge from nothing. — ovdtogt

But positive energy and negative energy are each not nothing. When they are exactly equal they aren’t nothing, it is only if both are zero that there is nothing.

For instance there is the hypothesis that the total energy of the universe is zero, in other words that there is as much negative energy in attractive forces as there is positive energy in repulsive forces, but clearly the universe isn’t nothing. When positive energy and negative energy are not zero, there isn’t nothing even when they are equal.

So even if we say that the universe emerged from quantum fluctuations that had zero energy as a whole, that doesn’t mean that it emerged from nothing, because these quantum fluctuations had both non-zero positive and negative energy. In the same way that this universe isn’t nothing even though it may have zero energy as a whole. It is wrong to say that zero total energy is nothing, because positive and negative energies are not nothing.

Quantum fluctuations aren’t nothing, otherwise we couldn’t detect them, they only appear to be nothing if we don’t look closely. Similarly we might say that there is nothing in an empty room, but really there isn’t nothing because there is air, there are molecules, which we can detect. And even if we remove all the molecules there is still something, which we can detect in other ways. The appearance of nothingness isn’t nothingness.

ovdtogt

Quantum fluctuations aren’t nothing, otherwise we couldn’t detect them — leo

We can't imagine something coming from nothing because nothing in our 'real' world' does that.

It is a mathematical concept. 1 and -1 together are zero. Zero is nothing but 1 and -1 are something.

ovdtogt

The zero-point field only has zero energy on average, on tiny scales it fluctuates between positive and negative energy. — leo

That is a misconception. It does not fluctuate between positive and negative Two particles (positive and negative) briefly come into being and disappear again.

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Absolute truth

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions