The face of truth

Benj96

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. It must exist. Having said that.. the truth doesn't change. It's the truth after all. And such a fundamental constant/ law/ principle as truth - which is unchanging.. Must therefore be inaccesible to systems that change/are under the influence of change. How could information bridge the gap between that which is unchanging and ruling and that which is changing/ruled?
This seems like a paradox in human pursuit of the truth of all things. Such is the mystery of life, the biggest questions - why are we here, where did we come from, what is meaning?

This strange contradictory notion that the truth is both knowable/ it exists... And yet unknowable to the system it underpins/governs could be cause for dismay and sadness/pessimism or for enchantment and allure. Some people demand to know what it is and are upset when they can't and others love a good mystery. It adds that intrigue/ magic back to the possibilities of what could be.

I feel like this truth has many facets whatever it may be. I feel like it discerns the line between blind faith/belief/trust (as is exemplified in spirituality and religions) verses skepticism/ analysis and reasoning (as is exemplified by science). Both good in their own ways and both useful when faced with reality and what it means to us.

And because the truth cannot change fundamentally or it wouldnt be true - it must have something to do with energy and time (the ability to do work/cause change as well as the speed of light and relativity, and quantum uncertainty - heisenbergs uncertainty principle in science) and perhaps (in spirituality/ religion - being, consciousness, ethics, free will and god).

Whatever the truth is - I think it comes down to choices. What way you wish to pursue it, how much of it you want to know and how you decide to observe it. Curiouser and curiouser.

ToothyMaw

the truth doesn't change. It's the truth after all. And such a fundamental constant/ law/ principle as truth - which is unchanging.. Must therefore be inaccesible to systems that change/are under the influence of change. — Benj96

The position of a projectile in motion can be derived from unchanging equations - or just one when combined - that govern its trajectory. We have a system in which the position of the projectile, measured against time, changes, but is still governed by those equations. The changing position represents a (more contingent) "truth", and the immutable series of equations governing the trajectory represent a "truth".

And because the truth cannot change fundamentally or it wouldnt be true - it must have something to do with energy and time (the ability to do work/cause change as well as quantum uncertainty - heisenbergs uncertainty principle in science) and perhaps (in spirituality/ religion - being, consciousness, ethics and god). — Benj96

Why can't truth change? You make that claim multiple times but don't really back it up.

T Clark

For something to be true.. It must exist. — Benj96

As I noted elsewhere, truth applies to propositions, not to things in general. I think that's an important distinction. How can an apple be true?

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this. I think you'll probably hear from people who disagree.

the truth doesn't change. — Benj96

Well... sure it does, depending on how you look at it. The statement "Today is Tuesday," is true here in the eastern US as I write this, but it won't be true tomorrow. You talk about

And such a fundamental constant/ law/ principle as truth - which is unchanging.. Must therefore be inaccesible to systems that change/are under the influence of change. — Benj96

What kind of thing is not subject to the influence of change? Can you give some examples. Fundamental rules of reality, e.g. the law of conservation of matter, have to change when we find out new things, e.g. nuclear fusion. Nitpicky things like my example about what day it is change.

And because the truth cannot change fundamentally or it wouldnt be true - it must have something to do with energy and time — Benj96

I don't understand this.

Banno

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

Why?

There seem to be things that are true or false yet unknown - that you have an odd number of hairs on your forearm, for example.

Paine

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

Is it not possible that something could be true but one could not verify it is the case?

If that is not possible, what is ignorance?

Banno

↪Paine

Indeed, a direct consequence of

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

seems to be that Benj96 might learn everything that is true - that he may become omniscient.

Paine

↪Banno

I was thinking of it more as ignorance wanting what it lacks. If what is knowable can be established outside of that desire, then it does not have a job or a place to stay.

I like sushi

↪Banno

But he said ‘true’ not ‘true or false’.

If you say something is ‘true’ then you must know it. Even if you state that something is either true or false you do so with the authority of truth not guesswork.

↪Benj96

Truth is limited to a set system of rules and variables. IF … THEN … is the most common everyday usage. The idea of some all pervading ‘truth’ may or may not be the case … science basically progresses with the assumption that its ‘truths’ are the current ‘best truths’ not the be all and end all of knowledge.

Banno

If you say something is ‘true’ then you must know it. — I like sushi

That's contentious. As mentioned, it implies that you are omniscient: there are no truths that you do not know.

But further, it commits you to rejecting classical logic. You will need to introduce a third truth value that is neither true nor false.

Are you sure that is agreeable?

I like sushi

↪Banno

Are you omniscient? If not then how can you make any truth claims at all?

I was simply distinguishing between something being ‘true’ and something being either ‘true or false’. The first is known the second is yet to be fully investigated.

I like sushi

It is true that I am writing on a forum.
It is true that I am human.

The latter may be ‘true or false’ to you as you may consider that I am AI or some kind.

Tom Storm

↪I like sushi

I guess that would make both false if sushi is AI, then there is no 'I' writing on the forum to begin with. :wink:

Banno

Are you omniscient? If not then how can you make any truth claims at all? — I like sushi

What?

If, If something is ‘true’ then you must know it, then anything that is true is known: there are no unknown trues; we know everything.

Basic logic.

Hanover

Why?

There seem to be things that are true or false yet unknown - that you have an odd number of hairs on your forearm, for example. — Banno

The claim was:

For something to be true.. It must be knowable. — Benj96

The claim was knowABLE not known.

He could know the number of hairs on his forearm. He just happens not to.

So, the proper rejection of Ben's assertion isn't as you've said, but it would be that "You have 100 hairs on your forearm" still has a truth value even if you cannot know it.

But is Ben wrong because that's a different sort of claim, and I'm not sure what Ben means by unknowable. For example, the number of stars in the universe? That is in principle knowable, but not something that will likely be known.

Is "there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in the solar system" true? Well, we can't know that in actuality, but in principle we could. I would think that does have a truth value even though we will never know it

But what is in principle unknowable? Maybe "Germany wins the World Cup in 2030." Right now, that is unknowable. We have no way to know that. So right now, does it have a truth value?

I like sushi

↪Tom Storm

Oh yeah! Haha! Glitch in my files … sorry ;)

I like sushi

↪Benj96

I would also like to add that Truth exists in the abstract only. If we apply the idea of Truth to realms where the ruleset is obscured/unknown/open to various interpretations (like in spoken/written complex languages) Then we are extending its use beyond its origins.

If A is B then B is A. This has no Truth applied outside the abstract (eg. If a banana is an apple then an apple is a banana). You may say this is logically True, yet in reality we can state an apple is a banana and believe it only in the sense that both are fruit … and that is stretching it! For some conscious creature of limited mental capacity I see no reason why they would not equate an apple with a banana given their common attributes.

The point here is the misapplication of Truth into the world we live and inaccurate language we use to communicate.

1+1= 2 in basic arithmetic, yet in other realms of mathematics others may argue otherwise. In reality to say 1 apple and another apple make two apples is also superficially true because the “1” holds universal truth as an abstract and indistinguishable item whereas an “apple” is different to other apples always in time, space and physical constitution.

In reality we make certain leaps to overcome seemingly minute distinctions and this is highly beneficial in allowing us to navigate the world. The Truth in reality is a guide not a rule. In abstraction it is the rule.

Agent Smith

I'm hungry.

Tom Storm

↪I like sushi

:up:

I like sushi

↪Agent Smith

I would not recommend eating number twos. Go for the apple or banana

Agent Smith

I would not recommend eating number twos. Go for the apple or banana — I like sushi

:lol:

Benj96

I was thinking of it more as ignorance wanting what it lacks. If what is knowable can be established outside of that desire, then it does not have a job or a place to stay. — Paine

Pure ignorance does not want the truth. It doesn't feel it lacks the truth because it is so ignorant it thinks it already has the truth. Pure ignorance is extremely dangerous because it thinks its being just (telling the truth/judging others with the truth) all the while having no wisdom/knowledge (the truth) to do so. It is arrogant, it lacks empathy and nothing can ever be its fault.

Ignorance lives in its own world of delusion, having a false sense of power and authority.

However if ignorance decides to become curiosity... Or is shown there is better on offer elsewhere, it can begin the long rambling road to honing down on truth. Picking up and accepting into themselves pieces of truth along the way by using their newly found curiosity and consequently ever improving logic and morality. Applying those truths to reveal the full complete puzzle and eventually becoming the truth.

It's a spectrum. A duality. It always has been and it always will be.

Paine

↪Benj96

My thought was a response to the claim that truth is knowable. Taken as the unchanging that is assumed to be the condition for all that exists, how can we, as "systems that change/are under the influence of change", know that truth is knowable? In our ignorance, we can seek the truth but cannot claim that we know enough about it to say what is possible in relation to it. If it were possible to do that, we would already be a lot less ignorant.

Benj96

My thought was a response to the claim that truth is knowable. Taken as the unchanging that is assumed to be the condition for all that exists, how can we, as "systems that change/are under the influence of change", know that truth is knowable? — Paine

Because we have logic - that which connects the delusional (changeable/erratic and ineffectual systems) to the Truth. It's the bridge we have tread many times back and forth through science and religion/spirtuality alike.

Change is the equivalent to irrationality, to an aimless chaotic rambling. This is why we call numbers that never repeat themselves "irrational numbers". And because we are systems that change we must be trained to take in and see the truth around us. We must convert our inefficient network of neurons in our brain into something more efficient and more logical (able to approach truth) . This is the foundation of education.

So to answer your question... We know the truth is knowable as changing systems because we may educate ourselves by being curious, listening and asking questions to our teachers. Just as children do I suppose. Are children not ignorant until taught and are they not innocent until educated?

Benj96

In our ignorance, we can seek the truth but cannot claim that we know enough about it to say what is possible in relation to it. If it were possible to do that, we would already be a lot less ignorant. — Paine

Well you can. When you reach the truth you are in a process of subtraction (of inaccuracies you previously believed) Descartes got very close with "I think therefore I am" however it can be further reduced to "I am".

You know that you exist. And that is all you need to know what existence is. What the truth is. You are aware so you can observe and you think so you can reason about what you observe. And you have memory so you can gather and make your conclusions. You can choose to be taught by 1).self reflection 2). Observation of the "external" world 3). By other people or 4). A mixture of all of these things. A combination is probably best.

(And also Wikipedia lol)

Paine

↪Benj96

Descartes based his confidence that he truly knows things from the existence of God, who allows for the possibility:

But once I perceived that there is a God, and also understood at the same time that everything else depends on him, and that he is not a deceiver, I then concluded that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive is necessarily true. Hence even if I no longer attend to the reasons leading me to judge this to be true, so long as I merely recall that I did clearly and distinctly observe it, no counter-argument can be brought forward that might force me to doubt it. On the contrary, I have certain knowledge of it. — Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 5:46-47, translated by Donald A. Cress

This confidence does not, however, support the idea that all of what is true can be known.

Benj96

This confidence does not, however, support the idea that all of what is true can be known. — Paine

Yes this is true for a human. All knowledge and happenings throughout the entirety of the existence of the universe at all points in time and space cannot be known by a single person of x amount of years lifespan.

But knowledge of the omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience of god can be known as the sum of all things (people and the universe) combined. This can be appreciated by an individual person. And in this way God and said person(s) are in commune with one another. As opposites of a spectrum of magnitude and ability. Humans are limited by their short existence but not by their ability to apply logic and derive truth pertaining to god.

The truth is consistent at all levels of magnitude and pervades the universe from the smallest (quantum) to the largest (newtonian and relativistic).

Benj96

If A is B then B is A — I like sushi

I disagree. If A (electricity) is B (energy) then B (energy) is A (electricity). But this is not strictly true. Because heat, light potential and chemicals are also forms of energy. Therefore A (electricity) is at most a "subset" of but not the equivalent to/ not "all" of B (energy). It is energy but only one type.

If truth only exists in the abstract then truth is only equal to belief/ imagination/ concepts held by the mind. But we know truth is not only abstract things/constructions as the mind is not the only thing that is true. It is not the only thing that exists. Material concrete objects also obviously exist. We can observe them and objectively measure them using scientific method.

Benj96

But what is in principle unknowable? Maybe "Germany wins the World Cup in 2030." Right now, that is unknowable. We have no way to know that. So right now, does it have a truth value? — Hanover

Well that is a matter of time. The passage of time elucidates the truth of things as they happen. For us objects bound by linear time - we cannot know of future truths because we are limited by the rate of happenstance.

But for the universe as a whole - all points in time, all states of being and all possibilities are included in the set of the universes existence. In that case Germany winning the world Cup in 2030 is only a possibility from the reference point of the universe. It is not for humans to know the future of all things because we are change - subjects of time. It is only ultimate all inclusive truth to know of the destiny of such things as the truth exists in all moments - past and present and future while we can only exist in the present.

We can know how the truth works structurally but not temporally.

Benj96

If, If something is ‘true’ then you must know it, then anything that is true is known: there are no unknown trues; we know everything.

Basic logic. — Banno

We can only know truth from the present - this moment in time. The truths of the distant past and the truths of the distant future get progressively less sure/ verifiable the further one tries to predict in either direction. Therefore we can only know the constant rules/principles of truth that always apply regardless of time (universal laws) but not the individual consequences of such a truth. It governs and we can understand why it governs but we cannot know all that it governs as we are not the entire universe but humans.

Banno

We can only know truth from the present - this moment in time. — Benj96

But that's just not so. I went to a Harry Manx concert last night. Past truth.

I like sushi

↪Benj96

You completely missed my point then. A is B is an abstract, the mistake is you assuming this maps one-to-one onto reality when you apply Electricity and Energy … I even gave such an example to show the distinction between objects that exist and abstractions.

Bring me number one and show it to me and you can then convince me there is no difference. Better still paint me a picture of ‘AND,’ ‘OR’ or ‘IF’ that everyone will recognise as such without painting the words.

It is important to understand that logical rules to not necessarily map onto reality and that logical propositions need not make sense in reality (ie. ‘If Apples are Oranges when …’).

The face of truth

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions