J
JDaniel
Guest
Grannymh:
I think objective truth is that which is not colored by the lenses of just my eyeballs, and is comprehended within the many.
God bless,
jd
- Status
I think objective truth is that which is not colored by the lenses of just my eyeballs, and is comprehended within the many.
God bless,
jd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I am guessing this is directed at me since I’ve mentioned gradients, but not sure. In either case being able to evaluate something along a spectrum doesn’t preclude it from being logical. So no, I am not claiming that “truth is illogical.”
Well sure, that’s applicable to some types of logic including “Boolean logic.” There are also forms of logic that deal with the gradients. There’s an area of math that concentrates on this a good bit called “fuzzy logic.” Fuzzy logic can also be used to arrive at yes/no decisions. That isn’t unusual sounding once you consider how a person that feels 60% in favor of answering “yes” to a question and 40% in favor of saying “no” might answer if she were only allowed to give a “yes” or “no” response. There’s also fuzzy clustering algorithms like K-Means that classify things in groups based on attributes. It allows an object to partially be classified in one group and partially in another.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’ll try not to. I’m sure we’ll find something to disagree on soon enough. But I’ll celebrate during the brief moments when we are not disagreeing.Don’t let this go to your head!uch:
R
runningdude
Guest
There exist absolute and objective truths, the most important of which is the existence of God and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
J
JDaniel
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
How much of math and philosophy are you willing to throw away to accept fuzzy logic as objective reality?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I haven’t thrown anything away. I think it’s important to highlight that there are two primary themes. One is objective reality, the other is the statements/declarations/propositions that are made on this reality and how they are evaluated (whether true, false, close to true, or describe by some other position on a true/false spectrum). A proposition about reality is not equivalent to reality. Various forms of logic allow us to analyze our propositions. In many (but not all) cases there are inferences that are made from analysis of these propositions about reality. This usually occurs when there is some isomorphism between those propositions and reality.
My comments about logic and fuzzy logic are about ways of analyzing and evaluating propositions. These propositions, while useful for analyzing reality are not reality themself. I am not projecting fuzzy logic as reality, but like other forms of logic (such as Boolean logic) is a tool that is employed in studying reality.
Our communication on reality is inescapably tied to propositions. There’s not much that we can communicate without using various forms of language (gestures, verbal and written words, numbers, and so on) and constructing propositions with it. Even though they are bound to each other, they are not the same as each other.
G
grannymh
Guest
While post 20 “I think objective truth is that which is not colored by the lenses of just my eyeballs, and is comprehended within the many.” is not quite the answer to the application question in posts 18 & 8, still it has merit. For example. Not being colored by the person with eyeballs is correct.
A more comprehensive answer would look at both sides of the equation.
Post 20 describes the position of the observer. Also essential is the position of the observed. For example. Objective truth exists independently and does not depend on anyone’s affirmation. Thus, the comment “is comprehended within the many” is not appropriate because comprehension within the many is not necessary to affirm objective truth.
G
grannymh
Guest
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Higher truth value? Both statements are wrong i.e. false. Now one is closer to the truth than the other but shouldn’t our goal be the truth i.e 53mm thick? In your example there is an objective truth i.e. 53mm thick. Should we be satified with less than that? If Bill says, “maybe for you its 53mm thick but for me its 48mm thick” – do I have to accept that Bill is correct–that he has a different truth? Or is Bill simply wrong? Would I be wrong to try and show Bill why he is wrong?
Peace,
Mark
J
JDaniel
Guest
Grannymh:
Then how would we be certain that it is Truth, objective or otherwise. Objective Truth must be intelligible truth. Intelligibility requires a knower, such as a man or a woman, or God. E.g., that this conversation is as true a thousand years into the future as it is now, requires one of two things: someone who took part in it to be alive a thousand years from now, or the existence of God. Otherwise, true or false, it is sheer irrelevancy.
God bless,
jd
G
grannymh
Guest
Is God an objective truth? Did St. Thomas Aquinas teach that God required an intelligent knower in order to exist?
Now it is true that an objective truth exists *both *before we were born *and *after we die for a thousand or more years. That is why God is an objective truth.
In reply to your comment about “Truth, objective or otherwise” There is a technical choice between objective truth and otherwise truth which probably refers to subjective truth. Almost everyone I know has a difficulty separating objective and subjective (relativity) reasoning. To add to the confusion, there is the strong emphasis on “the mutually exclusive or” type of thinking. In other words, reasoning has to be either this or that, objective or subjective.
In the real world of a “both-and” type of reasoning, one can use both objective and subjective reasoning for loving God. However, it is objective reasoning (coming from outside of our personal experiences) which may be considered superior when attempting to understand the existence of True God. The Creator’s existence does not depend on the creature.
I do admit that I find it difficult to place a “conversation” on the same level as an objective truth, simply because you give a choice between two distinct beings as requirements. People do not live for a thousand years; though I am close to that mark. Of course, God is the source of objective truth (as Creator) but the source of “conversations”? Please, what did I misunderstand?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Grannymh:
Not so. God is The Truth, plus all of His other determinants. God is also Existence. Therefore, He exists to verify His Being (besides all of the rest we pile upon Him). Remember, none of His determinants are possessed by Him as a being might possess properties. He IS His attributes, and therefore the source of each such attribute in the universe, in its lesser way of manifestation.
OK?
Of course, nor would I ever contend that it would.
Not at all. In our language we have a part of speech that is called the futurum exactum, or future perfect. The futurum exactum has as its referent, in the Real World, the actuality of the event. That which is true today, is true 1,000 years from now. It can’t be otherwise. And, there is but one requirement: the existence of some knowing entity which keeps it from being relegated to in-consequentiality. (Of course, it would still be True.)
Then we share birthdays!
Either God CAUSES EVERYTHING (except SIN) or He does not. The Church seems to believe that He does.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Grannymh:
Think of the conversation as an event. Not as the possible irrelevancy that it could be.
God bless,
jd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
When talking about a statement as being either perfectly spot on or not so then I would agree with you.
Which is what truth value deals with. How close something is to actual. When dealing with measurements attributes such as precision, accuracy, and error margin might be introduced to talk about this. Those are not the only attributes though.
I’ve kept the examples simple though. There’s many others. For example Newton came up with an equation that describes the force of gravity between two bodies. Einstein came up with a modified version that has higher truth value (and applicability) than Einstein’s.
Generally speaking I think that higher accuracy is better, but it depends on what you need to do with the information and the consequences of a measurement being of lower precision or accuracy. For some situations small differences can be fatal. For others rough estimates will do.
M
mymamamary
Guest
M
mymamamary
Guest
There has to be objective truth for peace to reign. Our LORD meant it to be thus. HE knew that unless a set of black and white principles were established on our hearts, man was going to suffer. Whenever man has gone subjective, its always ended in some sort of pain. I know that the “Black and White” arguement sounds like a logical fallacy to you perhaps (I’m taking philosophy so I know the kinds of fallacies), however, dont forget that the relativist and subjectivist “Middle Ground” arguement is also a logical fallacy. I believe that if you want a functioning society, your morals and as a result ethics, need to be black and white.
M
mymamamary
Guest
Our LORD is THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, from which the rest of the truths stem. Our LORD is not something that you can measure and verify like any other natural scientific claim. HE is independent, transcendent, HE is uncaused and has caused all to happen.
(I watched a video on youtube by Fr. Pontifex that explained this to the militant atheists of today)
(I watched a video on youtube by Fr. Pontifex that explained this to the militant atheists of today)
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Okay, gotcha. I was thinking of absurdities like “God is 78% existent”
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
No, think more along the lines of people having imperfect understandings of God. Better yet, let me grant for a moment that Catholicism is the form of Christianity most closely aligned to God’s will. Let’s also assume that understanding is not quite perfect, but 90% of the way there. Given some other set of denominations (methodist, baptist) and religions (Islam, Hinduism, Scientology) each one may have some things that they got right and wrong. Rather than throwing outnsomething that isn’t 100% correct in all its understandings we could look at them on the truth value spectrum and say some are more right/wrong than others. That’s what i am talking about with truth value.
- Status