Thank you. Not only is this statement self-refuting, the OP also seems to have an issue with human languages and their ability to describe absolutes.But if there is one ultimate truth, why can’t there be two ultimate truths, or three, or four, or more?
I do not need a standard of “best”, I only need a standard of “better”. Digital cameras are measured in terms of pixels: more pixels is better. Any “Best” is a movable target as manufacturers bring out new products. Last year’s “best” camera is this year’s third best camera because two new cameras have been launched in the interim.I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Even if you’re using “better” or “worse”, you must have a standard of what the “Best” is in order to possibly have a “better” “worse” “less perfect” “more perfect”
All we need is a relative measure, not an absolute one. As long as we can compare two values then we can make a determination. Physics replaced an absolute Newtonian framework with a relative Einsteinian framework very successfully. There are no absolute measures in Einsteinian space-time, just relative measures.You can’t just say “I can do something better than you can” unless you have an objective “Best” in order to know if you’re closer to or further from that standard (which would be the essence of the terms “better” and “worse”)
Your absolute proof that we are not living in the Matrix or are a brain-in-a-jar is? If you want “absolute” proof then you have to provide an absolute refutation of those scenarios. In the absence of absolute proof, then I am prepared to accept the almost certain hypothesis that we exist and that our senses give us a reasonably accurate picture of the world around us. The existence of things like mirages shows that our senses do not give us an absolutely accurate picture of the world. Similarly science shows that there are things we cannot detect, like light polarization, which exist in the real world but we cannot sense. As I said before, our senses are imperfect and do not give an absolutely accurate picture of the world.You can call me John, Jonathan, Jon, or Jack… we’re still talking about the same person who exists and is part of the actual world. Human language certainly describes reality. You do not require an absolute language to describe the world absolutely. Just because there are different ways of conveying the same idea ***does not mean that thing cannot be absolutely known or proven to exist in the real world.
I’m afraid that is not a good example. The truth of that statement is dependent on the set of mathematical axioms in play. It is true in number bases 3 and upwards. It is false in number base 1, where 1 + 1 = 11, and it is also false in number base 2 (binary) where 1 + 1 = 10. Mathematics is not transcendent, at least not in the sense you mean. See Transcendental numbers for the transcendent part of mathematics.1 + 1 = 2. This will always be regardless of any external influence. It is a transcendent reality apart from you and I.
We agree. The existence of a word for something is no indication of the actual existence of that something. That is the error of reification.The word “unicorn” describes a mystical flying horse with a single spiraling horn projecting from it’s forehead. It does nothing to answer the question of whether such a beast actually exists. Nice try.
But Rossum, do you think that all you are saying here is ultimately true, or not?Why do I need perfection? I merely need something better (less imperfect) to compare. Can you smell as well as a Bloodhound? Can you see as well as an Eagle? Obviously, given that their senses are better than ours then our senses must be imperfect.
Human language describes the mental models we all hold inside our brains. Because of our imperfect senses those internal models are also imperfect and can differ from person to person. Human language does not describe the actual world. It describes a set of common shared internal models which are imperfect reflections of the real world.
Some dogs do not bark and some do not chew bones. Any general model, like “dog” will miss specific nuances of specific individual dogs. “Humans have five fingers” is often true, but it is not an absolute. There are humans with more than five and less than five digits.
Mathematics is very far from an objectively real system, it is a logical system based on axioms. As long as the axioms are consistent then they can form the basis of a mathematical system. The classic example is the parallel axiom. There are three different inconsistent versions, each of which leads to a different geometry:
1 gives Spherical geometry, 2 gives Euclidian geometry and 3 gives Hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) geometry.
- Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists no straight line which passes through that point and never intersects the first line:
- Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exists one and only one straight line which passes through that point and never intersects the first line.
- Given any straight line and a point not on it, there exist at least two straight lines which pass through that point and never intersect the first line
Mathematics is an axiomatic system, and it changes if you change the axioms.
Of course. Is “unicorn” attached to anything existing? It is attached to a mental model inside people’s heads, not to any real-world entity.
rossum
He has stated that he does not need it to be ultimately true, only that he needs it to be true for himself here and now… which boils down to a nothing burger.But Rossum, do you think that all you are saying here is ultimately true, or not?
Of course not. It is true enough to get on with. I do not need ultimate truth, I just need here-and-now truth.But Rossum, do you think that all you are saying here is ultimately true, or not?
When someone says “nonsense” and “whatever that means”, it often indicates lack of understanding.This guy is literally saying that because language is “conventional” (whatever that means) there can thus be no such thing as ultimate reality.
Not only is the quote paradoxical, it’s completely self-refuting. To say there is no truth must be true in order for it to be, well, true. But if it is true then the statement is false.
Nonsense.
So, you are certain today (and the past days as well) that what you are defending is true. But at the same time you have the certitude that what you have been defending so far is not true. Or, at least, at the same time you are uncertain that what you have been defending is true. Is that correct?Of course not. It is true enough to get on with. I do not need ultimate truth, I just need here-and-now truth.
rossum
I do not worry over whether the things I am saying now will be true in 100,000 years time. They may be or they may not be. The far distant future does not have any impact on me here and now.So, you are certain today (and the past days as well) that what you are defending is true. But at the same time you have the certitude that what you have been defending so far is not true. Or, at least, at the same time you are uncertain that what you have been defending is true. Is that correct?
Or should you say that you simply don’t know for sure if what you have been defending is true or not?
The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.Or should you say that you simply don’t know for sure if what you have been defending is true or not?
And when people spew actual nonsense, it’s often an indicator that it’s just that.When someone says “nonsense” and “whatever that means”, it often indicates lack of understanding.
Yes, it can be a vicious circle. When someone can’t understand something, dissing it lets them tell themselves it wasn’t worth trying to understand, so it’s not their problem.inocente;14571117:
And when people spew actual nonsense, it’s often an indicator that it’s just that.When someone says “nonsense” and “whatever that means”, it often indicates lack of understanding.
Certainly! But I didn’t ask you if you worry or not, but if you are simply uncertain about the truth of your statements.I do not worry over whether the things I am saying now will be true in 100,000 years time. They may be or they may not be. The far distant future does not have any impact on me here and now.
rossum
If you are addressing me, I was not trying to answer the unanswerable. I was asking a question, and I don’t think it is unanswerable either.The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.
The maxim could be taken simply as a call for pragmatism, as follows:
Take “ultimate truth is” to claim that it is coherent to talk about such an abstraction.
But then “Ultimate Truth” is capitalized, indicating a concrete instance of the abstraction.
So the maxim claims that the abstraction cannot be made concrete.
Therefore don’t waste time trying to answer the unanswerable, go with what works, life is too short. Fenyman’s little joke applies: youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
I am human. I am not enlightened. Of course my statements may be in error. I do not think they are, but I may be wrong.Certainly! But I didn’t ask you if you worry or not, but if you are simply uncertain about the truth of your statements.
I was trying to answer your question. Never mind.If you are addressing me, I was not trying to answer the unanswerable. I was asking a question, and I don’t think it is unanswerable either.