What is absolute truth?

[Bahman]

The act of our intellect is an experience itself.

Where this sort of experience comes from?

Let me give you an real example of Boltzmann. He was the first one who in 1866, try to derive the second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy and irreversibility) from the classical mechanical motions of gas particles (atoms) failed until he introduced probability (chance) and treated the atoms statistically. He was ridiculed by his physicist colleagues in Germany, who rejected the idea of atoms, let alone real chance in the universe. It was just decades later that his idea was accepted to be true as it was explaining the subject matter better. Where did his core idea comes from?

Lets consider the example of pure mathematics which is not based on any experimentations. How they could possibly build such a framework which is correct if it is not true?

Now, different people you say have different experiences which can be meaningless to one another’s evaluation.

In which case they should get together and seek to locate the common strands of their experiences, and thereby come to what is the core in their experiences that is the basis of the experiential truth they are concerned with.

They need solid background to discuss things upon and common strands of their experience may not be enough, consider the case of Boltzmann.

And it is all by way of experience whenever we are using our intellect or will or our emotions.

But you didn’t answer where these experiences come from?

You state that experience is not the ultimate basis for truths, but you have not presented what for you then is the ultimate basis for truths.

Let me give you some example of “How anything could be experienced?”, “What is intellect?”, “What is free will?”…

It seems that you are forgetting that you approach toward the truth depends on these yet you cannot explain them. Lets pick up the first case.

How anything could be experienced? Now assume that you as human being find the answer to this question. I then raise another question. Is this mode of experience the sole mode of experience or other mode exist? One can find himself/herself in very difficult position when s/he uses experimental approach toward truth if other mode of experience exist, namely meaning that experimental truth is an illusion.

Suppose you present what for you is the ultimate basis for truths, and we will work on how to reconcile your ultimate basis and my ultimate basis.

My ultimate basis for truths is experience, that is why I call all truths, experiential truths, and they are the only kinds of truths for humans.
KingCoil

You seems to forget that there is a subject reality which experience things and it could not be experienced, hence you are forgetting intellect again. In simple word one of main duty of intellect is to find absolute truth when the truth is exhausted. History of science provide a good example, showing that we are moving toward something, which could not be experimental truth per se which is subjected to time but something deeper which is absolute truth.

 

[Bahman]

Not sure the wording is correct.

I don’t see a difference between absolute truth and truth.

However, TRUTH is absolute. There can be only one truth.

Truth is not complete, it is subjected to the time as our understanding evolve, it is not anomaly free, people have different view on it, …

 

[Bahman]

There are fossils attesting to the existence of the universe prior to the appearance of anyone to experience it.

How do you know that there was a beginning?

 

[laircy]

There are fossils attesting to the existence of the universe prior to the appearance of anyone to experience it.

Then it existed independently of what anyone experienced. It was true that it existed, which is redundant to even say, because truth is existence. We say that something is true because it is accordance with reality, that is, that which exists. It has nothing to do with whether people know it or not, or what their perspective on the issue is. Even if “we can’t know truth”, that is our fault, it doesn’t mean that there is no truth. Besides, it is absurd to say that we cannot know truth, because to say that would be to attempt to describe a reality, and thus, say a truth.

 

[jimmy]

Truth is not complete, it is subjected to the time as our understanding evolve, it is not anomaly free, people have different view on it, …

Are you saying that truth is dependent upon an interpreter? If no sentient being existed truth would not exist?

 

[Bahman]

Are you saying that truth is dependent upon an interpreter?

Exactly. And interpreter cannot be free unless s/he questions the state of his or her belief. That is doubt that grants freedom from current state of belief to a new one with aim to take the intellect somewhere.

If no sentient being existed truth would not exist?

There would be no truth if there is no intellect. The existence of changes in intellect however shows the existence of something so called absolute truth otherwise there would be no changes in intellect nor any evolution.