Religion claims
truth, for it is written in the Bible and according to Christianity the Bible is the word of God. If it is the word of God and not just of some
Greeks who lived ages after Jezus, it might indeed be truth (assuming
God does not lie). For what is truth? And what is knowledge?
Knowledge is well defined:
A knows that B if and only if (“iff”, or a bi-implication, as logicians like to write):
1. A beliefs that B.
2. A has reasons to believe that B.
3. B is true.
It is a classic
definition and since defined things are always true within their
context, there cannot be doubt as to the truth of this claim. Yet the
problem lies with point 3. For since we are part of the universe (or
creation if you wish), we cannot say anything about truth conditions in
the real world. Iff (with two ‘f’s) anyone would be able to tell the
truth about the universe it is the one who defined it, ie. the one some
refer to as God. If the universe is not defined, but just is, there is
no truth.
It can be
illustrated with the one world where truth does exist and
where we mortals can say things about absolute truth: The world of math
and logic.
For math and
logic are defined by human beings. They are our only successful attempt
at creating a complete universe. Yes, mathematicians and logicians are
playing God and do so very well.
A or not A is always true.
A and not A is always false.
Within the world of logic that is.
1+1 = 2 is always true.
Sqrt 4 = 2 or -2 is always true
Within the world of math that is.
Yet could an
equation itself know whether it is true? Could a conclusion itself know
it is true? They cannot for they are part of the world we mortals
created. Unless they can look at it from the outside, they cannot speak
of truth within the world of math whereas we can.
Similarly we
mortals cannot know the truth about the universe, for we are not the
ones who defined it (if it even is defined). We shall never know the
formula which describes it, let alone the mathematical framework in
which it fits. Physicians may try, philosophers may try, priests may
try, but their quest is doomed to fail because they search for the
unreachable.
Beware of anyone who claims to know the absolute truth... That includes me.
|
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3288 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
I believe in scientific terms absolute zero is impossible to achieve and you seemed to have proved it is the same for absolute truth. I'm not sure I followed this.I think I prefer Oscar's version "The truth is never simple and seldom pure" No calculus involved
Jane |
Angels dancing on a pin...
Written by gerardconnolly (1186 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
Jeeze Mouse! Give it a rest. Who cares!? Just give it a rest!
Slan! |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
Thanks BBS,
Absolute zero in terms of temperature you mean? Indeed that is most likely impossible to achieve.
Perhaps this piece became a bit unclear because I tried to say two things at the same time. Firstly that absolute truth can only be known for worlds we created ourselves, such as that of mathematics.
Secondly that as we are part of the universe we cannot look at it from the outside.
In combination that means that if anyone is to know the truth about our universe, it has to be the one who created it. And if no such person exists, there may perhaps not even be an absolute truth.
The funny thing is that it doesn't matter that much wether or not there is a god or a truth, for we will never find out anyhow. |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
Thanks Gerard.
The rest? People have written huge books about this subject I think. Plato already started it, and what to think of Descartes?
That last one in the end came up with his 'Cogito ergo sum', 'I think therefore I am', which was according to him the only thing he could be absolutely certain about.
He tried to give proof of the existence of got, but there he cheated.
The coolest thing about logic I think is that it is created by humans and thus that mathematicians and logicians are in a way little gods  |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
I should learn how to spell. Descartes "tried to give proof of the existence of God"...
Didn't help him though. His teachings are officially still outlawed at my former uni by order of the bishop of Utrecht. |
Written by Phil (6629 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
The church outlaw many things in their persuit of the preservation of their absolute truth. Anyone who claims to know the absolute truth is a bloody liar.
Angels on pins? Depends on their relative sizes and how you stack them!
Phil |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
Thanks Phil.
Totaly agree with that. No one can know the absolute truth. Yet the trick of claiming the Bible came directly from God is a smart one, for if God exists, is the creator of the universe and does not joke around (which is what I would probably do if I were a god), and has a direct link with those priests, then that way they could lay a claim to absolute truth. A ridiculous cause of reasoning I think, for why would he do so?
As for the ban on Descartes: That happened more than 300 years ago, when Descartes himself gave lectures there. Yet it has never been changed, so officially his teachings are still forbidden, although it's now hardly more than an annecdote teachers mention before they start explaining them. |
Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 15th November 2007 |
Well Mr F, I have to say if your equations are widely known then they fall outside the scope of this humans wide scope of reading. I think you are saying that nothing is known for certain, and that is almost right.
But given a set of data we can make assumptions of the most likeliest truth. The more data we get the more accurate the assumption.
Science and philosophy quite often knock heads but they co-exist, in as much philosophy defines the assumptions and sciences gather the data. If one philosphical standpoint is 'proven' from a scientific standpoint it will only live as a possible truth if it cannot be disproven.
That is not to say that science would waste time on a supernatural spaghetti god and claim it as true because it could not be disproven - that would be self defeating and left only to those whose narrow world view encompassed worship of the spaghetti god and manufacturing its legend.
But science would spend a lot of time trying to understand such things as the theory of the big bang and of consciousness. The former we can never be certain about, but with all the information we have and cross referencing the space around us know that the current theories are likely to be very accurate.
Consciousness to this day we know very little about, and have very little data about. We know how the brain works, we know it produces consciousness but we do not know how. But like many functions of the nody, renal, heart, immune - we will. That is for certain.
A little confusing in your presentation but very thought provoking. To say nothing is for certain is self limiting and is the sort of thing you hear those with faith saying - because if you say nothing is for certain, anything is possible - even the spahetti god. |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 16th November 2007 |
Thanks Johnie.
That's indeed another definition of knowledge: Decreasing the number of possible worlds. That's the way Sherlock Holmes solved his mysteries, or as A.C. Doyle has him say often:" If you take away the impossible, what remains, however unlikely, is the truth"... A bit unambitious compared to the definition I give above, but probably the best we humans can achieve.
Where the accuracy of theories is concerned though, funny things can happen: In the days of Copernicus, theories which took earth as the centre of the universe could predict the movements of the planets better than Copernicus' theory with sun at the centre.
Nowadays the followers of Einstein and those of quantum physics seem to quarrel and for what I heard attempts to reconcile them are a bit artificial. But I know too little about physics to say anything useful about that.
And indeed, if nothing is for certain, even the spaghetti god is possible. It's a bit unfair perhaps, but might be comparable with the classical example of the black swans which is often used to show that induction is not enough to proof anything: If all swans you have seen so far are white, you may conclude all swans are white, but is that truth? |
Written by rui (150 comments posted) 27th November 2007 |
Descartes made an error, though, in that the basis for his philosophy was that anything that he experienced for himself must be true.
Optical illusions rather mess that up.
Our consciousness is rather like our mathematics: they might approach the truth but can never fully describe it. In the end "statement G cannot be proved." |
Written by Fledermaus (3229 comments posted) 27th November 2007 |
Thanks Rui,
I don't think he made that error: His idea was the only thing he could be sure about was that he could doubt. That excluded sensory experiences, which could have been presented by what he called an 'evil genie'... The problems with his theories come where he starts to elaborate on them though, for dualism poses the problem as to how the idealistic world could ever interact with the material one. That's also where his attempts to prove the existence of God and his conflict with the church come in. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.
Previous item
