Just posing a question to every last member on the forum...atheists, theists, agnostics, weird fucking cult followers...all of you: What is the highest truth in your life that you have ever experienced, understood, known, etc.?

I'll post mine tomorrow.

Momento Mori

Relative and absolute,
These two truths are declared to be.
The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,
For intellect is grounded In the relative.

Shantideva

breathe to live.

that's about it.

I was going to post a Code of Dinotopia, but screw it.

Life is for Happiness.

Nobody truly knows for sure.

Yeah, agnostic....

I may not be sure I have ever experienced the truth.

I believe it is existence, or the infinite, or all things as one. All of which mean the same thing, in my mind.

Everything is logical, but sometimes beyond our logical comprehension.

Anything true by definition; tautologies.

This very moment is all we are guaranteed to receive, for we will always live in Tomorrow's Eve.

Interesting array of replies.

Thanks.

For me, it is such: It's alive. The truth...is alive. I feel it, I hear it, I try to do it and I try to speak it. It matters more than bread and water, but will always ensure I have both. The truth is good, and it is amazing.

Smoking cigarettes makes you cool.

Truth is a kind of fiction.

EDIT: Fun fact: If you throw that into google with quotes around it you'll arrive at a certain totsean's blog.

There is no objective truth

There is no objective truth

Is that objectively true? ;)

[/asshole]

Is that objectively true? ;)

[/asshole]

nice one.

Its subjectively true, objectively ;)

or alternately, the objective truth is not pertinent for all practical purposes of living-dying. therefore the objective truth is a moot point.

nice one.

Its subjectively true, objectively ;)

or alternately, the objective truth is not pertinent for all practical purposes of living-dying. therefore the objective truth is a moot point.

Isn't the objective truth the source of all subjective truth? How then, is the source moot if the perceived cannot exist without it?

Isn't the objective truth the source of all subjective truth? How then, is the source moot if the perceived cannot exist without it?

thats relying on the assumption that everything cannot be contingent there must be a necessary truth to begin all other contingent truths. or in otherwords, infinite does not exist. one could argue infinite matter does not exist, but it gets harder when arguing time is finite, because it surpasses the timeline of our whole species, therefore, it is not pertinent. sorry, i think like an engineer.

Truth regarding what?
I'm not sure truth exists without it being in the context of something.

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."

Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching

The truth is, there is no truth. Only when you can understand this will be you on the path to truth.

Truth regarding what?
I'm not sure truth exists without it being in the context of something.

Reality?

thats relying on the assumption that everything cannot be contingent there must be a necessary truth to begin all other contingent truths. or in otherwords, infinite does not exist. one could argue infinite matter does not exist, but it gets harder when arguing time is finite, because it surpasses the timeline of our whole species, therefore, it is not pertinent. sorry, i think like an engineer.

That's okay. I think like a molecular physicist with an acid riddled mind.

Orange is both subjective and objective. It is perceived subjectively, but what is perceived is objective to a degree. While it may manifest differently in any subjective reality, the same wavelength will always be considered that. And further, the wavelength producing orange in one subjective reality will always directly correlate to the wavelength that produces orange in another subjective reality. Because this correlation is constant through all subjective realities there must be an objective source. Even if each subjective reality has a different wavelength produced by the objective reality, it is constant and always perfectly correlates to the wavelengths produced by the objective reality in other subjective realities. At the farthest stretch of sense, subjective realities can be reduced to an objective reality capable of producing variable output simultaneously in a way that differently tuned observers all perceive in a correlated manner. If this were not the case, then a chair would one day be a plane, a plane an apple, a red a blue, a cow a moose. Do you follow?

Now we apply the principle of Occam: Orange is always orange, and is always orange to any subjective reality. Regardless of the filters applied and the differences of the medium, the source of orange and the perception of orange do not change. This is implies that orange is orange no matter the filters of an observer, thus implying an objective reality to underlay the filtration system of sensory organs that create the subjective reality an individual perceives.

I await your response...for some reason, I have always enjoyed discussing such trivial matters. :)

That's okay. I think like a molecular physicist with an acid riddled mind.

Actually, Russel said practically the same thing that you just said now.

Actually, Russel said practically the same thing that you just said now.

Russel?

Russel?

Sorry, I misspelled it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Sorry, I misspelled it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Ah, a great child of the universe. I didn't know any such saying could be attributed to a man like him. That gives me hope. My mind is usually quite a barrier for me...it's very hard to connect.

That's okay. I think like a molecular physicist with an acid riddled mind.

Orange is both subjective and objective. It is perceived subjectively, but what is perceived is objective to a degree. While it may manifest differently in any subjective reality, the same wavelength will always be considered that. And further, the wavelength producing orange in one subjective reality will always directly correlate to the wavelength that produces orange in another subjective reality. Because this correlation is constant through all subjective realities there must be an objective source. Even if each subjective reality has a different wavelength produced by the objective reality, it is constant and always perfectly correlates to the wavelengths produced by the objective reality in other subjective realities. At the farthest stretch of sense, subjective realities can be reduced to an objective reality capable of producing variable output simultaneously in a way that differently tuned observers all perceive in a correlated manner. If this were not the case, then a chair would one day be a plane, a plane an apple, a red a blue, a cow a moose. Do you follow?

Now we apply the principle of Occam: Orange is always orange, and is always orange to any subjective reality. Regardless of the filters applied and the differences of the medium, the source of orange and the perception of orange do not change. This is implies that orange is orange no matter the filters of an observer, thus implying an objective reality to underlay the filtration system of sensory organs that create the subjective reality an individual perceives.

I await your response...for some reason, I have always enjoyed discussing such trivial matters. :)

"the wavelength producing orange in one subjective reality will always directly correlate to the wavelength that produces orange in another subjective reality. Because this correlation is constant through all subjective realities there must be an objective source."

The correlation does not necessarily mean that all subjective realities come from an objective source.

First, Orange is just a label, a symbol for lets just call it "the essence of orange" or a certain wavelength. Meaning it is a contingent fact. it could of turned out differently. we could of called orange green, and green orange. Or if the human species was developed colorblind. We would not distinguish it from any other color. and there would be no orange. It may seem objective, but only because your entire species believes it so, mass subjectivety does not equal objectivity

now your argument says that the wavelength would be the common factor in all of the labels of "the essence of orange". how would the wavelength be measured? in a decimal society/race/species it would be a completely different wavelength in different units that a binary or hexiary system. So numbers can also be considered contingent, they could of wound up completely different in different realities.

in conclusion Objective facts/truths immediately become subjective once they are percieved. there is no way of knowing an objective truth as an objective truth, therefore it is moot.

look forward to your reply

Ah, a great child of the universe. I didn't know any such saying could be attributed to a man like him. That gives me hope. My mind is usually quite a barrier for me...it's very hard to connect.

No I don't mean that he thinks like he's on LSD, but that he gave similar arguments to the ones you're giving (objective reality, subjective perception).

now your argument says that the wavelength would be the common factor in all of the labels of "the essence of orange". how would the wavelength be measured? in a decimal society/race/species it would be a completely different wavelength in different units that a binary or hexiary system. So numbers can also be considered contingent, they could of wound up completely different in different realities.

Quick response to this: Do you know what the definition of a metre is? A metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second (in the decimal system, the number would be different in a different system, but they would be identical fractions and produce the same results after processing and conversion). Coincidentally, visible light is measured in nanometres (billionths of a metre), so from a universally known constant (the speed of light) one can deduce "relative" answers. Another way around this would be to say that "orange is an absorption spectra with X nanometres being the least absorbed wavelength, where a nanometre is [*defines*]". There are universal constants for everything, from time (deduced from the amount of time before inflation began), to distance (from the speed of light per unit of time), to temperature (from the amount of heat required for a nova or the heat at the instant of the big bang), to luminosity, pressure, and weight (each from the Chandrasekhar limit's definition of the smallest possible neutron star). So there is always a universal constant and all that's left from that point is fractions. :) Systems of counting would obviously be defined in their proper contexts, so what you're saying basically amounts to "how can there be facts across languages when different people define different terms in different ways?" Changing counting systems is far easier than translation and doesn't alter the final value of the number (regardless of system).

How big is an inch?

How long is a second?

Does one drop of water plus one drop of water make two drops? WTF is a 'drop'?

The "order" is in my mind; I apply order to things.

When I ask another person what their subjective opinion is, do I know that person actually exists? Is their reply not entirely subjectively perceived by me?

Any "objective truth" I perceive is objective in my mind only; I apply the quality of 'truth' to things.

You are wise not to fall into his trap, a trap he has derailed many a thread with. You see, if you show someone that none of their arguments hold up, it does not follow that what they are arguing for isn’t true, because it is possible that it is true and they simply haven’t found a sufficient proof of its factuality yet. Therefore, if you want to show that what they are trying to prove is in fact not true, rather than that there is so far no reason to believe it, in which case showing that their arguments are invalid or unsound suffices, then you need to provide arguments for why it isn’t true. In Obbe’s case, he doesn’t seem to ever do this. When someone asks him to prove that we cannot know anything, he sophistically shifts the burden of proof with a question: how do you know that it is possible that we can know anything? It is almost as if he seems to think that the other person’s inability to answer -- if they are unable to answer; sometimes they manage to prove that we can know something, or that there is an objective order, but Obbe simply claims not to understand them when they do! -- is proof of his position, but, for reasons that I have just explained, it is not.

5char

"You may not be able to know an objective truth."

Sure sounds sweeter without all that unnecessary jargon and fluff.

"You may not be able to know an objective truth."

Sure sounds sweeter without all that unnecessary jargon and fluff.

There were quite a few delicious personal attacks as well.

I found them to be bitter, but I suppose we have different tastes.

"Objective truth cannot be known" is a statement obviously based on the subjective experience of the speaker; anyone who assumes it to be objectively true statement, or assumes that the speaker intends it to be received as an objectively true statement is applying that order themselves. They are applying an order to their subjective perception. "Objective truth cannot be known" may or may not be objectively true.

No I don't mean that he thinks like he's on LSD, but that he gave similar arguments to the ones you're giving (objective reality, subjective perception).



Quick response to this: Do you know what the definition of a metre is? A metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second (in the decimal system, the number would be different in a different system, but they would be identical fractions and produce the same results after processing and conversion). Coincidentally, visible light is measured in nanometres (billionths of a metre), so from a universally known constant (the speed of light) one can deduce "relative" answers. Another way around this would be to say that "orange is an absorption spectra with X nanometres being the least absorbed wavelength, where a nanometre is [*defines*]". There are universal constants for everything, from time (deduced from the amount of time before inflation began), to distance (from the speed of light per unit of time), to temperature (from the amount of heat required for a nova or the heat at the instant of the big bang), to luminosity, pressure, and weight (each from the Chandrasekhar limit's definition of the smallest possible neutron star). So there is always a universal constant and all that's left from that point is fractions. :) Systems of counting would obviously be defined in their proper contexts, so what you're saying basically amounts to "how can there be facts across languages when different people define different terms in different ways?" Changing counting systems is far easier than translation and doesn't alter the final value of the number (regardless of system).

i understand your point, but i don't think you understand mine.

i understand the concept of "universal" constants. but how do you think they came about? universal constants are not found first before physical relations, the relations are found first(through empirical/subjective evidence) and the constants are developed afterwards to explain the relation.

there is a certain problem with the objective truths you speak of, there is nothing that can come from it. it is completely unknown not to mention irrelevant, and will remain unknown until there is an observer, a subjective being that can define it using a "universal" constant. you fail to realize that those constants are in fact contingent, and subjective.

in the broadest sense of view, assuming we are all contingent beings, imagine the human race never came into existence. lets go even further and say that life never came about.

yes light would travel at the same speed, but what use would it be to know that? there would be nobody there to know, no subjective observer to measure/understand it let alone apply it. therefore practically speaking, it wouldn't exist*.

since we do exist, in our reality, the speed of light in a vacuum and all other "universal" constants are there because we exist to observe them, (otherwise they would not exist*).

to reiterate, mass subjectivety =/= objectivety, there are(read:were) other possible realities that do not include us.

i understand your point, but i don't think you understand mine.

i understand the concept of "universal" constants. but how do you think they came about? universal constants are not found first before physical relations, the relations are found first(through empirical/subjective evidence) and the constants are developed afterwards to explain the relation.

there is a certain problem with the objective truths you speak of, there is nothing that can come from it. it is completely unknown not to mention irrelevant, and will remain unknown until there is an observer, a subjective being that can define it using a "universal" constant. you fail to realize that those constants are in fact contingent, and subjective.

in the broadest sense of view, assuming we are all contingent beings, imagine the human race never came into existence. lets go even further and say that life never came about.

yes light would travel at the same speed, but what use would it be to know that? there would be nobody there to know, no subjective observer to measure/understand it let alone apply it. therefore practically speaking, it wouldn't exist*.

since we do exist, in our reality, the speed of light in a vacuum and all other "universal" constants are there because we exist to observe them, (otherwise they would not exist*).

to reiterate, mass subjectivety =/= objectivety, there are(read:were) other possible realities that do not include us.

Practicality does not determine actuality. In actuality, it still exists. That is what objectivity is.