Trolling never gets old eh?

How else are we going to have things to talk about?

I don't have a problem with this thread, even if it is, well, you know.

No, truth is absolute, it exists independent of our grasp or use of it.

Perspectives are filters that limit what we perceive, but they do not alter the underlying truth.

A square and a triangle viewed from the perspective of the plane which includes them may appear to be identical, but they are not. One is still a square and the other is still a triangle. The perspective limits or filters what you can see of that truth.

Selection criteria used to make some judgment puts us two steps away from a truth. The criteria is by definition a filter, and a judgment based on filtered truth is just that - a judgment, not a truth. But the truth from which the selection is made is unaffected - it exists.

But the very idea of "one-quarter of the truth" is acknowledgment that there exists a whole truth!

There are not degrees of truth, only degrees to which we acknowledge truth - again filters. The truth is not altered by how much or how little of it we acknowledge. Truth exists whether we acknowledge it or not.

No, there is only one underlying truth, these are simply two ways of expressing the same thing. The amount of liquid in the glass, and the ratio of filled to empty space in the glass is not altered by how it is expressed. The truth exists and is knowable.

2+2 = 4, and 2+2 = 8/2, and the infinite number of additional ways this may be expressed, are not an infinite number of truths - they are infinite ways of expressing the same truth.

In mathematics and fields where it is applied, we learn to reduce to simplest terms in order to subdue these infinities in order to better understand the underlying truth. Similar thought processes can and should be applied to discerning all truth.

Sadly, the current generations of humans seem to have discarded that particular skill.

Truth is intrinsically "better" than un-truth, it is intrinsically of more "value".

The problem is that there is great advantage and profit to be had from un-truth, whatever it is called. So men tend to select or reject what they will call "truth" based only on the advantage or monetary value of the moment, and ignore the truth-value entirely.

Advertising, political and various other propaganda based systems cultivate and prey on this tendancy and exploit it to the limit - to the point that we now live in a world driven by un-truth in virtually every respect! But truth, like gravity during free-fall, will always assert itself in the end, precisely because it exists. The disruption, or impact caused by that assertion is always proportional to how far removed from it the corresponding affairs of men, and thus the necessary correction, are...

Substituting un-truth for truth is literally the substitution of belief for understanding... a very poor substitute indeed!

So what is the truth? Are corporations and governments good or evil? Those who benefit would say they are good and those who are oppressed would say they are bad. Both viewpoints would be true.

So how do we determine what is true if we do not use some measuring stick? If we say this thing is a rock, because it is hard, composed of silicates and shows evidence of igneous formation, we use three criteria to determine that truth.

Actually one is a criterion and more than one are criteria. Sorry, could not resist.

Let us put that to the test.
A divine entity that controls the universe is truth. Our technology is not capable of detecting it, but the truth is unaffected - it exists. ???
Before replying, consider that anti-matter was a crazy theory believed by fools, until technology advanced to a sufficient degree to detected it.

If only reality was so clear-cut. Am I a good or bad person? How would you determine the underlying truth?

You seem to miss the point I was trying to express. Whether it is a glass of water, money in a wallet or blood in a body, perceiving something as half full or half empty are very different perceptions, and both are true. Half alive or half dead?

Even in a six or twelve-based number system?

And some people tainted ecological studies for almost fifty years with similar thinking by applying machine theory to the entire universe. Similarly, many mathematicians believe their art is the truth underlying everything.

1 members found this post helpful.

Is the moon made of swiss cheese or cheddar? Forming words into interrogative constructs does not necessarily make them into valid truth-valued propositions.

What is the moon's core made of to a radius of 500km, by percent of mass? There is an answer to that, a non-boolean truth.

You have used natual opposite concepts of good or evil, but without defining them in the very broad contexts of the activities of corporations and governments (also ill-defined). You then filter them through natural opposite perspectives of oppressor and oppressed. And then postulate that truth does not exist because, not surprisingly, you can produce two opposite answers!

Search for truth requires careful consideration, not trick questions.

Who said we should not use measuring sticks?

But again, your rock examaple depends on your own definition, which you then apply backwards.

It is not "a rock" because it is hard, igneous and made of silicates, unless you have defined hard, igneous, silicate masses to be rocks! But that is a definition, not a universal, absolute truth.

So the question is not whether it is "a rock", the question is what the thing is composed of. That question will lead to continuously unfolding and universal truths right down to the planck scale if you search it out!

So again, truth exists, and can be found. But we have to ask honest, thoughtful questions to find it.

Ah! You are almost right! The truth is that I used the singular verb instead of the plural:

Now you are just being argumentative and a little disingenuous - I know by now that you are much smarter than that!

You propose (because I did not!):
1. Some undefined divine entity is truth.
2. We cannot detect it.
3. Therefore the entity exists.

Even you must admit the absurdity of that line of reasoning!

How about this instead...
1. A divine entity either does or does not exist
2. So far we have not detected it
3. Our negative result does not alter whether the entity does or does not exist

Does this entity exist? The truth of that proposition exists. Our collective inability to prove it one way or the other does not change that truth: whether that entity does, or does not exist.

Exactly. So, did anti-matter exist prior to its discovery, when only fools believed in it? Or did it spring into existence upon discovery?

The truth of the existence of anti-matter in the universe was not altered by our unawareness of it before discovery, or by our ability to demonstrate it post-discovery.

In fact, that is a good example that truth exists independently of our awareness of it. It is "discoverable", it exists and can be discovered.

Again, define good and bad in this context. I wil not presume to do that.

But the truth, let's say many truths, exist concerning your character, your activities, all aspects of your life - and mine - and everyone else's.

You would have to be pretty careful with definitions to summarize them all under a single heading of "good person" or "bad person"! But none the less, if each of us were searched out, there would be much truth to be found - it exists!

I would say the same thing, you missed my point. The glass or wallet or body contain some quantity of some "thing". That is the underlying truth being described by, or perceived as, "half full" and "half empty". Half full and half empty are different expressions of the same truth - like different units, gallons or liters. That truth is discoverable, quantifiable in this case, and has the same meaning no matter the unit used, regardless of different perceptions.

Yes, even in a 6 or 12 base number system, or a base 2 number system, thankfully! If that were not true you could not even refer to a 6 or 12 base number system without specifying the base used for 6 and 12, which you could not do without specifying the base used to specify the base used for 6 and 12, which you could not do... let us not devolve to recursive word games.

The symbols used to represent two-ness or six-ness or twelve-ness change across bases, but they represent a discoverable, non-recursive, underlying truth. Just ask Schrodinger's cat...

Thanks for replies, but I fear we may be a bit off topic, even in this overtly philosophical thread! So I'll expect to be clear on your reply (unless you postulate something truly outrageous).

I was hoping to show how much truth is based on perception. Basically, we cannot agree on this issue.

That is how I interpret
That we can agree on.

Of course it is absurd, but reflects the relationship between truth and belief (although you would obviously disagree) and how the argument can be taken to extremes by both sides.

I believe earlier I stated there can be more than one truth and you responded by stating there can only be one.

A silly topic like in the OP deserves to go off-topic. So I shall not report us.

Outrageous? Me? I am an LQ member. Of course I can be outrageous at times.