Philosophy of absolute truth

Post Reply New Topic

In response to my failure to be able to socialize, for the better part of my life I have studied theories and philosophies of various kinds. Perhaps someone here could find my conclusions useful.

---------------

Philosophy of absolute truth

For the purpose of this argument, "ideas" (thoughts), can be separated into two categories - "absolutely true" and "not absolutely true".

To say that an idea is absolutely true, is to say that it is logically true for all members of the universal set. Any idea that is not logically true for all members of the universal set is said to be "not absolutely true".

In the subjective sense, the universal set is defined as "all things that one imagines", as what is universal is what each of us individually imagines. In this sense "to imagine" means "to list all things that one is aware of at the time", including all thoughts, perceptions, dreams, etc.

In the objective sense, the universal set is defined as "all things", period, including those that each of us individually do not imagine.

If we are trying to grasp the nature of absolute truth, and ultimately how we should live our lives in light of it, then the central argument is - which version of the universal set should be used? This seems like an easy question to answer at first, but it is indeed very tricky.

A good approach is to examine whether or not we could perceive members of the universal set that are outside of our perception. This question, by itself, creates a mind-numbing paradox that could leave your head hurting for days if you think about it too much.

The best way to approach it is via mathematics. Let us use an example universal set, consisting of members: q,p, and x, so that universal set = {q,p,x}. Keep in mind that this is just an example, and at this point we do not care whether or not our universal set is the subjective one or the objective one.

When we imagine that there is some element outside of the universal set, by the subjective definition we have disproven that it is outside of the universal set because we have imagined it. So let us say that our imagination of some item outside of the universal set is i. When this occurs, what immediately happens is:

subjective universal set = {q,p,x,i}

Likewise, we have disproven that i is outside of the objective universal set because, via our imagination, it has become a part of "all things". Thus:

objective universal set = {q,p,x,i}

At first it seems like the answer to the question above is "no", until we consider the following. Let us imagine a member inside of both universal sets that is an abstraction -

i = lim (x->infinity) 1/x
(1/x as x approaches infinity)

Since the objective universal set includes "all things", we would readily conclude that all values of x must be included in the objective universal set. When examining this in context of the subjective universal set, only the values of x that each of us imagines individually would be members in addition to the equation itself (which is a member).

This creates a discrepancy between the subjective universal set and the objective universal set whereby there could be members that are in one set but are not within another from the perspective of the subject.

That is to say, that if i = lim (x->infinity) 1/x (or a similar equation) exists both within the subjective universal set and the objective universal set, then the subject is logically forced to conclude that the objective universal set is different from the subjective universal set. This of course, assumes that the subject is being logical. The subject could ultimately imagine that the subjective universal set = objective universal set and be done with it. I am going to go forward on the premise that the subject is being logical and does not deny this.

The idea that the objective universal set contains members that the subjective universal set does not implies by the definition that there are two forms of absolute truth - one that applies to the subject's imagination and one that applies to all things. For the purpose of making these points easier to reference, I typically call the subjective absolute truth the "practical" absolute truth, and the objective absolute truth the "theoretical" absolute truth.

The true devastation caused by this idea is not readily apparent. After all, 1+1 still equals 2, right? It does not matter that I cannot really imagine all values of x for i = lim (x->infinity) 1/x. It is just an equation, right?

The problem is that equations similar to the one used to demonstrate this problem are the only equations that can accurately model human perception. For the purposes of this argument, by "perception" I mean "to create a mental image, whether by taking in sensory input or by synthesizing it within the mind".

Let us say that I perceive a waterfall by a lake. I could do this by being by a waterfall at a lake, or by synthesizing a mental image of that in my mind. I can model this perception by saying that it is a set p, consisting of a waterfall and a lake.

p={waterfall, lake}

p is a member of both the subjective universal set and the objective universal set.

I would say that p is a very high level description of what I am perceiving. I could drill down further by perceiving that the water in the lake is a brown color and there is a family of swans floating on it. I could also perceive that the waterfall consists of water falling upon brown rocks. Thus, I would state that both waterfall and lakes are sets themselves.

waterfall={water falling,brown rocks} lake={brown water, swans}

Indeed, even this is a high level description. I could go further by perceiving that the water falling is blue, and the rocks are either quartz or granite (I don't know which). The swans on the lake are white, and the brown water looks like it has fish swimming it (again I don't know).

water falling={blue} brown rocks={quartz|granite} (?)
lake ={brown water, swans, fish?} swans={white}

My perception based upon sensory input has gone from being clear at a high level, to less clear as I drill down. It becomes more clear when I add my own mental synthesis. For example, I could imagine the brown rocks as quartz, and consisting of molecules, which consist of atoms, etc. I could imagine the fish as existing, consisting of body parts, which consist of cells, which consist of organelles, which consist of molecules, etc. I could imagine the brown water being made up of molecules, which are each made up of atoms, which are each made up of atomic particles (which are made up of ?).

Ultimately, I have left a big ? mark in my mental image. What do atomic particles consist of? It turns out that I do not have any idea. However, I have concluded that they must consist of something - x -, that must take a shape and a form. It is simply too small to perceive and to draw any conclusions about.

Therefore, logically speaking, I conclude that perception is limited by the size of what I am able to perceive. I could have taken the equally viable alternative of demonstrating that perception is limited by the amount of time I have available to perceive (both are inextricably tied together). The equation for the smallest possible perception is similar to the one that I discussed above:

smallest perception = lim (x->0) x/1, where x is the size of my perception.

There are some values of x, or perceptions, that I cannot imagine. Those perceptions belong to the objective universal set but not the subjective universal set.

This tenet is a foundation for me to doubt any form of theoretical absolute truth, as I cannot be certain that there is not some perception which counteracts my truth. This is very similar to the approach of modern science, but differs in that modern science accepts theories with supporting evidence (and no disproving evidence) as being theoretical absolute truth.

At a basic level, this leads me to doubt anything that is widely considered a "law" of the universe, and makes me most confident in the principle that no such "laws" are knowable as they require omniscience.

----------

This argument has many applications at the human level. For example, it leads me to conclude that no human societal "law" could benefit everyone, as there could be someone (outside of the lawmaker's perception) that will not benefit. Note that the equation for this conclusion is different from the one used in the argument, as we are using the perception of the opposite (that we do not know how large something is, in this case the human population that will benefit from the law), to prove the argument.

It also leads me to conclude that attempts to contrive the absolute truth of the universe are ultimately futile, for we will always be stopped by our lack of omniscience. Thus, the study of philosophy accomplishes nothing.

It makes little sense to have a concept of "fact", as that would be something that is a theoretical absolute truth. Instead, it makes better sense to have a concept of "belief", as everything that people hold as "facts" are really "beliefs". As is such, it makes little sense to debate "facts" or hold arguments about them, as the real truth is not knowable. In other words - everybody has their own beliefs and the most logical decision is to accept them at face value as they could be correct. This is a nice segway into an argument for accepting people as they are and not trying to change them.

Of course, there are countless other applications of this idea. I will not detail them now as I have spent a long time writing this.

I must have missed it - what was your example of something that was "absolutely true"?

I have lots of examples in my history of things I believed were absolutely true, but then later saw the flaws in. My guess would be that everything is fundamentally subjective. I mean, you can say that the atomic mass of americium is 243 and that's absolutely true, but in fact the trueness of it is a matter of convention.

I think the old saying "can't see the forest for the trees" fits here.

The minute you try to apply this to anything in reality, it falls apart. Any theory that leads you to conclude that the reason not everybody benefits from laws is because the non-beneficiaries fall outside the lawmakers' perception is a fatally flawed theory. Lawmakers are well aware of the non-beneficiaries of every law. The non-beneficiaries are, in fact, the reason that the laws are written in the first place. The laws protect the majority against the minority who don't benefit from those laws. Does that sound too circular? Think about it with actual laws.

Who doesn't benefit from laws against theft? Thieves.

Who doesn't benefit from laws against murder? Killers.

Who doesn't benefit from laws againt child abuse? Child abusers.

And so on. The non-beneficiaries of those laws preceded the writing of the laws. The laws were written specifically to protect the majority of people from the actions of the non-beneficiaries. If the lawmakers didn't perceive the non-beneficiaries, the laws wouldn't have been written in the first place.

Laws aren't written until after it becomes clear that some people are doing things that are harmful to the majority and/or to individuals and/or to the stability of society. The lawmakers don't write a law until it becomes clear that their are people who won't benefit from it and that society must be protected from the actions of those people by outlawing the specific harmful thing they do.

Thus there are no laws against time travel even though, according to many sci-fi novels and movies, it would be harmful to society and individuals (who wouldn't be born as a result of time travel, etc.). There are no laws because there are no non-beneficiaries of such a law. And there can't be until time travel is invented, at which time the non-beneficiaries of such a law would be people who want to time travel. Lawmakers don't write a law until after the non-beneficiaries have been perceived.

Then the only absolutely true things are tautologies which tell us nothing in particular about the world in which we live. Only very trivial things are true in every possible world.

ruveyn

Absolute truths are for those who wish to be a slave to others or to their own limitations.

If you are under the impression that I support the knowledge of absolute truth then you did not read and/or understand the post. The argument demonstrates that absolute truth is unknowable.

Whether or not non-beneficiaries do or do not fall outside of the lawmaker's perception is not an issue. I would state that some non-beneficiaries are going to fall outside of the lawmaker's perception regardless of how many of them are taken into account in making the law.

My argument is that laws are ultimately imperfect. Having said that, I understand the practical need for them.

Imperfect laws are part of a democratic system: the majority decides and they decide what is best for them. But if you read Plato for example, he wants an aristocracy: the state is ruled by 'the wise'. These wise people make wise laws, perfect or close to perfection.

Plato, of course, lived in a virtual world of perfect abstracts and never considered that a good many philosophers never wander very far from the loony bin.

Yes, you did argue that laws are imperfect. Your stated reason for why they are imperfect is wrong. If your philosophy lead you to this wrong conclusion, it is not a useful philosophy.

The entire point of laws is to protect people from those who don't benefit from laws. Laws are not meant to benefit everybody. If you think they are, in a perfect world, then you don't understand why laws exist.

Yes. The nice thing about democracy, roiugh and tumble though it is, is that it protects people (to some extent) from the dictatorship of the "wise" who think that anything they think up must be perfect because it came out of their head.

Plato lived in real Athens 400 bc, and with wise people he didnt mean an academic philosopher of these days but enlightened ones, mystics like Buddha and Eckhart.

You (and Plato) may think an enlightened mystic is the best qualified to make laws. I don't. I think the laws such a person or group of people would make would be absolutely horrible. Enlightened mystics have a way of abstracting things and not taking real, living people into consideration. The beauty of democracy and laws that are constantly re-written is the adjustability. Somebody who thinks they can get it right the first time because they are enlightened is dangerous to have as a lawmaker.

Even a perfect person cannot make a perfect law. There is no such thing as a perfect law. Laws need to be revisited, tweaked, revised, rewritten and sometimes just taken off the books because the conditions that made them appropriate at the time of writing have since changed. Not for nothing is the United States Constitution plastered with ammendments. There is no such thing as a perfect law because society is not static. Any attempts to write a perfect law (which the framers of the Constitution didn't try to do) are pointless because they assume that society is static, eternally unchanging. Nothing is static andf unchanging. Not even mountains.

Nkce talking to you, but what do you do when extremists win the democratic electiond

And you think philosophers cannot be extremist? Or must we cherry pick our philosophers out of your bag of cherries? You are, of course the ultimate in wisdom to be able to supply such a choice.

Sometimes extremists do win elections. And when they do, they frequently get terrible laws on the books. The nice thing about democracy is that it's a self correcting system. You are stuck with a disastrous leader only until the next election. And disastrous laws can be taken off the books or revised once their disastrous effects become clear. Built into the concept of democracy is the admission that things aren't supposed to last forever. Not leaders and not laws. Change and flexibility is built into the system.

The problem with the "wise men deciding for everybody else" (or enlightened mystics, or philosophers, or whatever) is that this approach is static and has no feedback built in. Democracy has feedback at every election. This approach is built on the premise that people who are enlightened/smart/wise/pick your adjective will always be right about what's best for everybody else. If they are wrong, there is no political mechanism for undoing the damage they cause. To be honest, the U.S. Supreme Court operates on this principle (I am a US citizen) and it is what I like least about US government. The only good thing about that system is that at least it is a wide variety of US Presidents who get to make Supreme Court appointments. There is also nothing written in stone and later Supreme Courts can overturn the rulings of their predecessors.

And like Sand said, philosophers can be extremists too. Being wise and/or enlightened isn't protection from being extreme. Breathing too much of the thin air up there in the stratosphere of ideas might give a person the conviction that he has the answer and he will bend society to it and how this affects the individuals who make up society is irrelevent. After all, if their opinions mattered, they would be one of the enlightened themselves.

Well Janissy,
The Germans were stuck with an Austrian guy for 12 years.
And about enlightenment: i mean nirvana, that buddhist concept: this can never be extremist.

I must say: you put a lot of effort in your posts.

Plotinus