In the Mystery Quote item, a couple of quotes from Zen and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance sparked a discussion about absolute truth.
Is there such a thing?  If so, how do you know?  And how do you find
out what it is?  If there isn't such a thing as absolute truth, how
do you know *that*?

105 responses total.

I should've added, How do you define the term "absolute truth"?

Don't ask me...  8^}

The only truth in the universe is change.

  I'd say that yes, there is "absolute truth" but it might not be
  very useful to talk about since we can only make decisions based
  on our faulty recollections of experiences and our incomplete
  perceptions so there's no way we can *know* with certainty what
  that "absolute truth" might be -- the best we can do is to build
  our world views out of the closest approximation we can concoct.

How do you know it exists, Mike, if you can't perceive it?

Maybe a good analogy is absolute zero.

This response has been erased.

As of this five seconds, I'm siding with valerie on this.  Of course, my mind
changes rapidly on this one.

There's an absolute truth, and we can't see it, and we see the world through
colored glasses.  Thank you very much.

for anything to be absolute, we'd need universal frame of reference.  humanity
lacks sufficiently universal experience to determine whether *any* frame of
reference could be truly universal.  therefore, humanity is (presently)
incapable of determining anything, absolutely.

         Valerie, just because you weren't there when the tree fell doesn't
mean someone else wasn't. You can only verify that a tree did fall.

But valerie, you are *assuming* the axiom that the tree fell. There are
lots of systems of logic that are based on axioms, like arithmetic, in
which it *follows* that 2 + 2 = 4 - but 2 + 2 = 4 is not an absolute
truth outside that system. Same for your tree. That the tree fell is
not *absolute* given *any* set of axions (such as, no tree fell).

 What was that line from 1984?

  Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.

  I recall in the book, Winston was brainwashed into thinking that 2+2 could
equal 3, 4, or 5, depending on how Big Brother wanted it. Truth in that
instance was only absolute if Big Brother said it was.

  No, Rane, I want to say that nature has inherent truth. One plus one is
always 2. That will never change, no matter who says otherwise.

<omni now has a sinking feeling that he has really stepped in something messy>

Well, in reality, if you have one thing, and then another thing
sitting next to it, you definitely have two things.  But that's
just me talking.

Do numbers exist "in reality" or only "in your mind"?  We then to perceive
the world as being divided up into discrete "things" but is that reality or
is that the way our perceptual systems work?  I don't entirely know what I
believe about how real reality is.  Even in my most realist moods, I think
that "reality" is mostly an artifact of the structure human minds and
perceptual systems and are basically consensual.  When you are a kid, people
deliberately teach you concepts like "number" ("here's one spoonful of mush,
now let's have another").  A lot of what we perceive as reality is a cultural
artifact.

In my most idealist moods, I don't believe that there is any hard physical
reality underneath all this subjectivity.  No rocks, stars, planets or atoms.
What I do believe exists is Mind.  Mind tends to structure itself into lots
of smaller minds that operate sufficiently independently to start feeling like
individuals.  I'm one of those.  You're another.  So's your cat and the
cockroach under the counter.  The borderlines between individuals, and the
protocols by which they can communicate have been evolved within the Mind
and are essentially malliable.  By communications protocols I mean ideas
like each having a "body" and associating those bodies with "locations" in
"space".  The protocols say that we must establishing co-location as a
prerequisite for certain kinds of communications actions like kissing or
throwing concepts called "bricks" at each other.

Death in this framework may be either the extinguishment of a sub-mind, or
it may correspond to that mind reaching a state where it is unreachable by
any communications protocol know to the consensual reality.  That mind may
or may not establish itself as part of some other consensual relatity.  There
is no reason different disconnected relaties can't co-exist.

Individuals can change their perceptions of reality, but if they go too far
in that direction they just drop out of the consensus.  So the minds we can
communicate and interact with all have pretty similar perceptions of reality
(ie, communication protocols) to ours.  That's why we can communicate with
them, and that's why we get the illusion of universal agreement on the
"reality" of some basic things like time and space.

This means however that reality itself can evolve.  If you can push an idea
of how the world works hard enough, and convince people that it is true, then
it becomes true.

I'm not sure how much I believe that, but it has an appealing simplicity that
the idea of there begin an actual physical reality that is the source of all
our perceptions lacks.  That actual physical reality is such an inscrutable
object.

Janc, i suggest you suspend your philosophical contemplations for long
enough to apply the "death" state-transition to the sub-minds of those
cockroaches under the counter before valerie notices them.  :) 

Too late for that.

Anyway, getting back to the question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody
is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Even within my most idealist theories of reality, the answer is "yes, of
course it does."  You can't go mixing up levels.  Even if it exists only
within our collective imaginations, reality is by definition real, and that
question is whole imbedded inside of reality.  It talks about trees and
forests and people and sounds and subjects and observers - all of its
assumptions are within the system and the only possible sensible answer is
the one from inside the system:  When the tree falls, it inevitably hits
other objects and the some of the imparted energy propagates outward in the
form of compression waves through the air, and these constitute "sound" with
or without the presense of any observer.

I think reality works a lot like genetics.  Members of a common consensual
reality are like members of the same species.  Just as there is wide variation
among individual humans genetically, there is also wide variation among their
individual subjective realities.  Still, there is an overall pattern for what
a "normal" human being looks like and for what his or her perception of
reality is like.

There are two moralities (using Pirsig's word) in each case.  One values what
conforms to the established patterns.  You want your baby to be born "normal"
and you distrust people whose perception of reality is not "normal".  This
is what Pirsig calls "static quality".  It's important.  We cannot exist
outside a pattern.  Things that don't fit it are justifiably treated as
"freaks".

But there also exists what Pirsig calls "dynamic quality".  Some of the freaks
turn out to be extremely valuable.  They may have traits that work so well in
their environment that they eventually become part of the "norm".

Or they may not.  The static pattern is the accumulation of all the positive
contributions of past freaks.  Most random departures from it are not advances
but degeneracies - steps that lose some of that past accumulated value.

So how do you tell if a person with a freakish subjective reality is a
genius or a kook?  Basically, you can't short of waiting fifty years and
seeing if those ideas got integrated into the consensual reality.  But
generally ideas that are persuasive are more likely to win out.

So even if I believe reality is not based on any absolutes and is subject
to change without notice, if you ask me a question about "what is real"
then the only way to answer it is to bring to bear the most persuasive
ideas within the context of the current static consensual reality.

As far as I can see, the most persuasive system for answering questions
within this consensual reality is Science.  It is built on a network of
many people who carefully and redundantly examine everything and announce
any inconsistancies they find and figure out ways to revise reality to
iron out those inconsistancies.  As social instruments for the construction
of systems of reality go, it's the ultimate steam roller.  Systems of Religion
and Magic have their uses, but if either wanders onto Science's turf they
get obliterated.  If their results are consistant with Science, fine.  If not,
then they will find it impossible to sustain their claims in the face of
Scientific Investigation.  The priest of the great God Skrpl can say A, but
if Science says B then the vast majority of people are going to buy B because
Science carefully and exhaustively connects everything it says to everything
we already believe.

So I think even if reality is not absolute, Science is still the best method
available for structuring reality.  It does a thorough job of building new
static realities, while never closing its doors completely on the possibility
of dynamic change.  It's great stuff, but it doesn't mean that there are or
have to be absolutes.  Our consensual reality can keep evolving without their
being any particular "absolute reality" that it is evolving toward, just as
our physical bodies can keep evolving without their being any "perfect being"
that we are evolving toward.

        If no one saw the tree fall who's to say it didn't grow in that
position and condition?

Say, the forest is submerged in water, so that the trees rot away and
settle slowly into the sediments. They fall, but make no discernable
noise.  Therefore the uncircumscribed "absolute truth" of falling trees
making noise is meaningless.

Say the trees fall because the sun explodes and the plasma shock wave
evaporates them before they move a micron. The falling of the trees
makes no "noise".

Consider other scenarios that I have not thought of in which the falling
of the tree makes no noise. Can you prove there are none. It is not
possible to prove a negative, and therefore there is no *absolute truth*
to the statement. 

How much is the sum of 1 toad plus 1 orange? There are *set theoric*
answers to that, but there is no *absolute* answer (e.g., 2 organisms, but
1 "group of life forms"). How much is the sum of 1 and another 1 at right
angles to it? It is sometimes sqrt(2). Again, the answer is determined by
how it is circumscribed, so there is no "absolute truth"  about it. 

Those that say 1 + 1 = 2 are *assuming* that the ones are scalar countable
dimensionless quantities that obey particular rules. However the *rules*
have no "absolute truth" to them. We made them up because they are
convenient to us for many purposes. 

  Although we cannot speak with absolute certainty about what happened
  to the tree even if we *did* observe (or thought we observed) it falling,
  I think there *is* an absolute truth about what happened..  Again, though,
  I don't know what that buys us because we can't *really* be totally sure
  there even was a tree, even if we watch it grow, hear the 'thunk' as our
  axe cuts into the trunk, and feel it crush our legs as it topples over
  on top of us..  All of those sensory perceptions *could* be false..

  IMHO the amount of knowledge about "absolute truth" that we can arrive at
  by observation or reason is so scant that there's not really anything useful
  we can say about it..

Great stuff in this item.

Rane, what do you say about this statement:  "It is an absolute truth that if
you assume all the standard postulates about integer arithmetic, then 1+1=2"?
(Imagine that instead of saying "all the standard postulates" I had listed
them.)

Personally, I've always favored the Evil Genius theory

"We milk the cow of the world and as we do,
We whisper in its ear 'You are not true.'"

               -- Richard Wilbur

        N a r f !   (my brain hurts).

to paraphrase #21:  "it is an absolute truth that if we postulate that 1 +
1 = 2, then 1 + 1 = 2."

Exactly. The "absolute truth" therefore hangs upon the non-absolute truth
of the postulates.

In regard to the tree falling in the woods and making noise...without invoking
any unusual events by which no noise might be produced, we can consider that
trees in woods are normally *always* making noise. The winds rustles the
leaves, temperature changes occur, the tree breathes and conducts chemical
reactions, all producing noise. So, when asked the question, when a tree
falls in the forest with noone near does it make a noise?, one can only
ask "What do you mean? Trees are always making noise." Now the question has
to be resolved of how much more noise is meant, etc.: hardly in the area
of "asbolute truth".

  now I think you're just playing silly word games -- clearly the question
  is meant to be taken as "does the tree make a noise that indicates that it
  is falling or has just fallen?"

Usually, but not *absolutely*. You make this point by using the condition
that "the question is *meant* to be taken as.." (emphasis added). Since 
the question was not absolutely circumscribed, the answer is always
conditional. Hence, there is no "absolute truth" of the matter.

  And if I tell you "my car is red" are you going to ask me if it's
  a primary color, if it's communist, or if it's embarassed?

  there's enough ambiguity present in the English language already
  without seeking to add more..

Is it red in absolute darkness? Also, colorblind people might contest
your claim that it is red. 

You are also accepting ambiguity in language as an excuse for the
statement "my car is red" being able to refer to several conditions
(it could also be red hot in a fire). But what we are discussing here
is the existence of *absolute* truth, not just highly probable truth, 
so *any* alternative interpretation, or inability to in fact determine
the truth *absolutely*, negatives the proposition of the existence of
absolute truth. 

Hmmm - I don't understand what was wrong with my example, except Eric seems to
think it was simple enough to be a tautology.  (Though I don't see why
a tautology such as "A is A" is not absolute truth.

Here's a slightly more complicated version of my example, in symbolic
notation:

Statement A is the postulates of arithmetic (I'll look them up if anyone wants
            to know what they are.
Statement B is "There are an infinite number of primes"
Statement C is "Statement A implies Statement B".

Why is Statement C not absolute truth?  If it's not, you better define what
you mean by absolute truth.

 re #30:  I have a feeling we're talking about totally different things

It is within the consequences of the postulates, but an "absolute truth" must
be true regardless of the postulates. 

A=A appears (at first glance) to be an absolute truth - of *zero meaning*.
My only claim is that "absolute truth" is a meaningless concept, and you
have just proven it.

What I discern here is that the examples put forward so far for "absolute
truth" are either tautologies, or of limited absoluteness (as circumscribed
by axioms), or so broad and diffuse as to raise innumerable ill defined
ideas ("my car is red"...what is "red"?). 

Perhaps the meaningless of "absolute truth" follows from Goedel's Proof
of the impossibility of proving the axioms of any logical system.

#32 slipped in. I'm talking about "absolute truth". What are you talking
about?

But there *is* no absolute truth with regard to any statement as
complex as "I'm talking about 'absolute truth.'"  How can you say
that's exactly what you're talking about, Rane?  How can any of us
engage in rational discourse about anything?

I think #35 is the basic question of modern philosophy.

Re #33:  No, Rane, you don't get it:  The only hidden assumptions made by
statement C are the rules of deduction.  The question is, are those rules
absolute truth?  If not, I'd like to see an example of a system in which
they are not true. 

And *your* logic is terribly flawed when you conclude that because my
proffered example of a tautology has, in your opinion, no meaning, then I
have "proven" that all absolute truths must have no meaning.  I proved
nothing of the sort, whether a tautology has meaning or not.

For those who would prefer a verbal example to a mathematical one, try
this:

A: Socrates is a man.
B: All men are mortal.
C: Socrates is mortal.
D: If A is true and B is true, then C is true.

Why isn't D absolute truth?  Can anyone imagine a universe in which D is
*not* true?

Your example depends upon the axioms of the logical system you are using. 
I agree that this logical system agrees best with what we observe, but
there must be logical systems that do *not* agree with what we observe, in
which that conclusion would be in error. The *rules* were made up by us
and are not "absolute truths". 

I am reminded again of the quote (whose author I cannot recall) about his
astonishment at the unreasonably good agreement between relatively simnple
mathematics and the real world. Are you not astonished? 

In regard to #35, the "rational discourse" in which we engage is an
approximation to "truth" that suffices for most of our practical purposes. 
None of it is "absolute", however (100% accuracy and precision, 0 error,
exact agreement with reality, takes into account 100% of all relevant
configurations of the universe, etc). The purpose of our "rational
discourse", both in every day matters (what color is the car), or in
mathematics, is for the purpose of arriving at a choice of actions we will
take. We do not require, nor can we obtain, *absolute* accuracy between
the totallity of  reality and our choices. 

Although it is our only experience, by the way, but why must it be an
"absolute truth" that Socrates is mortal? He isn't mortal now, and wasn't
mortal before he was conceived. #37 invokes some ifs about whatever
"Socrates" is, which is certainly the opposite of "absolutes".  

We're talking about the "totality of reality" now, are we?  That's
a LOT of stuff.  Why should I take the totality of reality into
consideration when I say my car is red?  Why should I even take
the very limited parts of reality into consideration that are
necessary to define "red" in terms of electromagnetic radiation
between the wavelengths of whatever and whatever, or as the pigment
that absorbs all but those wavelengths?  All I want is an 
"approximation" that my listener will understand, right?

Your statement that "the 'rational discourse' in which we engage 
is an approximation to 'truth,'" gives the game away.  If there
were no such thing as truth, then there can be no such thing as an
"approximation" to it, can there?  If we can approximate it, then 
not only does it most definitely exist, but, far from being a 
"meaningless concept," it is the very thing to which our 
approximations aspire.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss