I should be more precise. Due to errors we preceive data as facts and build upon them our theories. My example from the Rhein (one of the busiest rivers in the World) was caused by a typing mistake. What I just wonder is that no-body notices ! We talk about 100 kilometer busy riverbody !

Much of what we see as fact, is no fact. With all the help of equipment and computers we still not sure about facts in the natural world. To present proof as facts in abstrat enviroment is easier I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethamy
That facts change does not mean that what was a fact, was a fact.

It was sunny yesterday, and today it is raining. But that does not mean it was not sunny yesterday, does it? That remains true even if it is not sunny today.






interesting

because I see billions of truths / facts

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 10:38 PM ----------

all forms are what the are because they nothing but that form

living and non-living forms

a bear connot be a tv , lead connot be hydrogen , a rock is not water , grass is not concrete etc

So this means that you conclude, correctly that all forms/ideas/concepts/notions/abstractions tell truth; and if they did not, that they would each be useless- which accounts for many of the dead forms we find in history...

That's an interesting approach to the question. Are all facts incomplete in this sense? If so, are facts complete only at a sort of absolute moment? What would that moment be like?

That's an interesting approach to the question. Are all facts incomplete in this sense? If so, are facts complete only at a sort of absolute moment? What would that moment be like?

no

only that all physical forms are because they can be nothing else

I don't understand what a "complete fact" is supposed to be. It is a fact that there is an apple on the table. That there is no apple on the table later does not mean it is less of a fact. What is true remains true. That something different is also true does not mean that what is true does not remain true. That there is an apple on the table on Sunday if true remains true even if there is no apple on Monday. What would the latter have to do with the former?

These absolute moments, one might be convinced that they are to be looked for in reality (or whatever word you want to use), but can't the "absolute moment" you're describing really be reduced into one's will to communicate, or better, to the totality of what needs to be communicated?

Holiday20310401 had some interesting things to say about this. Here is one of them:

I don't understand what a "complete fact" is supposed to be. It is a fact that there is an apple on the table. That there is no apple on the table later does not mean it is less of a fact. What is true remains true. That something different is also true does not mean that what is true does not remain true. That there is an apple on the table on Sunday if true remains true even if there is no apple on Monday. What would the latter have to do with the former?

The used to be apple on the table is past tense true...It was true, and the statment about it being there when it was there was true...

Do you know how I am with my sbsolute moments??? About the same as I was a a child falling out of bed... Somewhere between bed and board I would think: This is interesting... I have never been without the narrative...

Maybe that's what an absolute moment is, one you capture with narrative. But then, as you indicate, there is the question of memory. If one forgets the moment what does that say about how absolute it can be? Must absolute moments be indelible?

If it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday, then it is true that there is an apple on Tuesday on Wednesday. A change in tense does not make what is true, false.

Yes.

But if I only say, "there is an apple on the table" then the tense does matter. The fact is not truth, because now the fact has a condition. The apple may be on the table on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday. The condition must be communicated in order for the fact to be truth again.

A 'complete fact' was meant to mean, in this case, "there is an apple on the table on Tuesday".

An 'absolute moment' was meant to suggest what reality is like when all conditions are satisfied so that there is no ambiguity in expressing data as a fact when communicating whatever you want to communicate.

However, this may be the wrong approach to take. Reality does not become less ambiguous or more ambiguous on its own so that there is an ultimate perspective that satisfies the 'absolute moment' condition of reality.

I think this is what was meant by using the term absolute moment. The mistake I think is in assuming the ambiguity or untruth lies in reality itself somehow, and that perception can alone unveil what is not ambiguous. Ambiguity starts not there, but when someone is trying to communicate something.

Now the question becomes, if this is the right track, what makes truth so hard? Is it just a matter of communication between languages? Or is there more to it? Can there be more to it?

Maybe that's what an absolute moment is, one you capture with narrative. But then, as you indicate, there is the question of memory. If one forgets the moment what does that say about how absolute it can be? Must absolute moments be indelible?

Truth is what makes you see reality such as it is. Since man is a finite and fallible being we have to look for a spritual source, that is, Jesus the Christ.