What's a "point"? Please explain to me what that is and I will tell you.

William

Yes, that is the problem. You don't know what having a point when you say something is, do you?

Do you talk to people like that at the bank, grocery store or gas station? When they ask you "paper or plastic" do you say "What is paper?" or "What is plastic?" or do you adopt a reasonable stance and just pick one?

Neither does the birth defect you mentioned!

william

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 09:45 AM ----------



I don't go to banks. As far as the paper or plastic, if offered either, I like paper better. If not I even ask for it if they have it. It's more user friendly. I know for the most part what paper is; I have no idea of all what plastic other than it is cheap and not very user friendly. You can put more into plastic than you can paper but I was never into more of anything. What I needed was enough for me. That's my reasonable stance. I don't take anything that is given; only after consideration will I if it is offered.

william

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 10:03 AM ----------



Who does? That's what I mean Ken. There is nothing that can point to any conclusion or a final understanding of anything. Every thing that is true is a complementary/complimentary association of other things that bond them together and in our analysis, we just hit a dead end on one end as to being just a great noise or BIG BANG. Ha! So it is best guess as to what anything is. The tighter the bond the better the chance we have of learning a truth about anything.

william

There is likely to be an exception...But if there were it would not effect so many as to disallow the universality... You might have to define things a little more...

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 09:26 PM ----------


A friend from New York state said when she first came to Michigan and when she went to the store to buy something, the person at the register asked if she wanted a sack... A what??? She said... After it was repeated several times, the person next in line said: Do you want a bag for your purchace??? I guess they don't say sack in New Your State...

"Truth is a property of sentences." I think we tend to forget to what degree with live in abstractions. The concept of a human liver is just one way among others to divide/process our experience of the human body, for instance. We live in our concepts often without being aware of it. We forget that "Reality" is itself an abstraction. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world."

This is why universal truth isn't such an easy issue.

Firstly, i'm going to try and define the words "truth" and "lie". The entire dilemma of this thing lies in how people define these words.

There are two ways of defining "a truth":
1. A truth is an event that has happened or is happening. It's not what people THINK happened or is happening.
2. A truth is an event that the individual believes to be true.

There are also two ways of defining the word "lie":
1. A lie is when "X" INTENTIONALLY tells "Y" something that isn't the truth. (this is the correct one, if you look at it's meaning in the dictionary)
2. A lie is when "X" tells "Y" something that isn't the truth, intentionally or not.

Looking at your conversation with your friend, you obviously go with the 1.´s and your friend goes with the 2.´s. Personally i'm totally with you.
To be honest, i don't really know what a "universal truth" means, but i guess it's a truth that applies to everybody. If this is so, i agree with you in this matter too. Here's an example of a universal truth: "Every living being has to die". In my opinion, anyone who tries to argue with this statement is simply stupid.

Facts are the personification of objectiveness in our language.

They are not perfect, as they are only true inside the space we have limited via our clauses. We could say they are objective, by defining objectivity as the collective subjectivity of humanity.

On the other hand, I believe absolute truth does not exist.

It is very interesting exercise to mix philosophy and physics and think about relative true, relative time and past events.
Events occurred in the past would are true, and as there is no way of going back in time, they would remain true. However, those events are past just for a certain number of observers. For others, light could very well be showing it to them right now. However, there is a timeline in the universe and we could still somehow “absolutely” pinpoint where our event took place, and thus classify it as past.

But I haven’t found any truth that could stretch into the future eternally, due to the everchanging nature of our universe. Unless, of course, that there are not absolute truths. But when thinking it twice, I realize that could change as well.
It is also to be remarked that all these statements are based on the fact that we can perceive reality as it is. And that is not true, nor proveable. Because in order to prove we can perceive reality, we have to use the senses with which we perceive reality, the same tools we are trying to prove.

It is not so simple. Life is limited by death. But death can come both internally (regulated by the living organism itself, for example, aging) or externally (an accident, or the end of the universe).
However, the death induced from within can technically be stopped (genetical engineering...), so a form of immortality is actually attainable. Our life spans could then match that of the universe (or our galaxy) if these immortal beings were to colonize other planets (unless an accident occurs).

Dear wayne,

Why do you think forgiveness is always right?

Dear sometime sun,

I am very much intrigued by your Ergo in vitro. Do you imply truth can only exist tied to uncertainty?

Dear kennethamy,

I believe not all the statements which are true are eternal.
For exaple, "my chair is a chair".
If we eternalize it, "my chair will always be a chair".
However, there will come a time when the chair stops being a chair, and then the statement would be a lie, first in the subject, then in the predicative and finally, with regards to time.

Eternal truths confined in the past could exist, though. But would they be really eternal then?

Very enriching, thank you qualia.
I believe subjective truths would not be absolute truths. And absolute truths should definitely include the frame they were stated in, if they existed.
How would you define objetivness?