/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying

color is a matter of definition. we've defined that color ranging from certain wave lengths to certain other ones is considered blue.
your name was defined by your parents.
i won't even get into theories about existance being questionable.
math is also a defined system.

another truth: I am shamelessly self-bumping

I wonder what causes atoms to attract in such way to create organisms so complex that life is formed.

Mind is full of trillions of trillions of fuck

zu jemand, das kein Englisch spricht, ist alles, das Sie gesagt haben, falsch. Beweis beruht auf Sprache, Sprache ist nicht absolut.

Getting truth off random .jpgs is probably not a good way to start.

>>2403537
read
>>2403534

there are no absolute truths, everything in this thread is just a definition. someone else could just as well define everything you've said to be wrong.
eat a dick.

>>2403541

So you're saying that he's absolutely wrong?

>>2403542

no, i'm saying there are no absolute truths.

>>2403546
and hence there are no absolute wrongs either.
</discussion>

>>2403541
YOURE WRONG CUZ I DEFINED IT DIFFERENT IN MY WORLD IM SO SMART HURR HURR

>>2403531

An absolute truth is UNALTERABLE, which no mere definition can be. In any event, whether or not truth exists is irrelevant to us, as we only have second-hand access to reality and so cannot even be sure that anything exists at all. Read a book, maybe something by Hegel or Nietzsche.

a=a
tautologies are tautological, other things are not.

pic related: absolute truth

>> "absolute truth does not exist"
>> Claiming that IS claiming an absolute truth
>> Self defeating

lol solipsism.


pic related: from my 'absolute truths' folder

>>2403551

ok, then

2+2=4

and don't be bringing your 1984 doublethink mind tricks into this, boy.

>>2403553

>mfw first person in this thread to not be full-blown retard

We almost certainly cannot know what absolute truth is.

>>2403531
>No such thing as an absolute truth?

Nope, Absolute truth exists, it is a fucking fact!
This is basic logic 101 son. Let me enlighten you:

Say, P = "no absolute truth"
However, if P is true, then P is an absolute truth. Hence P => ~P. Hence P must be false.
Hence there must exist an absolute truth.

Any questions?

>>2403555
You cannot prove arithmetical truth using arithmetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

>>2403557

Even if reality is an illusion, if the illusion is all that we have access to, then it is as valid as reality. This "we can't know the truth" talk is pointless.

>>2403560

>>2403563
what isn't pointless?

The correct response is to point out that it's supposed to be "Subjective beings cannot know if absolute truth exists" and the perceived paradox OP puts forth is due to this common misunderstanding.

>>2403560
"If this sentence is true, then God exists, and you're a faggot." Is a true sentence.

Any questions?

>>2403560
>Any questions?

yes, one.

would you please define "no absolute truth" without using words or symbols? maybe just point to one in reality or something.

>>2403566

The only reason why anything will ever be pointless is because you don't care.

>>2403572

>ask someone to define something without using any pre-existing system of communication
>if they can't do it must mean there is no truth

>>2403571

>"If this sentence is true, then God exists, and you're a faggot."
>"then God Exists"
>"God Exists"

God = Non existant
Therefore:
>"If this sentence is true, then [non-existence] exists, and you're a faggot."

I am a faggot.

>>2403580

This is really what /sci/ boils down to.

>>2403578
I didn't say that there's never truth, only that truth is subjective... and dependent on semantics.

it doesn't matter, truth is just something we agree upon, or not.

>>2403553
>>2403556

Samefag.

Consider changing your file names in the future if you want to evade detection.

>>2403555
>2+2=4
The result of combining two groups of two units is a group of four units, but do not be fooled. Addition is a process and the sum is the result of that process.

Consider two groups of two water droplets; when combined they might form one drop of water or they may split into fifty drops of water. It is true, however, that the one drop or the fifty droplets will be four units in volume.

For more see A.N.Whitehead's Modes of Thought

>>2403596
THIS is the kind of answer I was after. You, Sir are by no means a faggot.

>>2403572

You want me to "write somthing down" without words or symbols?

Are you fucking retared?

Simply put, if absolutes exist, without an infinite amount of time and resources: we will never know.

The likely hood of absolutes existing? If one can define any question well enough, there is only one result that is the right (absolute) answer.

>>2403572
I never said we know what the absolute truths are.

It is often possible to prove the existance of somthing in general, without knowing the specifics. We do this all the time in science, mathematics, basic reasoning and logics.

Example:
You know that there exists someone who takes your garbage away from your house, without knowing the identity of the actual person.

>>2403618
is truth reality, or the description of reality, or both?

if it's reality, then point to it.

if it's words, then your words don't mean the same things to anyone else unless they agree to allow them to do so.

what is truth? a valid argument? so it's not truth for me if I'm retarded? or if I can't read? or if I speak german?

you have no truth, your argument is words and symbols, true only in your head as long as you wish it to be so.

>>2403531
Assume there is no such thing as absolute truth.
The proposition that there is no such thing as absolute truth is not absolutely true.
The proposition that there is absolute truth is not absolutely false.
There is such thing as absolute truth.
Contradiction with assumption, assumption false.

>>2403626
A "tauntology" is an example of an absolute truth.

"Tautology: universal unconditioned truth, always valid"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

An example would be identity. Something is always equal to itself.

A = A, is always true

>>2403531
perception is different to every person. Existentialism states that unless we take a physical measure of an object, then it does not exist e.g. if you cant see it, thne it dossent exist, only when it does an action that affects one of your senses does it continue to exist.

>>2403659
wtf does that have to do with anything?

I win.

>>2403649
That implies that there are factors that are agreed upon. The same way that a lower case "a" in the English language is pronounced "ah", the symbol only equals itself if there is no other interpretation that supersedes the idea.

I would say that your example of "A = A" is not true because each of the symbols you've provided exist in visually different places in a HTML layout.

So basically, Absolute truth may or may not an absolute truth. But if it can never be an absolute truth.

>>2403686
lrn2incompleteness theorem, newfag.

Stealing a Whitehead/Russell .jpg you don't understand doesn't mean anything about your intelligence, but it puts you in a special group of douchebags.

>the sky is blue

It depends on the referential frame and on the hour of the day.

>My name is Joshua

I decide to call you David Davidson. Consequently, your name is now David Davidson.

>I am on /sci/

Unless you're browsing /sci/ 24/7, the chances are good that this sentence is not absolutely true.

I have no inspiration for the three others, but anyway, what is your point?

>>2403697
Eh? I understand it? I just finished a course in mathematical logic.

You don't have to be a douche, it was a joke.

inb4 you insult me again or you don't respond

>>2403649
deductive truth, epistemological equivocality.

i turn the fan to the on position.

Is the absolute truth of what i did, just not in detail of how i did it.

1. I know I am sitting in front of the PC
2. If I know I am sitting in front of the PC then I know I am not a brain in a vat.
3. I do not know I am not a brain in vat
Therefore
4. I do not know I am sitting in wrong of the PC

1. P
2. If P then Q
3. ~Q

>>2403763
Try this out for size then.

I know I think I am sitting in front of my computer.

My pattern exists, either physically or as a simulation.

This has only been true for what I have perceived as 20 years though.

>>2403692

>>2403833

prove it

How do you know which direction is "in front" of your computer?

[X] - Stone Told Steve Austin

>>2403847
Key word "think", he didn't say he knew what he knew, just he knew what he thought he knew. You can't even disprove it.

u mad?

>>2403692
>That implies that there are factors that are agreed upon.

Durr......However, if you don't agree upon factors, the the fact "that you don't agree upon factors" is a universal truth. GTFO with your fail!

If you say "think" you're back in scepticism. Best move is shift from modus tollens to modus ponens.

- I am sitting by the fire
- If I am sitting by the fire then I am not a brain in a vat
Therefore
- I am not a brain in a vat

simples

Of course all truths are relative.
If you have no eyes, the sky is no colour.
If you are not joshua, your name is not joshua.
a=a is axiomatically defined. It's true because we decided it is true.

Philosophy, for any decently intelligent creature, is obvious to be insignificant bullshit made up by less intelligent creatures so they can start retard debates like this in order to feel important

Nothing, not even something as simple as this sentance, can be fully understood.

define "this" moment