| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » The absolute truth
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Estela Beslerzewski |
 Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A 'deception' can be control itself. Whom is to say that the deception, is
that we have control. There is no truth or truth in a existence where we
and everything else is controlled. To claim there is a truth, is to claim
there is an existence. Reality, an illusion of control.
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Quote: ^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^
(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about
this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Herc
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Estela Beslerzewski |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A 'deception' can be control itself. Whom is to say that the deception, is
that we have control. There is no truth or truth in a existence where we
and everything else is controlled. To claim there is a truth, is to claim
there is an existence. Reality, an illusion of control.
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Quote: ^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^
(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about
this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Herc
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tue Sorensen |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message news:<KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
Quote: ^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^> <(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Absolutely! :-)
- Tue |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tue Sorensen |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message news:<KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
Quote: ^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^> <(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Absolutely! :-)
- Tue |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tue Sorensen |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0401031446.2dee49c0@posting.google.com>...
Quote: twocrafts@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.0401031111.5747e05a@posting.google.com>...
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky) wrote in message news:<d7221cc2.0401021303.24543304@posting.google.com>...
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
""One Day Tesshu, the famous swordsman and zen devotee, went
to Dokuon and told him triumphantly he believed all that exists
is empty, there is no you or me, and so on. The master, who had
listened in silence, suddenly snatched up his long tobacco pipe
and struck Tesshu's head. The infuriated swordsman would have
killed the master there and then, but Dokuon said calmly,
"Emptiness is quick to show its anger, isn't it?"
Forcing a smile, Tesshu left the room.""
(Soul Food -- Stories to Nourish the Spirit and the Heart
Ed. Jack Kornfield & Christina Feldman)
Accept the terrible truth that all is illusion. All being One,
wherever you go, there you are. But that doesn't have to ruin
things. The Gnosis of illusion and what to do about it leads
the seeker to Moksha-- experiential knowledge of the liberation
from dualistic bondage. The choice after Moksha is your own.
Return to source? To nothingness? Or choose the road for the
sake of the undiscovered country and the experience of experience
for the sake of itself.
Accept the terrible truth and return to yourself. Your path
after that crossroads is your own choice. =~)
"Students achieving oneness, will move ahead to twoness."
(Woody Allen)
"We shall not cease from exploration.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
Knowing the place for the first time."
(T.S. Eliot)
So we agree then.
- Tue |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tue Sorensen |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0401031446.2dee49c0@posting.google.com>...
Quote: twocrafts@hotmail.com (Tue Sorensen) wrote in message news:<c50450f6.0401031111.5747e05a@posting.google.com>...
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky) wrote in message news:<d7221cc2.0401021303.24543304@posting.google.com>...
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
""One Day Tesshu, the famous swordsman and zen devotee, went
to Dokuon and told him triumphantly he believed all that exists
is empty, there is no you or me, and so on. The master, who had
listened in silence, suddenly snatched up his long tobacco pipe
and struck Tesshu's head. The infuriated swordsman would have
killed the master there and then, but Dokuon said calmly,
"Emptiness is quick to show its anger, isn't it?"
Forcing a smile, Tesshu left the room.""
(Soul Food -- Stories to Nourish the Spirit and the Heart
Ed. Jack Kornfield & Christina Feldman)
Accept the terrible truth that all is illusion. All being One,
wherever you go, there you are. But that doesn't have to ruin
things. The Gnosis of illusion and what to do about it leads
the seeker to Moksha-- experiential knowledge of the liberation
from dualistic bondage. The choice after Moksha is your own.
Return to source? To nothingness? Or choose the road for the
sake of the undiscovered country and the experience of experience
for the sake of itself.
Accept the terrible truth and return to yourself. Your path
after that crossroads is your own choice. =~)
"Students achieving oneness, will move ahead to twoness."
(Woody Allen)
"We shall not cease from exploration.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
Knowing the place for the first time."
(T.S. Eliot)
So we agree then.
- Tue |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Witt |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401031333.54714fe5@posting.google.com...
Quote: "Bill Smith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bt6nn1$m1g$1@usenet.otenet.gr>...
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401021303.24543304@posting.google.com...
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth"
You said it already. Why do you need to say anything more?
(How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
This statement is false if your first statement is true.
It seems you have been tortured by locking you up in a round room and
telling you that can only piss at a corner.
Clarification for You:
Quote: "There is no absolute truth"
How about "There is no absolute truth" ?
Is it absolute?
Regards,
George
Of course not.
If we say ..For all propositions p (p is not absolutely true) then, (q is
not absolutely true) ..for any q.
(including "There is no absolute truth")
Even if we were in possession of an absolute truth, how could we know that
it is absolutely true?
From Godel and others, we know that there is no (absolute) system of logic
that contains all truths.
i.e. there is no method of deciding absolutely.
It's not the case that all (apparent) questions have answers.
It makes no sense to ask a question where there cannot be an answer.
The relativity of truth is that, truth is meaningful only with respect to a
particular method of deciding it.
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case within some method of
decision, imo.
Regards,
Witt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Witt |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401031333.54714fe5@posting.google.com...
Quote: "Bill Smith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bt6nn1$m1g$1@usenet.otenet.gr>...
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401021303.24543304@posting.google.com...
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth"
You said it already. Why do you need to say anything more?
(How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
This statement is false if your first statement is true.
It seems you have been tortured by locking you up in a round room and
telling you that can only piss at a corner.
Clarification for You:
Quote: "There is no absolute truth"
How about "There is no absolute truth" ?
Is it absolute?
Regards,
George
Of course not.
If we say ..For all propositions p (p is not absolutely true) then, (q is
not absolutely true) ..for any q.
(including "There is no absolute truth")
Even if we were in possession of an absolute truth, how could we know that
it is absolutely true?
From Godel and others, we know that there is no (absolute) system of logic
that contains all truths.
i.e. there is no method of deciding absolutely.
It's not the case that all (apparent) questions have answers.
It makes no sense to ask a question where there cannot be an answer.
The relativity of truth is that, truth is meaningful only with respect to a
particular method of deciding it.
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case within some method of
decision, imo.
Regards,
Witt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Buyanovsky |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Witt" <oorionus@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<KrUJb.246489$2We1.103155@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
It was attempt to find a non-explicit way to state consistently "there
is no absolute truth".
The post below
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=3f55bc43b6983a5a&seekm=vvgbgvfrh8909a%40corp.supernews.com#link21
suggested the elegant way "to destroy my hope" ;o(
-------------
THE STATEMENT "THE STATEMENT "THIS STATEMENT IS
THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT"
IS WRONG" IS WRONG
-------------
There is another way to look at this:
If there is a way to state consistently "there is no absolute truth"
OR there is no way to do so, the both scenarios cause the same
conclusion about impossibility of absolute truth. In case of the first
scenario it is true because it is expressed explicitly, in case of
second scenario - because even statement about non-absoluteness is not
absolute that indicates the deep internal consistency of
"non-absolute" assumption.
I am not sure it sounds convincing.
Regards,
George |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Buyanovsky |
| Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Witt" <oorionus@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<KrUJb.246489$2We1.103155@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
It was attempt to find a non-explicit way to state consistently "there
is no absolute truth".
The post below
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=3f55bc43b6983a5a&seekm=vvgbgvfrh8909a%40corp.supernews.com#link21
suggested the elegant way "to destroy my hope" ;o(
-------------
THE STATEMENT "THE STATEMENT "THIS STATEMENT IS
THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT"
IS WRONG" IS WRONG
-------------
There is another way to look at this:
If there is a way to state consistently "there is no absolute truth"
OR there is no way to do so, the both scenarios cause the same
conclusion about impossibility of absolute truth. In case of the first
scenario it is true because it is expressed explicitly, in case of
second scenario - because even statement about non-absoluteness is not
absolute that indicates the deep internal consistency of
"non-absolute" assumption.
I am not sure it sounds convincing.
Regards,
George |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Buyanovsky |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joseph Hertzlinger <jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in message news:<ekNJb.22934$IM3.5955@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Quote: On 2 Jan 2004 13:03:27 -0800, George Buyanovsky <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote:
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
Is that a Henkin sentence?
Leon Henkin suggested to form predicate H which says of itself that it
is provable in T, and ask whether this predicate H is provable in T or
not.
I do not see resemblance; anyway this joke does not work.
George |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George Buyanovsky |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joseph Hertzlinger <jcyclespersecondlongisland@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote in message news:<ekNJb.22934$IM3.5955@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Quote: On 2 Jan 2004 13:03:27 -0800, George Buyanovsky <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote:
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
Is that a Henkin sentence?
Leon Henkin suggested to form predicate H which says of itself that it
is provable in T, and ask whether this predicate H is provable in T or
not.
I do not see resemblance; anyway this joke does not work.
George |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |-|erc |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
there exists an illusion ATLEAST!
Herc
"Estela Beslerzewski" <beslerzewski@sympatico.ca> wrote
Quote: A 'deception' can be control itself. Whom is to say that the deception, is
that we have control. There is no truth or truth in a existence where we
and everything else is controlled. To claim there is a truth, is to claim
there is an existence. Reality, an illusion of control.
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^
(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about
this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Herc
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |-|erc |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
there exists an illusion ATLEAST!
Herc
"Estela Beslerzewski" <beslerzewski@sympatico.ca> wrote
Quote: A 'deception' can be control itself. Whom is to say that the deception, is
that we have control. There is no truth or truth in a existence where we
and everything else is controlled. To claim there is a truth, is to claim
there is an existence. Reality, an illusion of control.
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:KcNJb.792$FD6.25621@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
^> <(·¿·)> <^> ---- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> 2004 <^> <(·¿·)> <^> --- <^
(·¿·)> <^
"Tue Sorensen" <twocrafts@hotmail.com> wrote in
buyanovsky@attbi.com (George Buyanovsky)
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth" (How about
this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
George Buyanovsky
If there were no truth, neither would there be any lies. If reality
exists, then its existence is true, thus proving that truth exists. If
reality doesn't exist, how could we be deceived into experiencing it?
How can there be deception unless that deception masks a reality about
which we're being deceived? Either way, some kind of reality must
exist, thus proving something true.
Tue true!
Herc
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |-|erc |
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Witt" <oorionus@yahoo.com> wrote in
Quote:
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401031333.54714fe5@posting.google.com...
"Bill Smith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bt6nn1$m1g$1@usenet.otenet.gr>...
"George Buyanovsky" <buyanovsky@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:d7221cc2.0401021303.24543304@posting.google.com...
The consistent way to say, "There is no absolute truth"
You said it already. Why do you need to say anything more?
(How about this one?) ;o)
"THIS STATEMENT IS THE ONLY AND ONLY ONE ABSOLUTELY-TRUE STATEMENT."
This statement is false if your first statement is true.
It seems you have been tortured by locking you up in a round room and
telling you that can only piss at a corner.
Clarification for You:
"There is no absolute truth"
How about "There is no absolute truth" ?
Is it absolute?
Regards,
George
Of course not.
If we say ..For all propositions p (p is not absolutely true) then, (q is
not absolutely true) ..for any q.
(including "There is no absolute truth")
Even if we were in possession of an absolute truth, how could we know that
it is absolutely true?
From Godel and others, we know that there is no (absolute) system of logic
that contains all truths.
i.e. there is no method of deciding absolutely.
Wrong conclusion. there is no method for ALL truths.
this does not ascertain a lack of method for some.
Take the Godel statement itself, it is absolutely true,
it doesn't even need a proof.
Herc
Quote:
It's not the case that all (apparent) questions have answers.
It makes no sense to ask a question where there cannot be an answer.
The relativity of truth is that, truth is meaningful only with respect to a
particular method of deciding it.
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case within some method of
decision, imo.
Regards,
Witt
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:49 pm
|
|