The Duality of Truth

[SpellAndShield]

There are facts; these things exist independent of human beings and there is truth; human contrivance and invention. Much like the question 'why'. In reality, there is only 'how' as why presupposes purpose (itself a human fiction)...which leads us back to 'truth'...within the sphere of humanity, truth is what you want it to be, which is why I try to rely on facts.

[Aurielius]

confining truth to relativity is self contradictory. surely, it has properties of both

Perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, your perception of reality is unique to you and though you may hold some truths in common with others, you still have a personal slant on what you believe to be true. Hence your perception of truth is subjective to your point of view.

That is why whenever someone tells me that they have a lock-on the 'Truth', I usually whip out my BS meter to judge how big a shovel I'll need.

( general not personal reference)

[SpellAndShield]

confining truth to relativity is self contradictory. surely, it has properties of both

Perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, your perception of reality is unique to you and though you may hold some truths in common with others, you still have a personal slant on what you believe to be true. Hence your perception of truth is subjective to your point of view.

That is why whenever someone tells me that they have a lock-on the 'Truth', I usually whip out my BS meter to judge how big a shovel I'll need.

( general not personal reference)

 

Which distinguishes truth from facts...

[Dicecaster]

confining truth to relativity is self contradictory. surely, it has properties of both

Perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, your perception of reality is unique to you and though you may hold some truths in common with others, you still have a personal slant on what you believe to be true. Hence your perception of truth is subjective to your point of view.

That is why whenever someone tells me that they have a lock-on the 'Truth', I usually whip out my BS meter to judge how big a shovel I'll need.

( general not personal reference)

Now, wait, there's the perception of truth, then there's truth itself. Your argument seems to suggest that truth is dependent upon your perception, creating personal truths, which would inevitably contradict others' truths, which is impossible, since we all exist in the same world with the same truths. Now, you're right, perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, so truth can be extremely difficult to divine at times (with plenty of room for error), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is still universal truth.

[marharth]

Truth is generally determined by the facts that back it up.

 

Facts are commonly accepted opinions...

[Aurielius]

Now, wait, there's the perception of truth, then there's truth itself. Your argument seems to suggest that truth is dependent upon your perception, creating personal truths, which would inevitably contradict others' truths, which is impossible, since we all exist in the same world with the same truths. Now, you're right, perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, so truth can be extremely difficult to divine at times (with plenty of room for error), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is still universal truth.

 

"The Truth Itself", assumes that the core truth ,the only truth and the incontrovertible truth are concepts that be discerned by all or some if they just have enough facts? The assumption that there is a 'Universal Truth' is an assumption of concept rather than that of fact.

Outside of hard mathematics there is no such thing as the sole and only truth. All sentient beings by their very nature have a subjective view of the world and therefore the same fact when discerned by all or some will be as varied as the number of observers. All realities no matter how coexistent are still different according to the perspective of who is observing them.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Aurielius

[Dicecaster]

Now, wait, there's the perception of truth, then there's truth itself. Your argument seems to suggest that truth is dependent upon your perception, creating personal truths, which would inevitably contradict others' truths, which is impossible, since we all exist in the same world with the same truths. Now, you're right, perspective colors all judgments of sentient beings, so truth can be extremely difficult to divine at times (with plenty of room for error), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is still universal truth.

 

"The Truth Itself", assumes that the core truth ,the only truth and the incontrovertible truth are concepts that be discerned by all or some if they just have enough facts? The assumption that there is a 'Universal Truth' is an assumption of concept rather than that of fact.

Outside of hard mathematics there is no such thing as the sole and only truth. All sentient beings by their very nature have a subjective view of the world and therefore the same fact when discerned by all or some will be as varied as the number of observers. All realities no matter how coexistent are still different according to the perspective of who is observing them.

Universal truth example: if you're on Earth, and you don't have proper propulsion against the force of gravity, you will fall. Mathematics, physics, etc. are part of the universal truth of which I was writing. Now, those are the only things we've been able to observe, but that doesn't mean that there aren't more natural laws/truth outside of what we've already unraveled. All sentient beings will have a different, subjective view of the same fact, but that doesn't spawn different versions of that fact. If you ask someone what color a creme-colored linen sheet is, some will say "white", others will say "off-white", yet still others will say "creme". None of those change the fact that the sheet is still creme.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Dicecaster

[Aurielius]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

[Dicecaster]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

Pretty much anything can be proven with science; the reason things are in flux is either because we don't have enough information to make an accurate logical decision, or people are too stubborn to accept the logical decision (probably the latter). Just because we can't yet find that truth doesn't mean it's not there.

[Aurielius]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

Pretty much anything can be proven with science; the reason things are in flux is either because we don't have enough information to make an accurate logical decision, or people are too stubborn to accept the logical decision (probably the latter). Just because we can't yet find that truth doesn't mean it's not there.

 

This is too good to pass up. Anything can be proven by science? What about the deep and persistent philosophical 'truths' that have preoccupied man since his earliest point of sentience? Is this all there is? What is the purpose of life, or does it have a purpose?

Could the questions of morality versus convenience be scientifically weighed? Seeing the universe through just the prism of science is a very tunnel vision view of existence. I think that the OP had more in mind when he posed the question of Duality of Truth, than provable equations.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Aurielius