By using that logic, you can also say that empirical truths can be absolutely true.
For example, if you have a sequence of observations such as {1, 1, 1} then it is absolutely true that the next observation in the sequence will be {1}.
This is simply because there is no other logically valid way of extrapolation.
Instead of saying “absolutely true” when it comes to such propositions, you should simply say they are logically valid.
I think that’s more accurate.
Empirical truth is dependent upon evidence not logic and evidence does not always conform to our expectations
This is why any hypothesis in science has to be tested as merely assuming it does not automatically make it true
Empirical truth is dependent upon BOTH evidence and logic. Evidence isn’t enough. You must extrapolate properly. You can’t extrapolate arbitrarily. If you have {1,0,1,0} as your sequence of observations then you can’t conclude the next observation will be 0. That’s logically invalid.
My point remains. If you have a set of observations such as {1,1,1}, and these really are your observations, not merely imaginations, then there is only one logically valid conclusion regarding what’s going to happen next and that is 1. So why not call that “absolutely true”? Since it’s the only logically valid conclusion?
See, deduction and induction aren’t so different from each other as is commonly thought.
Either way, I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that we are seeing no way in which logical truths can possibly change in the future wheraes we can easily see how empirical truths can change (since they are dependent upon evidence and since evidence is something that is acquired over time.)
Reality does not always conform to logical expectations because it does not follow such rules of inference
Which is why assuming the next stage in an apparently logical sequence is flawed for it might not be true
So one should avoid making assumptions and instead be open minded about what the evidence might be
Regardless of what turns out to be the next event in the sequence {1,1,1}, the conclusion that the next event is {1} would still be logucally valid i.e. the best guess given the evidence we have. If you’re calling logical statements such as “1 + 1 = 2” absolutely true then why not call the above, which is also a form of logical statement, absolutely true?
Of course, now that you have a different sequence of observations, say {1,1,1,0}, you will make a different conclusion. That doesn’t invalidate the previous conclusion.