The Truth

we all want it and a lot of us have decided that we are never gonna get it.

well your right, in this lifetime none of us can get the truth.

some of us have even said that there is no truth…well i beg to differ.

To reach ‘ultimate truth’ you would simply need to understand our entire universe, and to do that it would take an EXTREMELY long time. It would require human existence to continue and continue the reasearch in physics and quantam physics. to be able to break the theorys and discover facts. until we one day we finally understand exactly how the universe works.

that would be in my opinion ‘ultimate truth’

For this ‘truth’ to be valid, one must make the assumption that there are only two possibles: the known, and the unknown (yet). It ignores the possibility of that which may be unknowable. It also assumes that understanding all of the hows, is explanation of the whys. The hows of the universe may be causal, but are you sure you could explain the whys?

To reach ‘ultimate truth’ you would simply need to understand our entire universe, and to do that it would take an EXTREMELY long time.

what makes an ultimate truth different than truth in general. truth and falsity are the end result of a question . if there is no clear answer it falls under the unknown. knowledge is just the strongest form of belief. a belief with proof.

there is no such thing as “ultimate truth”
We just have a bunch of little truths, we each
carry around in our back pocket.

Kropotkin

Even a lie is truth. It is a mirror of truth. Perhaps worring about truthful things is just a mirror of what we should be doing. The ultimate truth is you. What ever lies inside you is the truth even should you be lying to yourself. You are the ultimate truth.

the “ultimate truth” is so objective that it would be impossible for our subjective minds to ever grasp it’s entirety, therefore no matter how much we know about the universe and ourselves, we cannot know the ultimate truth as we percieve the universe through our own eyes.

nobody…knows what im trying to say here…

im saying quite simply if we understand how our universe works, if we PERFECT and totally MASTER Physics, then we will understand exactly how the universe came to be and how it exist today and will exist in the future. there is nothing spiritual about it, it is simply what ‘ultimate truth’ is. you can sit here all day and tell me about how the truth is something that you find inside yourself, or that there is no truth…

i was just proposing a simple idea…that we can get this theoretical ‘ultimate truth’ with science one day…

k.just wanted to clear that up

OK, so you’re saying that IF

…Which is impossible, since there’s always further possible refinements, there’s no end-condition for a scientific endeavor. Science doesn’t claim to hold absolute truth as its holy grail; a good scientist works to generate theories which are falsifiable. Science doesn’t ask you to believe, which it would have to if it were to lay claim to absolute truth. All science has is theories (in the philosophy of science sense, not that retarded evolution/creationism bullshit.)

THEN

…Which assumes physical determinism in a closed universe. Both of these assumptions are hotly contested as this thread bears witness. There is a spiritual leap-of-faith in materialistically reducing the universe into human-comprehensible physical forces. Assuming physical determinism without mustering evidence for it is making the same fallacy as the unassailable last-tuesday argument (“It is the absolute truth that my cat created the universe last Tuesday”)–it cannot be refuted by evidence, since that evidence was also created by my cat last Tuesday.

Science makes progress towards more sophisticated understanding–driven by a particular cultures patterns of questioning and technology use–and not necessarily absolute truth! I think indeed this notion more properly belongs to religion and spirituality, though certainly philosophy as well. Truth is necessarily a personal search for meaning in an absurd universe. We can reduce the universe to physics, but we also lose a lot of the personal meaning that way, which means it can’t really be truth anymore.

the “ultimate truth” is existence its self. in its simplicity and complexity. both go hand in hand.

and for us to deal with it.

As I stated before the ultimate truth is you or in my case me. That is where the ultimate truth lies.

I think Mr.kebop is talking about the highest level of power we can get. Anyway, I say it’s true that with every step we find more things but I don’t think there is A ‘Final’ or ‘Ultimate’ in our world! Because we are part of the universe and our planet “Earth” is just a tiny part of it, then with all of these aspects and all the circumstances that change every moment do you think we can get all the secrets?!! Maybe, but only if you’re mentioning 100000000000 years later!!! :unamused:

There is no truth without context.
To search for ‘the truth’ free of context is not only meaningless, it is also futile.

yes i am.

when the Universe itself becomes alive!

interesting!!

I believe truth is relative to the person in most scenarios.

This topic is a very interesting, yet inexplicable one.

It reminds me of something we were debating in one of my philosophy classes last semester… take the color green for instance. Is the color green even considered a color and why does it have to be green? Does it look green to everyone? What if someone else sees it as blue? Wherein does the truth lie in this scenario? Is there a truth?

oh and one more thing almost forgot…

Would one truly be happy to know the truth? It would take away from the suspense and intrigue of not knowing.

It reminds me of the Fredrick Douglass’ essay “Learning to Read and Write” and I quote:
“…learning to read had been a curse rather than a blessing. It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out”

So which would you truly choose?

Everyone seems to want to say the ultimate truth is to be found in the self, either through reflection, deconstruction, or analysis…

How about truth is to be found in being, which we only relate to through action?

Philosophy’s still safe though, cause talking is acting.

And when we’re acting we’re placing the self (which is probably important for truth, since human perception and knowledge is relative to context) in a specific relationship with being.

The interesting part is when you start thinking about how other people handle this situation.

How to act, once we’ve taken others into account, is the primary question of ethics.

So, searching for truth in society, we must determine what it is that is most right for us to do–necessarily a subjective, ethical introspection.

In order to find the truth about the individual, we must turn to society.

In order to find the truth about the society, we must turn to the individual.

So maybe truth is an infinite reflection of itself. Or maybe at the bottom it’s nothing… or maybe even it’s the universal absolute, being-in-itself. :slight_smile:

A lot of people here seem to subscribe to the Nieztchean idea of truth as usefullness, or that all truths are subjective due to the fact that they are seen from different perspectives. I assert that this is a result of a gross mis-use of the term “truth” and over stressing the importance of human cognitive states.

I will try to highlight why.

  • Unkown Being

Imagine a square table. (Note: perhaps someone may argue at this point that the table is actually a complex dimensional shape. I am refering to the surface of the table top when i refer to the table). You are sitting on one side of the room, to the corner of the table. One of your friends is sitting near you, looking at the table straight on, and a third is strapped to the ceiling looking directly down at the table. All 3 of you see this table in a different way. You could each argue that it is a different shape, because you are seeing it from a different perspective. You say it’s a rhombus, you’re friend next to you says it’s a parrellelogram and the guy strapped to the ceiling calls down that it’s a square. Are all 3 of these assertions true?

It seems perfectly illogical to me to say that 3 contradictory statements can all be true at the same time. The table is square. This is an objective fact. Each and everyone sees it from a different perspective and so their beliefs about this fact are different. That does not mean that the fact changes, it just means 2 of them are wrong.

I am aware, as with all analogies, this is not a formal argument for the existence of an objective truth. However, i hope you can see the relevance. Simply because different people see an object from different directions does not mean that the truth of the shape of the object is different for each person. Similarily, simply because all human kind (perhaps all intelligent life in the universe) perceives the world in a certain way does not mean that that perception shapes the truth of the objective universe.

Perhaps i should formalise my claims here…

Something that is “true” is something that is the case, something that is “false” is something which is not. The universe is defined as everything that is the case (all existence).

If the universe exists objectively (ie Perspectives do not change facts about the universe) then a claim of Truth is a claim that some aspect of the universe is how it is. Therefore the truth must be objective.

If someone sees something from a certain perspective and claims truth, and it is wrong, then it is simply a falsehood. They were mistaken.

All people who claim subjective truths (if they accept an objective universe) and confusing the fact that people can claim something is truth and be mistaken with the fact that the truth is subjective.

As to the original post…

Mr. Kebob… all it seems to me that you are doing is defining omniscience. I disagree that Human’s can ever acheive such a state, because i believe that by the time our brains are capable of comprehending such we will not be able to be classified as being Human’s anymore (though i agree that the state is itself theoretically possible.)

well you would be absolutely right.

What is right and and what is wrong is based on perception.