Do you believe that something such as an "absolute truth" exists?
Do you think it is possible to attain it?
If yes, how so?
>>1164885
No, the only Truth you'll get is when you die.
That's a nice girl.
>>1164885
> Do you believe that something such as an "absolute truth" exists?
of course, it is impossible to answer the question if truth doesn't exist
> Do you think it is possible to attain it?
i don't know
>>1164885
>Do you believe that something such as an "absolute truth" exists?
Possibly
>Do you think it is possible to attain it?
No
It's an absolute truth that you're reading this text.
>>1165139
As OP what I mean by absolute truth is something like this:
Should I be reading this text? Is it the right thing to do? Why should I be reading this, or why shouldn't I? Is there meaning behind this? How to be sure?
Pi is the the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This is an absolute truth.
>>1165139
tldr
>>1164885
this is a really dumb question, what the fuck is an absolute truth, unless you're talking mathematics it's some metaphysical bull sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
>>1165184
Who says truth should be relegated to oughts?
>>1164885
There is no absolute truth, only relative truth. an absolute truth implies everything that exists is in cooperation for a single purpose, which is not true.
Yes. OP is a faggot.
>>1164885
>Do you believe that something such as an "absolute truth" exists?
Any tautology
>>1165972
"there is only relative truth" this is an absolute truth
>>1164885
You don't know what "absolute" means, right?
Of course that absolute truth "exists" (the correct term would be "persists", or "subsists"). Absolute truth is truth as such; the concrete ideal of what is true.
>>1164885
Everything is natural, and inevitable. The manner in which things fall into place only looks like chaos to us, but it's all very logical. Nuclear warfare, rape babies, Filmcow, are all part of the world we all belong to and are a part of. Free will does not exist. Apparently we are the universe introspectively experiencing itself.
>>1164885
The only absolute truths are definition truths - i.e. things that are true because we agree it is.
I´d regard the three fundamental laws of thermodynamics to be considered objective truths.
>>1164885
Yes, and I will prove it to you.
"There is no absolute truth."
For that statement to be meaningful, it would have to be absolutely true, and in that case, it is self-refuting.
There is absolute truth.
>>1169109
None of them work at t=0. Try again.
>>1164885
No lmao. Truths in a strong enough formal system cannot be defined in that formal system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
>>1169244
Not being able to be defined and not existing are two entirely different things.
>>1169271
You can't assert the existence of something undefined
>>1169281
> something undefined definitely exist
See? I did it already and can do it again.
>>1169291
Prove it
>>1169295
Are you implying that all existent things are defined already?
>>1169303
No. I'm saying only defined things can be asserted to exist (i.e. provably exists).
>>1169308
Well... You can construct the proof first and come with definition later so it isn't the case.
>>1169314
That's not how it works. Nothing can be proven without a first set of axioms and definitions.
You can go ahead and try reproducing Euclid's Elements without defining what a straight line is.
>>1164885
Yes you are absolutely a faggot
>>1165139
It's actually only contingently true, in a possible world I may not read your post.
>>1169326
You can prove that something vaguely described exist based on some set of axioms or whatever and only then come with a word for the proven object.
>>1169350
Defining isn't the same as naming. If you describe it, you are defining it.
>>1169350
>vaguely
Still a definition of some sort.
>>1164885
Yes we all will die. It is absolute we will cease to be.
>>1169369
> Still a definition of some sort.
Doesn't make sense. If I describe something as being undefined then it shouldn't count as some kind of definition. Isn't it?
>>1169401
You defined the object as undefined. It's defined on the metalevel.
>>1169415
Undefined is undefined at all levels.
>>1169420
It isn't. You can use a larger formal system to define something undefinable in a smaller formal system
>>1169427
What if I specially describe something undefinable in all systems? Something like this should exist if for any system there exist undefined object.
>>1169442
Fuck sorry for the slow reply. I had to get home from work, I don't have data.
That's a problem with unrestricted comprehension though, essentially an analogue of Russell's paradox. If the object you speak of exists (i.e. we work with a sense of "definability" that allows your construction) then we'd have a statement P and ~P in our system, which leads to every statement being provable.
>>1164885
It exists and you can attain it as easily as any other set of beliefs.
But there's no way of knowing when you've attained it. There are surely many men who have glimpsed the ultimate truth and never known it.
>>1164885
I think the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth
>>1169347
>in a possible world I may not read your post
on this website it's actually probable that most people do not read what they respond to, but that's not the point
>>1164885
>Do you believe that something such as an "absolute truth" exists?
Yes
>Do you think it is possible to attain it?
Yes
>If yes, how so?
Noble Eightfold Path
