Thread: Is it possible to know what's true?

Even if that is negative statement, it implies truth about the universe.

We may or may not know what is true, and if that is a task, by what reference do we have to measure it against, and how do we know if THAT is true???

I find it good enough to work with what you got. Analyze it all you want!!

I believe Buddha was not concerned with truth, or at least dogmatic truths about God. He worked only with the human condition.

Everything is true, therefore, to know what is true would be to know everything. And one cannot possibly comprehend everything in existance, at least not all at one time. So the answer is no.

In the context of the other thread, there would be no way for a person to know if the "ultimate truth" he had been given is accurate or not, or if it is the complete truth. There is always the possibility that there is a level of truth beyond that which is stated, even if you accept an empirical justification for this truth.

Even the empirical justification would be doubtable, especially with something so complex and unapparent as the nature of the universe.

The best you could get is a plausible theory of how the universe works, and there are already thousands of those out there that you don't have to sacrifice your life for.(again this is in the context of the "know the truth and die, or live forever" thread)

The only truths one can really be certain about are those that are necessary and completely self-evident.

If knowledge of the truth is not possible, then knowledge that knowledge of the truth is not possible is not possible, I think, I think, I think, I think... (infinitely)

Originally posted by Universal Mind
If knowledge of the truth is not possible, then knowledge that knowledge of the truth is not possible is not possible, I think, I think, I think, I think... (infinitely)

Exactly.

Originally posted by Universal Mind
If knowledge of the truth is not possible, then knowledge that knowledge of the truth is not possible is not possible, I think, I think, I think, I think... (infinitely)

How does that follow exactly?

Originally posted by Universal Mind
If knowledge of the truth is not possible, then knowledge that knowledge of the truth is not possible is not possible, I think, I think, I think, I think... (infinitely)

You are no longer talking about knowledge or truth, but are now reduced to playing with models of logic -- mathematical simulations, but which have never pretended to BE knowledge except to those who have mistaken the entire point of it.

Well... there were the Realists -- those who supposed that symbols and ideas, since they could be mentally conceived must be real. The Greeks went so far as to say that they were More Real, or came from a Higher Level of Reality, then physical reality -- the central notion being that General Concepts are more perfect than particular ones. But the hint to the flaw in their thinking was the separation they put between Conceptual Models and Actual Things -- for them, when they said "More" Real, they meant UN Real.

So, no, Logic is not Knowledge, and though Mathematical Models can correspond to Reality, they are not 'Real' themselves.

As for the Question of this Thread, Is it Possible to Know what's True, sure. We have our objective Reality and we have our Subjective Reality. One needs only to pay attention. The raw data we arrive at is trustworthy enough. This is all True. Now, one may wonder about how one may generalize from the particular to the universal. One is never wrong as long as one really is selecting from a wide range of particulars before arriving at generalizations, but if a man were to see one horse with a limp, and then a mile further on to see another horse with a limp, without ever seeing another horse, then it would be true for him that horses are animals that have a limp. The Objective Conclusion may be flawed by its inability to stand up to a universal application, but as far as the person's own subjective reality, with its elements of synchronicity and spiritual meaning, then the subjective generalization, that horses are limpers, would in fact be True.

Originally posted by Leo Volont
One is never wrong as long as one really is selecting from a wide range of particulars before arriving at generalizations

But how can you acquire a wide enough range of particulars so that there would be absolutely no chance of being wrong? It's always possible that you have ignored a few particulars that affect the generalization, and therefore you can't be sure that it's true.

PS. You blaim Universal Mind for using mathemathical logic, but in the end of your post you rely on mathematical means too

Originally posted by Belisarius


How does that follow exactly?

I was speaking hypothetically. Let's say that it is in fact the case that knowledge of the truth is not possible. If such is the case, then knowledge of ITS truth is not possilbe. Knowledge of _________ is not possible. No matter what truth is inserted in the blank, the statement is true (not that we can know the truth of the fill-in or the statement). Therefore, knowledge of THE TRUTH THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH IS NOT POSSIBLE is not possible. I filled in the blank with a hypothetical truth that we cannot know, according to the hypothetical premise. I was following a model of logic, as mentioned by Leo Volont. But because even knowledge of the truth revealing potential of logic is not something that can be known to be a form of truth, according to the original hypothetical, I have to follow the point with, "I think." Because I cannot even be sure of the truth that that is what I think, I follow, "I think," with, "I think." By the same principle, I would have to follow that point with another, "I think." The need for that follow up point is necessary every time by the same principle. No, "I think," can ever be the last one, based on the hypothetical, so I have to say, "Infinitely," in parentheses or something similar to indicate how the principle works.

Actually, I do believe that knowledge of the truth is possible. I was really just using a bizarre statement to illustrate how I believe that a belief in the knowledge that knowledge of the truth is not possible lacks an initial grounding of substance and therefore collapses on itself.

Leo Levont, (Excuse me while I babble and try to stumble into some kind of truth.) my point does only work if one accepts the premise that logic is an indicator of truth. I believe that it is. The idea that logic is not an indicator of truth is illogical, but if logic is not an indicator of truth, then the illogic of the concept is irrelevant, but that statement is based on logic. If the logic of THAT statement is irrelevant, then it lacks the ability to prove its truth.

Then again, using logic to prove the relevance of logic lacks initial substance and is a circular form of arguing. There is just no other way to do it. So perhaps logic is not an indicator of truth, but it is impossible to make a logical argument for that. That is why I believe logic is an indicator of truth. Illogic has nothing supporting it. But logic only has itself, which is perhaps relatively better than the nothing at all illogic has.

The complete order that exists with logic seems to trump the disorder of illogic when comparing reality constructs. The apparent paradox seems to resemble the paradox present in the idea of an initial source or existence, which would have to be a form of existence. The paradox resolution might be the same in both cases.

I think I might have just realized that I have no earthly idea, I think, I think, I think... (infinitely)

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Because I cannot even be sure of the truth that that is what I think

Huh? I thought that it's the only thing you can really know for sure. You think something, let's say a pink elephant going down the street. How can you not be thinking of that if you think of that? Because "I think, therefore I exist", you can be sure that you're the one who thinks. Therefore you can be sure that you really think what you think. Therefore your thinking logic doesn't work.

Originally posted by Hate

Huh? I thought that it's the only thing you can really know for sure. You think something, let's say a pink elephant going down the street. How can you not be thinking of that if you think of that? Because \"I think, therefore I exist\", you can be sure that you're the one who thinks. Therefore you can be sure that you really think what you think. Therefore your thinking logic doesn't work.

I agree. My points were based on the hypothetical that knowledge of the truth is not possible, which I said I don't agree with. That is why I kept saying, "According to the hypothetical..." Your above point is another good argument against the concept. Your point is completely logical, but is logic necessarily an indicator of truth? (I strongly believe so, but how can it be sufficiently argued?)

Your point is completely logical, but is logic necessarily an indicator of truth? (I strongly believe so, but how can it be sufficiently argued?)[/b]

I will propose somethink not to say that it is true but so that we can dispute it as much as we can. We have to do this (i believe) because we actually dont know.

What if logic doesn't have to do anything with finding truth? What if it is just a way to organise and use previously attained truth?

If we take mathematics for example. Do mathematics exist? Is everything already devided in an infinite number of points waiting for maths to scale them. I believe not. I believe that the starting point is infinity and mathematics come only after a subjectively chosen point of reference. But if Infinity is not a part of mathematics and mathematics is duality, what is infinity then?

If there is truth and you have attained it how can you argue logically to me about it if i dont know the truth as well? how can we use the equation without knowing the elements that it uses?

Can we start a logical function without knowing that our starting point is true?
Can we know that the point we reach is true if we dont know that the starting point is true?

Is falsehood truth? Is a lie truth?

Can truth exist (hypothetically or otherwise) without "un"truth?

Just by communicating to one another, we are ALREADY saying that it is possible to know truth. You cannot have communication or logic without the inherent existence of truth! Truth governs these things (among others).

Originally posted by adroid28

Your point is completely logical, but is logic necessarily an indicator of truth? (I strongly believe so, but how can it be sufficiently argued?)

I will propose somethink not to say that it is true but so that we can dispute it as much as we can. We have to do this (i believe) because we actually dont know.

What if logic doesn't have to do anything with finding truth? What if it is just a way to organise and use previously attained truth?

If we take mathematics for example. Do mathematics exist? Is everything already devided in an infinite number of points waiting for maths to scale them. I believe not. I believe that the starting point is infinity and mathematics come only after a subjectively chosen point of reference. But if Infinity is not a part of mathematics and mathematics is duality, what is infinity then?

If there is truth and you have attained it how can you argue logically to me about it if i dont know the truth as well? how can we use the equation without knowing the elements that it uses?

Can we start a logical function without knowing that our starting point is true?
Can we know that the point we reach is true if we dont know that the starting point is true?[/b]

Would you say that your argument is logical? If so, what would be the relevance of that?

Originally posted by evangel
Is falsehood truth? Is a lie truth? *

Can truth exist (hypothetically or otherwise) without \"un\"truth? *

Just by *communicating to one another, we are ALREADY saying that it is possible to know truth. You cannot have communication or logic without the inherent existence of truth! Truth governs these things (among others).

Communication can be a lie. It can also be done out of believed (not necessarily "known") ignorance. Therefore, communication is not an automatic sign of knowledge of truth. Even when it involves a belief in truth, that does not mean it involves knowledge of truth.

Belief can be and is for some people, the same as knowledge. I t can be a way of "knowing" that is even more solid than "knowing," for example, that the earth is a sphere or that we cannot survive without water for more than a few days...

The content of a communication can be a lie, sure. But the communication process or the means of communication cannot, otherwise we would not be able to communicate in the first place.
Here's an illustration for what I meant about communication to chew on or not:
We are typing back and forth in English. We believe (know) that the other has preconceieved ideas (knowledge) about this language (that it is a human language, it has a whole history, development, evolution, etc.) which includes what we usually refer to as "laws" of communication. These things MUST BE true or we would not even agree to be able to understand one another. We must agree that these inherencies/laws are true to even begin speaking to one another, else it would be as if I were speaking (typing) in an alien language. In other words, governing principles or "laws" of communication MUST BE in place, or know as true by both or all parties as true (or we at least believe-know them to be true) in order for us to even speak the same language.

I believe (know) that Truth governs all things, even language and, yes, "logic"... That's a whole 'nother can though, I s'pose. But for a language to even be a language, we must agree that some things are inherently true, or as you put it, believed to be true.

universal mind wrote:

Would you say that your argument is logical? If so, what would be the relevance of that?[/b]

Would you say that your argument is logical? If so, what would be the relevance of that?

Now you can quote me and write the same thing underneath and i can do the same for ever...

The truth is that you are absolutelly right, but then why did you post again? If you really believe the truth of this argument dont talk. Language and logic can not be devided. I dont say that to offend you and sorry if it sounds like this but with this argument you can end any conversation you want. The sure thing is that you are not going to gain anything except the satisfaction that you had the final word. Unfortunately i do that all the time but i am trying to control it (it's really hard).


Anyway, my argument is that logic can be used only when knowledge is allready present or when the result can be tested (as in science). I dont see why we have to despute that. Either way logic sometimes works and that is quite useless to doubt it. There is something that exists and we name logic or ellse we wouldn't have that (efficient or not) conversetion. Don't you agree?

I wasn't trying to get a "last word." There has been nothing confrontational or snippy in this thread, so I have no reason to play that game. I believe very much in the value of logic. I have just noticed that the only way to argue the value of logic is to use logic, as you just did, which makes it a circular argument. Thus, I am scoping out what the resolution might be. Saying that there is "something" only suggests belief or perception, but not solid argument. I think it might be a linguistically unresolvable paradox, like the issue of the source of existence, which would inherently be a form of existence.

universal mind wrote:

Thus, I am scoping out what the resolution might be. Saying that there is \"something\" only suggests belief or perception, but not solid argument.[/b]

Oh i see... i suspect that it was me who was trying to get a final word...

Anyway, i am inclined to say that after that, the particular conversation should stop because it gets to be an exchange of imaginative or personaly justified and therefore imposible to communicate with words views.

Dont you agree?

Originally posted by adroid28
universal mind wrote:

Thus, I am scoping out what the resolution might be. Saying that there is \"something\" only suggests belief or perception, but not solid argument.

Oh i see... i suspect that it was me who was trying to get a final word...

Anyway, i am inclined to say that after that, the particular conversation should stop because it gets to be an exchange of imaginative or personaly justified and therefore imposible to communicate with words views.

Dont you agree?[/b]

Yes, that is my point. I don't know what the linguistic resolution to the paradox is. However, I think that is all the more reason to keep the conversation going. Even if there is no hope of a linguistic resolution, it is fun trying to reach one and explain it.

This statement is false.

-- Zen paradox

Could God create a rock so heavy that he wouldn't be able to lift it off the ground?

-- Judeo-Christian paradox

So what truth is there to know? People believe what they want to, and most of that isn't the way things really are. So why is the truth even relevant if people have their own sets of truths? I guess it really doesn't matter if it's possible to know the truth......I mean, what if the 'truth' doesn't exist?

truth and fact are differnt.Fact is what is known and ture is what is ture and only ture meaning else told is a lie.To find turth you break through the lies.All the countless theryos that claim to be the turth you must sort through.You must find turth that is fact.But until then even a lie can be turth so serch and find what you think is ture and you just may be close.