« Ryan Anderson: What Is Marriage? | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

February 08, 2013

Comments

    Erkki was not attempting to summarize items (1)-(4) in item (5). Rather, he defines the notion of "absolute truth" in terms of item (4). You obviously have a different definition in mind, and so you complain about him mixing up (according to you) truth and certainty, and talk about the statement "absolute truth does not exist" being a contradiction. Well, maybe it would be a contradiction on your definition of absolute truth. But all Erkki means to express by that sentence is contained in item (4). Since you evidently agree with (4), then you agree with Erkki that absolute truth does not exist, as Erkki defines absolute truth.

This is pretty much it. To me, anyone claiming to have "absolute truth" would pretty much have to define it as something like "I have acquired the maximum potential of information and there can not be any new data to supplant or add to it". If however, one qualifies "absolute truth" as "this is what I think is most likely the reality" or simply as "logical statements can be self-consistent", well this is obviously one way to define truth, but what exactly makes it "absolute" or "objective" rather then just plain old boring "knowledge" or a "fact"?

"Something exists".

"I exist".

Reality exists.

No new information can change the absolute truth that reality exists.

Capacity to know absolute truth exists within the Created Mind.

Clarification,

Given that it is an absolute truth that reality exists, and, given that we know reality exists, it is clear that the Created Mind (our Mind) has the capacity to know absolute truth, and does know at least one absolute truth.

All this talk of Contextual Knowing simply brings the atheist and agnostic up to speed on what the Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known about Knowing: it occurs in and among the contexts of multiple distincts. Omniscience, Love, Epistemology, Ontology, all of them, every single one, regress to a Triune Topography ultimately. Our atheist and agnostic friends are finally catching up.


It is like Nouns and Verbs existing outside of Time and Space. The Hebrew and the Christian have always known this. The atheist and the agnostic are, bit by bit, catching up.

Epistemology just is Triune in Topography, both in Uncreated Mind and in Created Mind.

I have acquired the maximum potential of information and there can not be any new data to supplant or add to the absolute truth that reality exists.


That last post is a proof that Certainity does not require omniscience.

I have (or have not, it matters not) acquired the maximum potential of information and there cannot be any new data to supplant or add to the absolute truth that reality exists. No new information will change this. This is a proof that Certainty does not require omniscience.

1)Because that statement is intact, is true, the following are thus also true:

2) My mind knows reality exists. (I do know this)

3) My mind has the capacity to know absolute truth.

4) My mind knows at least one absolute truth.

5) My mind is not omniscient, yet, processes Certainty of an absolute truth.

6) My mind, directing my hand, can create a piece of parchment upon which I can write a series of statements that are absolute truths, such as 1 through 6 here.


Now we are up to six absolute Truth Statements.


Permutations and Combinations, Logic and Love, and the Triune easily get us to the trillions.


Word. Mind. Logic. No need of Time or Space. Outside of Time and Space reality exists. Infinite regress. Enter Time: Word-Made-Flesh.


The Door to Certainty is thus open to the Created-Mind which, though not Knowing Infinitely, touches the End of Ad Infinitum on several fronts dealing with the In-Here of It-Self as well as the Out-There of the External as well as on that front which is the interface of those two contexts within a third context of the Self-Other, the In-Out, the I-You, the Singular-We. Knowing is, Epistemology is, for God is, as Love is, Contextually Triune.


Mind Knows in and by the Contextual Topography of the Uncreated Triune which just is Multiple Distincts wherein Self knows in and by relation for Knowing takes place within the Triune in relation in and by Self and in and by Other and in and by Self-Other. That which is In-Here, and, that which is Out-There, and, that which is in relation to and in and by both within the Third Distinct of the Singular-We or the Self-Other. This is Love’s Triune. This is Ontology’s Triune. I. You. We. This is Epistemology’s Triune Topography wherein we find those everlasting vectors and modes by which Uncreated Knowing takes place. The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known this.


Finite minds can write upon parchment various series of absolute and infinite truth statements with certainty. The Hebrew (in full) and the Christian (in full) have always known this.


How one defines “My mind” becomes irrelevant if we are merely counting truth statements. Whatever “my mind” is or is not, it is that part of reality which utters, moves, fluxes, vacuums, or collapses so as to produce that ripple in the infinite which effervesces that abstract (or concrete, it matters not) entity echoed by our little “my”. That ripple, whatever it is, utters this: Reality Exists. We thus find in Reality this: Voice. And not only Voice, not only Utterance, but, Absolutely True Utterances. The Door is open to a hand writing upon the stuff these ripples call parchment a series of what are absolute truth statements all built atop that one absolute truth of Reality Exists and the result of all these fluxes is a book atop what we call a table, full of what we call parchment, full of Word, Words, Words, and more Words, and all perfectly True for no new information will change the absolute truth of these little I-AM’s effervescing along that Infinite Ocean for they quite easily set sail and casually traverse the Ad Infinitum.

I-AM. This is the Triune.

sub-Christian: There's no such thing as absolute truth.

(Jeopardy jingle plays)

Christian: Is that absolutely true?

Having read Tactics, I wonder how Christian decided NOT to proceed:

Christian: What do you mean by that?

RonH,

Reality exists.

We see thus far in this thread that the following are Manifest:

1) Absolute truth exists.
2) Mind possesses the Capacity to know absolute truth.
3) Mind knows at least one absolute truth.
4) Mind can, and does, possess Certainty.
5) Omniscience is not necessary for Certainty. Not knowing infinitely, Mind still possesses Certainty.
6) Mind can write, via Hand, upon parchment these six absolutely true statements.
7) And these seven.
8) And these eight.
9) Your mind can.
10) My mind can.
11) And then these eleven absolute truth statements.
12) It matters not how we define “my mind” when merely counting aggregating absolute truth statements.
13) It matters not how we define “your mind” when merely counting aggregating absolute truth statements.
14) Erkki, the Mind that is Erkki, voices, utters, an absolute falsehood when he states absolute truth does not exist and, or, cannot exist.
15) Erkki, and Ben, voice, utter, an absolute falsehood when they state that Mind does not have the Capacity to Know absolute truths, for, Mind does have such Capacity.
16) Absolute Falsehoods, thus, exist. Mind has Capacity to know absolute falsehoods with Certainty.
17) Mind can write, via Hand, upon parchment these seventeen absolutely true statements.
18) Erkki, like Ben, consider Fact, Knowledge, and Truth either boring, and, or, unimportant.
19) Erkki, at least, considers "logical statements can be self-consistent" either boring, and, or, unimportant.
20) Erkki, and Ben, have, on a few occasions, equated Logic, Truth, Knowledge, and Fact with some flavor of unimportance.
21) Mind can, via Hand, write upon parchment these twenty-one absolute truth statements.
22) How we define ‘Erkki’ and ‘Ben’ matters not when merely counting aggregating absolute truth statements.
23) Little I-AM’s effervescing along that Infinite Ocean quite easily set sail and casually traverse the Ad Infinitum as they Voice Utterances which are absolutely true.
24) Mind can, via hand, write upon parchment these twenty four absolute truth statements.
25) My mind can.
26) Your mind can.
27) Our minds can.
28) Man’s Knowing takes place in, among, and by Three Contexts where Self (the In-Here) is concerned.
29) Man’s Epistemology is therein Triune.
30) The Christian God’s Omniscience takes place in, among, and by Three Contexts.
31) This God’s Epistemological Omniscience is therein Triune.
32) I. You. We. Such is Love’s Contextual Triune. Such is Logic’s Contextual Triune. Such is Omniscience’s Contextual Triune. Love just is Contextual. Logic just is Contextual. Omniscience just is Contextual.
33) The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known with certainty all thirty-three absolute truths stated, uttered, voiced, Written with Words, here.
34) Words thus can, and do, convey absolute truths.
35) Words come from, are extensions of, Mind. Immaterial Effervescence.
36) The Immaterial thus can, and does, convey Absolute Truth.
37) The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known with certainty all thirty-seven absolute truths stated, uttered, voiced, Written, here.
38) The Agnostic and the Atheists are, slowly, catching up with the Hebrew and the Christian.
39) ………And so on……. And so on….. Ever aggregating…. Ever accumulating Absolute Truth Statements…. Ad Infinitum……… Little I-AM’s effervescing along that Infinite Ocean quite easily set sail and casually traverse the Ad Infinitum as they Voice Utterances which are Absolutely True and we find that the Sails of these Ships are blown taught by those Winds and Vectors streaming everlastingly in, among, and by the Triune Topography of Logic and Love for by these Winds those countless little I-AM’s, though not knowing infinitely, by Logic and Love touch those shores on that distant horizon there at the End of Ad Infinitum.

Ben-

Erkki claims to be sloganizing item 4 with item 5.

I do not disagree with item 4 (though I do not think that it follows from items 1-3). Still, I think item 4 is true. It would indeed be arrogant to have the mindset Erkki describes.

It is also profoundly irrelevant. No 'absolutist' has this mindset and the people closest to having it are Erkki's 'non-absolutist' fellow travelers.

On the other hand item 5 is a contradiction. Here is why it is a contradiction. first, it is logically true that there are 'absolute' truths, e.g. "1=1", and 'absolute' falsehoods, e.g. "1=0". But item 5 is the direct denial of this logically true claim. As such, item 5 is itself logically false.

A logical falsehood cannot be a correct summarization of a true (albeit irrelevant) claim.

Nor could item 5 be a correct summarization of any of items 1-3, for the reasons already given.

Now, perhaps the term "sloganization" is not another word for "summarization" as I take it to be. Perhaps it is possible for A to be the sloganization of B even though A and B are in logical conflict. I'm no expert on the term "sloganization"

Erkki-

It is possible for a proposition to be both a premise and a tautology. "Reality exists" most certainly is a tautology though.

On the abstract/non-abstract distinction, would you care to answer the following questions:

1) Is the denial of an abstract claim also abstract?
2) Is the denial of a non-abstract claim also non-abstract?
3) Is the conjunction of two abstract claims also abstract?
4) Is the conjunction of two non-abstract claims also non-abstract?
5) If two claims are logically equivalent, and one of them is abstract, does it follow that the other is also abstract?
6) If two claims are logically equivalent, and one of them is non-abstract, does it follow that the other is also non-abstract?
7) Is every claim either abstract or non-abstract?

Feel free to exclude pure tautologies and pure contradictions from consideration.

If, as I suspect, you answer "yes" to all these questions, then contradiction follows from your answers (what you will have attempted to do is set up two disjoint and exhaustive Boolean Algebras...which is logically impossible). But if you don't answer "yes", what exactly does this abstract/non-abstract distinction amount to? If, for example, you were to deny #5 or #6, then you would be allowing a way to argue from the abstract (where certainty is possible) to the non-abstract (where it supposedly is not).

And now to this final point:I can think of plenty of propositions that could be called true and false at the same time, depending on tolerances and definitions.Well, on the one hand, definitions are irrelevant to propositions. This is because propositions are non-linguistic entities. They are the meanings of certain sentences that survive translation.

But if you mean that you can think of plenty of sentences or statements that could be called true or false etc., then yes, yes, of course. I grant that if you are free to define words any way you like then "1=1" might end up meaning that your dog has fleas.

Yawn.

So what?

Yes you can insist on using the gestures and noises you emit however you like.

Meanwhile, those of us intent on communicating with each other by retaining stable definitions for the marks and sounds that we consider significant will offer you back blank stares.

I'm going to leave to one side your claim that there is no such thing as the geometrical shape of round. I won't hold you to that.

As for this: "You[r] own example is imperfect as well. Where are the geographical boundaries of Duluth? If it's raining on one part of Duluth, and not on another, can it be said "it is raining in Duluth"?"

Well. I think that if it is raining in Duluth, then yes, it is raining in Duluth.

Just for the fun of sometimes descending into silliness. If raindrops are falling in Duluth, then it is raining there. Even if raindrops are not falling on every exposed surface in Duluth. Note that, for example, there is a space between raindrops. In spit of this, yes it is raining in Duluth.

As for the boundaries of Duluth, I refer you to an atlas, or Google Earth.

Now, I suppose the next move is to talk about a rainstorm that has a 1 Angstrom overlap with the boundaries of Duluth when those boundaries themselves cannot be measured to that degree of precision.

Please tell me that you do not believe that the debate between relativism and absolutism comes down to some prosaic quibble about the use of vague language or the limits of precision in measurement. No serious relativist and no serious absolutist would take that line.

Uh-oh. Formatting problem.

Above you see this:

And now to this final point:I can think of plenty of propositions that could be called true and false at the same time, depending on tolerances and definitions.Well, on the one hand, definitions are irrelevant to propositions. This is because propositions are non-linguistic entities. They are the meanings of certain sentences that survive translation.

Which muddles together some of Erkki's words and some of my commentary on them.

I usually don't fix minor errors, but I think this one makes it hard to follow my remark. Here's how it should look:

And now to this final point:
I can think of plenty of propositions that could be called true and false at the same time, depending on tolerances and definitions.
Well, on the one hand, definitions are irrelevant to propositions. This is because propositions are non-linguistic entities. They are the meanings of certain sentences that survive translation.
Sorry for the mess.

They would all have been part of one post, but owing to STR's new length limitations...

Length limitations...? Has something changed? I'll look into it.

WL,

I'm not sure Reality Exists is quite the same as Exists Exists, or, Reality Reality.

Etc.

It is more in the form of Noun Verb rather than Noun Noun, or, Verb Verb, and so forth.

It can be challenged. Hence, existentialisms of various sorts.

Well, "Reality exists" is a proper noun-verb formation. "Exists Exists" and "Reality reality" are not.

However, I do not think there's much difference between "Reality exists" and "Existence exists" or "Reality is real".

Anything can be challenged of course. But I don't think there's really much to be said for a challenge of the claim "Reality exists". Not any more than there is to be said for a challenge of the claim "Blue things are blue" or any other of a hundred different logical truths.

There have been several occasions over the last few weeks where a longer post that I put in seems to be accepted. I've even successfully entered a captcha. But when I refresh the page, it's just not there. the only common denominator seems to be the length of the comment.

You'll note that SCBLHRM had to break a few of his comments in this thread down as well.

After getting burned a couple of times and losing long comments that I've crafted, I've become totally neurotic about saving off scratch copies. I won't get rid of the scratch copies until I can see a comment that I entered from one browser session in an entirely different browser session.

And sometimes the only way I can get the comment accepted is to break it into pieces.

Thanks, WL. I just checked the spam filter and found a few of your comments there, and I'm not sure what set it off. I think I might start giving people the option of signing in. If you're signed in, that might end the problem. There just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why some comments aren't accepted.

WL,

The difference between Blue things are blue is related to Ekki's definition of Absolute Truth. By his definition, more data at a sub-particle level could reveal other colors besides blue. It, that is, blue, is relative to "something" or to some "level" of dissection. That is a logical truth sort of statement. TOE statements, however, if valid at every level of dissection, are absolute truths by his own admission (no further data or level of dissection will change it).

And so forth....

Mind has capacity to utter such things...which are of a different sort in that they are immune to all dissections actually and not merely in theory (blue can be dissected...).

"No new data can change this" is a level of awareness which Mind cleary has the capacity to state truth statements of. And so forth....

Notice: because of the length, I have divided answers to WisdowLover in 2 posts.

    It is also profoundly irrelevant. No 'absolutist' has this mindset and the people closest to having it are Erkki's 'non-absolutist' fellow travelers.

Really? Because I seem to run into this mindset quite frequently. The often quoted and especially from a secular perspective quite infamous piece from Apostle Paul from Epistle to the Romans

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

seems to be almost always quoted in the context of this arrogant idea that because "truth" is obvious, then people who do not accept it are actively malicious. Granted, I don't think most believers are actively completely intolerant or unwilling to admit possibility of mistake, but I wouldn't say "no one has this mindset".

    On the other hand item 5 is a contradiction. Here is why it is a contradiction. first, it is logically true that there are 'absolute' truths, e.g. "1=1", and 'absolute' falsehoods, e.g. "1=0". But item 5 is the direct denial of this logically true claim. As such, item 5 is itself logically false.

I don't see your examples really being much of actual truth claims. Saying 1=1 is basically just summoning law of identity in logic, in that your abstraction "1" of one item is similar to "1" other equal item, which is different then "0" equaling no said items. Saying 1=1 or 1=0 doesn't really actually make any sort of statement about nature of reality.

    On the abstract/non-abstract distinction, would you care to answer the following questions:

To be honest, I don't quite understand most of these questions: If you are asking what I think is the meaningful difference between abstraction and non-abstraction, then my answer would be that abstraction is linguistic entity or a numerical value, also a sort of linguistic entity. So let's take item 7 because it seems most relevant: every claim is by definition abstract because language itself is abstract. So in a way you are right, abstract-nonabstract is on more or less arbitrary distinction. However, at purely logical level, data is no longer an issue, because we can alway assume we have "perfect" data.

    Well, on the one hand, definitions are irrelevant to propositions. This is because propositions are non-linguistic entities. They are the meanings of certain sentences that survive translation.

I don't really see how you could make propositions completely outside of linguistics. I mean, in a theoretical sense you are right: if we could perfectly summon the law of identity and say, because we understand each other perfectly and bad data is not an issue, then we could say 1=1 and this proposition is absolutely true. But the point is precisely that, this is impossible. You can not make actual real world statements completely disregarding possibility of bad data, or that it will be understood perfectly, or assume that because statement is logical it has to equal truth.

    Well. I think that if it is raining in Duluth, then yes, it is raining in Duluth.

    Just for the fun of sometimes descending into silliness. If raindrops are falling in Duluth, then it is raining there. Even if raindrops are not falling on every exposed surface in Duluth. Note that, for example, there is a space between raindrops. In spit of this, yes it is raining in Duluth.

    As for the boundaries of Duluth, I refer you to an atlas, or Google Earth.

But the issue is not just the geographical boundaries of Duluth. It's about all the uncertainty with this data. Where and how did you learn that it is raining in Duluth? Were you there? Or did you see it on the news? What if you mistakenly thought you were in Duluth at the time it was raining, when you were actually in St. Paul? What if the newscast about rain in Duluth had an error and Duluth actually had crystal clear sky? What if you thought you saw a newscast on rain in Duluth, but remember it wrongly? What if you guy you are telling this information is thinking of a completely different Duluth and different city?

Of course, most of this theoretical uncertainty is not an issue in real life, and I do not expect it to be. I do not spend my days wondering if there really is a television in my room, or whether the raindrops I saw yesterday were reality, and so on. Nor do I recommend it for anyone else. One-in-a-trillion errors can always be ignored. Then again, there are topics such as politics and religion, where giving some benefit of doubt to most claims is usually a good thing, because we can understand reality from a more complex perspective.

Erkki,

"I do not spend my days wondering if there really is a television in my room...."


By your definitions, you are stating that you do..... or, if we do not then we will miss truth, or we ought to wonder such else we risk missing absolute truth.


"really" a television in the room?

By "really" do you mean, "in truth"?


This is where Paul is heading. That which your own eyes see right in front of you, you will simply say of such, "It isn't really there" (this tree, that table). Or, you will say, "Is that which you and I both mean by 'a tree' truthfully there?" as you both sit there reclining against the very tree you are both talking about.


As pointed out earlier, hyper-skepticism, or as you called it, radical skeptic-ism, is, as you yourself claimed, not held in high regard as it ends up in the absurd.

This is also where Brad B had you pegged: you perpetually equivocate midstream on all terms and then say, “See, truth is not there either!”

This is why Jesus tells us that Signs are not of much help: that which we see with our own eyes will be called non-entity. If we do this with “this tree” we are both reclining against as we pontificate about the reality of “this tree”, well, if “this tree” is in your own bait-and-switch equivocation immune to actuality then, well, the same immunity to actuality will be found in the blind man regaining his sight right in front of our eyes.


Yes, there this computer screen I am seeing with my own eyes exists, or, is 'really here' before me, or, is 'in truth' before me. The reason you don't want to go there is because it takes us to a place where "Truth is eternal” is realized (even in non-existence) and also "non-truth is not eternal" (even in non-existence). But more on that in my next posts to follow in which I oblige your own insisted upon definition of “no new information will change the truth of this statement”.

WL (and perhaps Erkki…)

I’ll break this up into four posts just to be safe:

1 of 4:

Another way to approach this is to oblige Erkki on his own terms. It ends up taking us to an interesting place where “Truth is eternal” and “Non-truth is none eternal” both bubble up.

We can, then, proceed so as to differentiate between theoretical insulation against finer slices of dissections, such as with “blue is blue” and “1 = 1” and so forth, and actual real world immunity to further dissections of yet more data. “Blue is blue” is, per the definition (we are assuming Erkki’s definition for his sake) vulnerable to taking the blue and dicing it into (in theory and in actuality), say, particle and wave, and, so, blue is no longer blue: this wave, that particle, and suddenly blue vanishes (bait and switch mid-stream…..yeah… yawn…) And so on and so on with any of a hundred logical truths.

Before I go further, I agree with your approach to raining in Deluth. And I disagree with Erkki’s for, as you say, well…… yawn. But, if that is the game to play, then so be it.

Very well then. Games are fun.

We will look for a statement which transcends mere logical theory and the rules thereof to satisfy those who overtly label fact, knowledge, logic, and truth as unimportant (Erkki the former, Ben the later). New information can change blue into particle and wave (yeah… yawn….) but, if we find a statement for which no possible level of finer and finer slicing and for which no possible level of new data will alter the truth of, well then, we have (assuming this immunity is actual and not merely theoretical) our Actual-Absolute-Truth.

Logical truths are always at least theoretical absolute truths, but, per Erkki’s definition, not always actual absolute truths (per his definition of bait-and-switch midstream). Now, with “Reality-Exists” we find something which breaks through the ceiling of theory and rules we ought to honor in these discussions and in fact just is immune to all new input and all new slicing-machines in actuality.

I am not interested in Erkki’s interest in the Real-World and if all he cares about is games, then, well…….yawn. But I am interested in, and live in, and seek to understand, the Real-World. As such, I am genuinely interested if there is Capacity within Mind to state an Absolute Unchanging Truth.

I am not convinced I need to satisfy Erkki’s definition.

But, I want to see if I can, for, his definition of finer and finer data-points is, forgive me, a curiosity here.

So then, if I may be permitted to say that fun is fun, and, thus: Reality Exists.

Part 2 of 4:

Reailty Exists.

Is it a Logical Truth?

Yes.

But is that all it is, per this intriguing definition?

No: it has an immunity which not all logical truths have if we mean to assume Omniscience cannot introduce any new ‘something’.

Before I go further, let us say that “Reality Exists” is not to say, “Things that exist right now always exist”. We are not speaking of “things being real” but of real-ity.

The most Omniscience can do is add itself (which is quite a lot of information) and that will change nothing whatsoever, for, assuming such an event occurred, omniscience being an actual component of Reality, simply nothing will have changed the truth of the statement.

This Absolute Truth statement (Reality-Exists) is in actuality and not merely theoretically immune to both New-Information AND to Context.

All-Contexts are part of reality or possess real-ity. No contextual change will change the truth of the statement. The reason this is so is because the statement is not referencing “things that exist right now” or “the way things are arranged right now” but is referencing the simple fact-hood of, not their reality and not this or that reality but of reality. Or, if it helps, of real-ity. Contexts change, or, stuff or material can shuffle around and thereby change Context, or, there can be just no stuff at all, and so we can change any statement about any particular thing’s reality, but, this still does not change the existence of reality. Or, if it helps, the existence of real-ity.

This is why contextual situations and slicing machines do not impact this absolute truth. It is unchanging. It is immune to all of that in actuality and not merely in theory.

We should point out: Mind knows this.

Part 3 of 4:


God creating Ex Nihilo does not change the existence of reality. It does add to reality’s contents, or, it does change reality’s contents. But that is not the same thing as what we are discussing. On Ex Nihilo I would say “adds to”. Not “changes” lest we fall into Pantheism. Of course, there is that which exists in Him outside of Time vs. Inside of Time, which for us makes all the difference but which for Him makes no difference at all, thus, it is not as if God is “added to” and could get carried away in the excitement of creating and proceed to create Himself into the minority. But then, existence and time is another discussion. Either way, with or without existence, with or without time, Real-ity Exists.

“Well then, scblhrm, you are saying even if there is no god, no thing at all, because that state-of-affairs would be actual, then real-ity still exists? Aren’t you saying Absolute Truth exists even if there is not God?

We need not fear this for when we say God Is Truth, we mean just that Truth just always exists, and, we can dive into that and find that the Hebrew and the Christian have always been correct on this. What does the Hebrew and the Christian mean by “God”? Well, at least one thing we mean is “Truth”. Another is “Life”. Another is “Person”. Another is “Being”. Another is “Love”. Another is “Light”. Another is “Spirit”. And so forth. If Unchanging-Truth ends up everlasting, well then, we have yet another Strong Vector testifying of just that thing the Hebrew and the Christian speak of when they employ the word “God”.

And here we find the everlasting truth of Jesus’ statement: I Am Truth. And further, Truth is Eternal. Whatever Truth “is”, it is everlasting.

Part 4 of 4:

Oddly, Lies, or, Non-Reality, as it turns out, are not everlasting and in fact require an Agent which can state a Falsehood if it (non-reality, falsehood) is to exist. We cannot say “Non-Reality exists” for by exist we mean “is”. “That which actually is-not actually is” is an absurd statement. That is, unless there is Agent, and, and Agent which can generate Falsehood.

Truth cannot Lie, and, Truth is Eternal. Let us say there is No-Thing in existence. No God. No material of any sort. Nothing whatsoever. ‘Real-ity exists’ is still, in that reality, a valid statement, for, that state of affairs would then be what just is real, and so on, and so on. In that state of affairs, where there just is nothing, no god, no material, and so forth, we find Actuality yet existing, it’s just that it is that state of affairs. In that state of affairs there is no Non-Reality or Falsehood “existing”. We must remember that we are not speaking of “this thing’s reality” but of pure and plain and simple Real-ity.
Unchanging Truth Always Exists even in Non-Existence, for, “Real-ity Exists” holds tight even there.

Notice that “God cannot Lie” is validated here. Truth, that is, Unchanging Truth always exists in all contexts, even none existence whereas Falsehood requires both Agency and an Agency which will speak a Contradiction to Truth if it (falsehood, lie) is to exist.

Strong Vectors shattering the skies above our heads:

“I Am Truth” breaks through here, just as “I Am The Everlasting” breaks through here, just as “God cannot lie” breaks through here, just as “Satan is the Father of Lies” breaks through here, just as the “I-AM” breaks through as the Always Present.

Truth, that is, Unchanging Absolute Truth, Always Exists.

The Hebrew and the Christian have always known the Unchanging and Eternal Truth that just is the Everywhere and Always. “I Am Truth” is He Who is Everlasting and Who is Immune to any and all assassinations.

He, Truth Himself, cannot “not exist”. And, He cannot “lie”.

I have (or have not, it matters not) acquired the maximum potential of information and there cannot be any new data to supplant or add to the absolute truth that Real-ITY Exists.
Truth always exists. Real-ITY Exists. In Him, that is, In Truth Himself, In Reality Himself, there is no Falsehood, no Darkness. He cannot lie.

Truth cannot not-exist. Real-ITY cannot not-exist.

God cannot not-exist.

Mind knows this of God.

    Yes, there this computer screen I am seeing with my own eyes exists, or, is 'really here' before me, or, is 'in truth' before me. The reason you don't want to go there is because it takes us to a place where "Truth is eternal” is realized (even in non-existence) and also "non-truth is not eternal" (even in non-existence). But more on that in my next posts to follow in which I oblige your own insisted upon definition of “no new information will change the truth of this statement”.

But you are apporoaching the question of "truth" from a strictly solipsist perspective. You are making the assumption, that because you are seeing a computer screen, that this is obviously reality. And it is, from your perspective. But I can not be certain of the existence of said computer screen. For I all know, perhaps you are a writing this on iPhone, or are a very clever spambot. Of course, I have no reason not to trust you on this matter, and it's not like on pragmatic purposes it even matters. But you are making personal universal, and this is precisely the problem with the Paul quote. You are not counting on the possibility, that perhaps we have different information, or a different outlook on this matter.

    This Absolute Truth statement (Reality-Exists) is in actuality and not merely theoretically immune to both New-Information AND to Context.

Okay, so basically what you are saying is that because "reality exists" is obviously truth, because if it were not, then of course this whole conversation would not exist an would be thus irrelevant, so there exists at least one absolute truth that can not be changed with any new information. Well, obviously that's something. But you are mostly missing the point what it exactly means when we say "there is no absolute truth." It basically means no statement about reality can be immune to new information. The existence of reality is a premise. It doesn't really fall in the category of "truth" claims. Saying "I equate my experiences as being reality, as they follow patterns which can logically deduced", is more of a definition of reality then any sort of statement or question. So I like said before, saying "absolute truths do not exist" is a silly way to but a lot more profound idea "I can never understand reality perfectly, because I am part of that reality."

"Well, obviously that's something"

Yes, it is an absolutely true statement about the current, and eternal, state of affairs.

As I said, I'm not that interested in your definitions. I am interested if Mind has the capacity to state such a statement.

And it does.

And it is even more satisfying, this experiement of using your definition, for it is a statement of an everlasting Truth which actually exists both with and without material stuff.


Truth cannot not-exist.
God cannot not-exist.

As for Falsehood, or, Lie, well, that seems to require an agent of sorts, and a certain kind of agent......


It does appear, Erkki, that, as I suspected, your point really boils down to a prosaic quibble about the limits of language and imprecision in measurement. Which returns me to my earlier diagnosis of the problem with your view. The notions of truth and certainty are getting jumbled together into a conceptual hash. I'll augment that judgment by also noting that I think that the distinction between an expression and its meaning is also being blurred.

It is not surprising therefore that you find yourself making statements like this:

I don't see your examples really being much of actual truth claims. Saying 1=1 is basically just summoning law of identity in logic, in that your abstraction "1" of one item is similar to "1" other equal item, which is different then "0" equaling no said items. Saying 1=1 or 1=0 doesn't really actually make any sort of statement about nature of reality.
So now it seems that "1=1" is not an actual truth claim.

Now, "1=1" obviously is a truth claim in the sense that it is a claim of truth. That is, the person affirming this sentence is claiming that it is true. But I don't think that you were trying to deny that.

I think what you are trying to say here is that "1=1" is not actually true. You seem to be under the impression that because "1=1" follows logically from the law of identity that it is somehow untrue (this is not to say that it is false, but that it simply isn't the sort of thing that can be true).

That you wind up saying this, my friend, is a textbook example of reductio ad absurdum. If your view has the result that "1=1" is not actually true, the thing to do is not assume that you've said something profound, but to start over.

Truth cannot not-exist.
Absolute Truth exists.

My Mind knows this.
My hand can write this upon parchment.

Erkki states a falsehood when he claims Truth does not exist.

Erkki states a falehood when he claims Truth is not everlasting.

Ben states a falsehood when he claims Mind does not have the capacity to state an absolute truth, to know an absolute truth.


The previous seven statements are absolutely true statements.

And so on..... and so on....

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Is this 'absolutist' view arrogant? Is the person saying this claiming that he knows something with 100% certainty and without the possibility of revision?

I think it is obvious that no, the person who said this is not arrogant. He is not claiming 100% certainty about anything. He is not claiming to know anything beyond the possibility of revision. What he is saying is that there is sufficient evidence available to reason to conclude that God does exist.*

It seems to me that you'd have to be in the throes of an over-arching thesis that must be maintained at all costs to read it much differently. As I said before, in my experience the people most prone to high-handed rejection of all revision of their thought are the very people who oppose 'absolutism'.

There's actually a pretty obvious reason for that. Revision assumes that you go from something that you once believed to be true either to a contrary view that you now believe to be true instead or, at least, to the suspension of belief in the proposition you once thought true. By denying that things can be true, you thereby eliminate the possibility of revision. There's no basis for the revision. To reject one belief in favor of another is precisely what non-'absolutists' have anathematized.

Returning to the issue of the arrogance of 'absolutism', here's an analogy. Suppose that we are standing in Duluth in a pouring rain. I notice an awning above the sidewalk that is so situated that if we get under it, we'll avoid getting soaked. I suggest that we get out of the rain by getting under the awning. You stay in the rain, insisting that there is no absolute truth to the proposition "It is raining in Duluth". Now I reply thus:

What we know about the rain in Duluth is evident on the very top of your head; for the rain is making itself evident to you. For since we got out on this street, we have clearly felt the wetness of the raindrops, their coldness and their weight. So it's your own fault if you get drenched. Be it, literally, on your own head.
Oh! The arrogance!!!

    Now, "1=1" obviously is a truth claim in the sense that it is a claim of truth. That is, the person affirming this sentence is claiming that it is true. But I don't think that you were trying to deny that.

On the contrary, if one defines truth claim as "this is statement about nature of reality", then yeah, I don't see how 1=1 is actually any kind of claim of truth. What exactly it is about reality you say when you say "1=1"?

    I think what you are trying to say here is that "1=1" is not actually true. You seem to be under the impression that because "1=1" follows logically from the law of identity that it is somehow untrue (this is not to say that it is false, but that it simply isn't the sort of thing that can be true).

I think you are confusing truth with logic. I have never denied that it is of course possible to make entirely logical statements such as 1=1 which can of course be said to be true if their internal logic is unquestionable. But it is still not a claim about reality, as in reality 1 does not fully equal 1, because both points of data can be inaccurate, or the abstraction could be flawed other ways.

    Returning to the issue of the arrogance of 'absolutism', here's an analogy. Suppose that we are standing in Duluth in a pouring rain. I notice an awning above the sidewalk that is so situated that if we get under it, we'll avoid getting soaked. I suggest that we get out of the rain by getting under the awning. You stay in the rain, insisting that there is no absolute truth to the proposition "It is raining in Duluth".

But your scenario is ridiculously straighforward. Of course it would be stupid for a man getting soaked in pouring rain to yell "I don't know if it's raining." Yeah, but I don't find it to be good analogy about human condition. Obviously one can construct these sort of solipsistic scenarios where "you would not deny it if happened to you!" But about everything in this world doesn't happen to me.

Like I said about a dozen posts or so feel like people are making this a lot more controversial and complicated issue then it is. The statement is not "always doubt everything, never believe any information" straw-man, rather then "acknowledge the limits of information and logic, and be prepared to accept new data if it appears".

Erkki,

Be prepared to accept the seven absolutely true statements above which descirbe, perfectly, the nature of reality directly tied to Everlasting Truth which cannot not-exist. The Chain is unbroken.

Starting from that point, and taking but one step off of that launching point, with one foot on "it" and one foot upon the ground of this physical universe of "our experience", we have, not as you keep insisting "just Logic" but, in fact, Truth directly tied to the Everlasting state of affairs. Now, those seven soon turn into millions. Trillions. And all directly tied to Everlasting Truth. The Chain need never break.

If the chain is broken, it does not change the Truth of those first seven, or first million, statements about reality which we can easily come up with. Trillions even.

Mind can, and does, Know-Such.


We will find, say, about ten or twenty million steps downstream, that 1 = 1 is in fact a description of how Reality "is" exactly because it is a description of how Truth "is".

Absolute Truth statements of many, many, many sorts can be added to our little list here, and, as they all have a finger, or a toe, or a sniff of the nostril tieing them directly to Everlasting-Truth-Cannot-Not-Exist, they are all Truth even though you think they are "just logic".

They describe reality as it actually is.

I'll resist the urge to enter a list of, say, a million more to that little list a few posts above, and to the list of 39 items earlier.

Truth cannot not-exist.
Absolute Truth exists.

My Mind knows this.
My hand can write this upon parchment.

I am not Omniscient, yet I know this absolute truth with Certainty.

"Omniscience is not necessary for Certainty".

Mind can, via Hand, write such on parchment.


....we could go on for millions... trillions...

Now, you see "Omni is not necessary for Certainty" and you shout "It's not Truth, it's just Logic."


But, of course, it is truth.

Now, Logic is the Vector by which such Truth flows; Logic is not Truth, not Water, but the Pipe throgh which it flows.

Cleary it is you, and not us, who is confusing Logic for Truth and Truth for Logic.

Absolute Truth exists, and is Everlasting. Truth cannot not-exist.

I affirm that "1=1". Please refrain from telling me that I am not claiming that it is true. That is exactly what I am claiming. It is therefore a claim of truth.

The point, as I said before, that you seem to be making is that "1=1" is somehow not true, whatever I may claim about it. I am apparently confusing logic with truth by making my claim.

Whatever that means.

Since, the most basic branch of logic is just the science of how the truth-values of the parts combine to yield the truth-values of the whole, I really must confess that I don't even know what this confusion you speak of is.

Now, here was your response to my rain analogy:

But your scenario is ridiculously straighforward.

Um...OK. But "1=1" is not ridiculously straightforward.

Whatever man.

Then there is this

The statement is not "always doubt everything, never believe any information" straw-man, rather then "acknowledge the limits of information and logic, and be prepared to accept new data if it appears".
The thing is that no one seems to be unaware of the limits of information and logic. And no one is unprepared to accept new data if it appears (with the possible exception of doctrinaire non-'absolutists').

And given what you've had to say about "1=1", you could have fooled me about the idea that your claim isn't "always doubt everything, never believe any information". If you are willing to doubt "1=1", then really, everything is up for grabs.

"in reality 1 does not fully equal 1"

"this is statement about nature of reality"

So then, an Absolute Truth which DOES refelct the actual nature of reality and thus satisfy "Truth" on this new definition would be this: 1 is not equal to 1.

So, either way, Absolute Truth is Know-able by this NEW defintion (we've already satsified the OLD defintion of "no new data can change it or revise it).

We can say: [1 equals 1].

Or,

We can say: [1 does not equal 1].


Erkki is siding with the second as Truth, while others are siding with the first as Truth. At least on this NEW defintion.

Well, as it turns out, A = A does reflect the actual fabric of Real-ITY.

But more on that tomorrow.........


But, even if we grant "1 does not equal 1", we still arrive at Truth, per this NEW definition, per Erkki.....

I find it odd that Errki is atmitting to finding something absolute about the law of identity:

"I don't see your examples really being much of actual truth claims. Saying 1=1 is basically just summoning law of identity in logic, in that your abstraction "1" of one item is similar to "1""

What I dont see is why he discounts the law of non contradiction by limiting it's precision by linguistic challenges. It is the perogative of the philosopher to make distinctions[per RC Sproul], so that precise definitions are made clear. It isn't impossible to communicate in absolutes. I said it earlier and I think it still stands for Erkki that for his view to have meaning, he affirms the key of equivocation. If you affirm the law of identity and the law of non contradiction as foundations of logic, you can know absolutes, if not you are a radical skeptic because nothing has meaning.

When God says that "Jesus is Lord", three things are being conveyed--not three thing up for interpretations of each, but three things as God defined them. Just because mankind is challenged with noetic effects of the fall, this doesn't prove that in every instance where men suppress the truth in unrighteousness it proves that it is impossible to know reality. If the One that created reality tells you something about it, you can know that something absolutely.

A brief observation:

First, the OLD complaint was that we need statements which are Absolutely True which Erkki translated to mean immune to any new revisions by the arrival of any new data. We satisfied that many times over and even built some small chains of unbroken links from an absolute truth fully descriptive of the actual state of affairs everlastingly so.

Now, we have this NEW definition there is the insistence that something has to be statements which tell us about the nature of reality.

Erkki is telling us that the language of Logic and Mathematics is of no help in teasing out the nature of reality.

Mathematical language, those little symbols and equal signs and plus signs and divisions and multiplications and Calculus and so on and so on in what is (I thought) the purest language of all (mathematics) does not inform us on the nature of reality, does not bring us closer to understanding more of the nature of reality.

All the mathematical models which describe just everything in chemistry and physics, all those odd equations, all those voluminous collections of formulas do not speak to us of reality’s nature in ever finer slices.

Well, I whole heartedly disagree.
Here is why. Mankind prior to all those useless equations (like 1 = 1) calls the smallest, say, thing, to be, say, a grain of sand. New data comes and that is revised. Now, how does new data come? Well, by a blend of logic and mathematics. And so those finer slices he asks for are given to us, and how are they given to us? By Logic and Mathematics (in many arenas).

It is apparent to any thinking person that the language of Logic and Mathematics, and all those odd (useless?) formulas have given us ever refined slices of the “nature of reality” (chemistry, physics).

That satisfies his NEW definition of Truth (tells us about the nature of reality). The OLD definition of ‘Absolute Truth’ was based on his assumption that Mind could never Know a Truth which Logic and Mathematics could not dice up even thinner. We proved that assumption wrong when we satisfied that OLD definition.

All that remains is this: What will be Erkki’s THIRD definition of Truth or of Absolute Truth?

If one wants ALL SLICES IN ADDITION TO ALL ABSOLUTES then one is asking for Omniscience.

This is then the thinking: Omniscience is required for Certainty. Or: Without Omniscience there is no certainty of anything.

But, as we saw in several of my earlier posts, Omniscience is not required for Certainty nor is it needed to know an Absolute Truth (immune to any new information).

Thus, “I need ALL the slices to “Know with Certainty”” is a Falsehood, and, also, “Mind cannot “Know” slices immune to yet finer slicing” is a Falsehood, and, finally, Mathematics and Logic have and do tease out more and more of the actual nature of reality (that last one is called science).

We find then these, well, let’s call them observations, from earlier posts and from here:

1) Real-ity cannot not-exist.
2) Truth cannot not-exist.
3) Truth exists.

4) 1 through 3 are Absolute Truths in that no new information can change their validity.
5) 1 through 4 are Always True both with and without the existence of Material Stuff and/or Time.

6) Mind knows several Absolute Truths. It’s easy to make an unbroken chain into the millions off of just one.
7) Omniscience is not necessary for Certainty.

8) Chemistry and Physics, via the language of Logic and Mathematics, tease out more and more of the nature of actuality.
9) Logic and Mathematics are two of several Pipelines through which the Water has come to us.

10) The Water does not come to us without the Pipelines.
11) Water is available.

12) Mind Knows Absolute Truths with Certainty, though not knowing infinitely, thus, Water is available.

13) Living Water is available. Everlasting Water. As in, Water that cannot not-exist.

BTW,

The only reason chemistry and physics and science and logic and mathematics (...nature of reality...) have all gotten as far as they have is because they have affirmed Brad B's noted law of identity and law of non contradiction and have refused to employ Erkki's embraced key of equivocation.

Pipeline.

Water.

Notice: because I have limited time on my hands, I am responding solely to Wisdomlover, because this conversation seems most relevant. Don't feel neglected, I've read your answers :)

    I affirm that "1=1". Please refrain from telling me that I am not claiming that it is true. That is exactly what I am claiming. It is therefore a claim of truth.

    The point, as I said before, that you seem to be making is that "1=1" is somehow not true, whatever I may claim about it. I am apparently confusing logic with truth by making my claim.

    Whatever that means.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I mean: you are confusing logic and truth. Because you can make logical claims that are not total nonsense, such as 1=1, 1!=0, you are assuming that this means you can make statements this sort out of logical context. We have basically reached the eternal battlezone between rationalism and empiricism. I see that you, scbrownlhrm and Brad B are quite firmly on the rationalist side: an idea must be true if it makes sense. I tend to side on the empirical side, at least when talking on more complex and less well-defined subjects.

    The thing is that no one seems to be unaware of the limits of information and logic. And no one is unprepared to accept new data if it appears (with the possible exception of doctrinaire non-'absolutists').

Considering that we live in a world where it is quite routine to be killed or tortured for holding different ideas and opinions, I'm going to roll my eyes just a little bit if you say these evil absolutists are just a straw-man, or literally everyone accepts the limits of logic and data, because the way I see it, it takes quite a bit of education to get over Dunning-Kruger effect and accept the fact your knowledge may be even less limited then you think.

Yeah, there are silly people who claim nothing can be known and everything is allowed. They usually make dada art. Then there are people who are going to kill you for holding different ideas about goverment, economics and God. They probably rule about 90% of goverments at this time. So I don't see it as a bad thing if educational system hammers in your head that "reality is really, really, really lot more complex then your 1=1".

Mathematics is of no help.

Erkki is presenting a false dichotomy by trying to smuggle in a war between Reason/Rational and that which is Empirical. There is no empirical approach, or result, in science which is not held to the standards of Reason/Logic and which is not communicated by that Pipeline and often via the Pipeline of the language of mathematics.

Reason and Rational notions and the Empirical are inextricably tied together in “how we do the act of know-ing”.

The only reason chemistry and physics and science and logic and mathematics (...nature of reality...) have all gotten as far as they have is because they have affirmed Brad B's noted law of identity and law of non contradiction and have refused to employ Erkki's embraced key of equivocation.

Pipeline.

Water.

Erkki is totally mistaken in his attempt to allow Empiricism to stand completely on its own without any Reason, without any Logic, without any Mathematics, and without any Language of the Rational. “How we do our know-ing’ is just all of these together.

I would like to see an example of how that total isolation is achieved, Erkki?

And by the way, Mathematics is helping us get finer and finer slices of the nature of reality. Things like 1=1 and so forth....

I'm looking foward to your example of total isolation.

I'll try to undu it.

Hopefully I can!

The comments to this entry are closed.