Does a Universal Truth Exist?

[Souron]

So the second law of thermodynamics is not a universal truth. It is a scientific theory, somewhat inaccurately trying to describe the universal truth.

No. It's a scientific law. It is an observed pattern in nature that always holds true. Don't confuse the terms scientific theory with scientific law.

 

[Maniac]

Oh ok sorry. I have not given much thought to the concept of 'scientific laws' instead of theories, so I will refrain from further commenting on this.

It's just that when people talk about 'natural laws', they usually mean 'moral truths'. That of course is complete . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . in which Fifty believes.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. The universe is a thing. Truth-values are instantiated by propositions. A thing is not a proposition, therefore the universe does not have a truth value.

Ah ok whatever. I kinda say that if a thing exists, it's 'true'. Under your definition, I guess "The universe exists." would be a proposition?

 

[LightFang]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

 

[Fifty]

'Bachelor' is the name for the concept of 'unmarried male'.

No, it isn't. You are making a use-mention error. 'Bachelor' is the name of the concept of unmarried male, not 'unmarried male'. There is a big difference between the two.

Your statement is only true because you have first invented the concept of 'unmarried male'. You are simply defining a thing. 'A = B' (definition) instead of simply 'A'.

Its an analytic truth, yes, but that doesn't mean its about words. It is a true statement about the world that bachelors are unmarried males..

'Unmarried males exist in this universe.' Now that is a fact/truth about *this* universe. Well, at least, as long as no one suddenly kills them all.

Its also a universal, necessary truth (the bolded proposition).

I don't see how this is any different from your definition of bachelor. You're simply saying two definitions are the same.

Water = H₂O is a synthetic proposition. That is, we had to go out into the world to find out that water = H₂O. It isn't entailed by the definition of water that it is H₂O, chemists had to figure that fact out.

 

[warpus]

What about a man trapped in a woman's body, who isn't married?

Did I just say something profound, or stupid?

 

[Maniac]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

I see you have put a great deal of thought and consideration into this.

No, it isn't. You are making a use-mention error. 'Bachelor' is the name of the concept of unmarried male, not 'unmarried male'. There is a big difference between the two.

Apologies. But I believe the correction should be: 'Bachelor' is the name for the concept of ''unmarried male''.

Water = H₂O is a synthetic proposition. That is, we had to go out into the world to find out that water = H₂O. It isn't entailed by the definition of water that it is H₂O, chemists had to figure that fact out.

Okay, you're right. You're doing something more here than simply defining. You are providing some more information. You are saying that the substance we define as 'water' contains the 'molecules' we call 'hydrogen' and 'oxygen'.

Its an analytic truth, yes, but that doesn't mean its about words. It is a true statement about the world that bachelors are unmarried males..

However here I still don't see what this has to do about the universe. Marriage is a concept originating entirely in the minds of men. How do you justify your assumption that this is something more than a self-contained definition, that it is a universal truth?

I guess this could be extended to mathematics. How do you justify that "Under my self-constructed system, 3 > 2" can be extended to "In this universe, 3 > 2"?

Three and two don't exist in reality, only in our minds. To restart where the relativism thread left off, when you say 'two apples', you are using the concept 'apple'. An apple is a concept defined by humans. No two apples are exactly alike. It is us who construct the group/concept of 'apples', only because of that enabling us to put a number on it.

 

[warpus]

Three and two don't exist in reality, only in our minds. To restart where the relativism thread left off, when you say 'two apples', you are using the concept 'apple'. An apple is a concept defined by humans. No two apples are exactly alike. It is us who construct the group/concept of 'apples', only because of that enabling us to put a number on it.

I think you just described every single word in every single language.

 

[Maniac]

Did I just say something profound, or stupid?

I'd say it is profound.

It's the whole point. When saying "Bachelor is an unmarried man.", you can't claim "I'm not talking about the words; I'm talking about what they refer to!" Because what they refer to, has no independent existence. What they refer to/The concepts only exist in our minds. Concepts which enable to to observe reality. But they are not reality itself.

 

[Mehmed100]

The universal truth of what?

 

[Fifty]

Apologies. But I believe the correction should be: 'Bachelor' is the name for the concept of ''unmarried male''.

That's false. "unmarried male" is not a concept, its a string of symbols.

Okay, you're right. You're doing something more here than simply defining. You are providing some more information. You are saying that the substance we define as 'water' contains the 'molecules' we call 'hydrogen' and 'oxygen'.

No, Im saying the substance water is numerically identical with the substance H₂O.

You're not going to prove your point just by blathering on and on about concepts and putting scare quotes around things. You have to explain HOW my argument is about a concept, or a word, and not about the world, because it is not only exceedingly obvious that my propositions are about the world, but every logician and philosopher of language agrees with me.

However here I still don't see what this has to do about the universe.

The things I talk about exist in the universe.

Marriage is a concept originating entirely in the minds of men. How do you justify your assumption that this is something more than a self-contained definition, that it is a universal truth?

because in English, that particular relation just IS the relation of marriage.

Now its true that the word "marriage" might mean something else to someone who speaks a different language that happens to have the word "marriage" in it... for some alien species the word "marriage" might refer to a certain type of pornography, or an ice-cream topping. But I'm not talking about the WORD marriage, I'm talking about the THING marriage.

I guess this could be extended to mathematics. How do you justify that "Under my self-constructed system, 3 > 2" can be extended to "In this universe, 3 > 2"?

I never said "Under my self-constructed system, 3>2", I said "3>2". Math is not a self-constructed system. Sure, the particular symbols we use to express mathematical truths are self-constructed, but it is a far cry from that to say that the truths themselves are self-constructed!

Three and two don't exist in reality, only in our minds. To restart where the relativism thread left off, when you say 'two apples', you are using the concept 'apple'. An apple is a concept defined by humans. No two apples are exactly alike. It is us who construct the group/concept of 'apples', only because of that enabling us to put a number on it.

There isn't the slightest reason to believe that is true! For instance, even if no life had ever existed in the universe, there would still be three planets between Mercury and Jupiter, the earth would still have one moon, and so on.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why doesn't it? Is there only one path to Truth? If so what is it and who decided it?

How can believing what makes you feel good lead to any sort of external truth?

When has that ever worked?

You didn't answer my question.

What we believe, assume or reason to be true shapes our individual lives and the paths we pursue. It determines much of how we perceive the world around us; it creates the external truth around us. It does not change the laws of physics, but it can make people not care about them. If a dervish is spinning in the rapturous wonder of communion with his god, the laws of physics that enable him to do so are just tools that the divine Friend has placed here for that purpose. Their truth and beauty are not derived from their absoluteness, but from their ability to connect the dervish to the divine.

Is there a reason to separate internal from external truth? Could they not be the same? Are the forces and processes that create the life in us any different than the ones working in the external world we see? Does the 2nd law of Thermodynamics stop at our skin? Or does it penetrate to our very core? Why wouldn't a discovery one makes about oneself also reveal something about the world one perceives as external to oneself?

Is the assumption of individuality and separateness perhaps in need of revision? Aren't 90% of the cells in our bodies foreign life? At the quantum level how different am I from a tree?

 

[Maniac]

You're not going to prove your point just by blathering on and on about concepts and putting scare quotes around things.

I replied to you stating my quotes were placed wrong.

every logician and philosopher of language agrees with me.

1) No they don't.
2) Argument from authority has no value anyway. For instance I do not consider your opinion to have any extra value because you call yourself a 'philosopher'. It simply leads me to the sad conclusion that most people who study philosophy don't understand reality.

You have to explain HOW my argument is about a concept, or a word, and not about the world, because it is not only exceedingly obvious that my propositions are about the world

Well, there's an impasse here. Personally I feel my opinion is exceedingly obvious, and the burden of proof is on you. That means end of discussion I guess. Eg to the rest of your post I can only start repeating myself, or simply ask "why?".

That's false. "unmarried male" is not a concept, its a string of symbols.

Why?

No, Im saying the substance water is numerically identical with the substance H₂O.

Huh, what do you mean? Why?

Math is not a self-constructed system.

Proof?

I never said "Under my self-constructed system, 3>2", I said "3>2".

It is my thesis that anyone who understands the nature of mathematics, would automatically assume that when saying "3>2" is said, "Under this self-contained system with no relation to reality, 3>2" is meant.

The things I talk about exist in the universe.

because in English, that particular relation just IS the relation of marriage.

Now its true that the word "marriage" might mean something else to someone who speaks a different language that happens to have the word "marriage" in it... for some alien species the word "marriage" might refer to a certain type of pornography, or an ice-cream topping. But I'm not talking about the WORD marriage, I'm talking about the THING marriage.

When saying "Bachelor is an unmarried man.", you can't claim "I'm not talking about the words; I'm talking about what they refer to!" Because what they refer to, has no independent existence. What they refer to/The concepts only exist in our minds. Concepts which enable to to observe reality. But they are not reality itself.

There isn't the slightest reason to believe that is true! For instance, even if no life had ever existed in the universe, there would still be three planets between Mercury and Jupiter, the earth would still have one moon, and so on.

These objects would still exist. But 'three', 'planet', 'one' and 'moon' and mathematics wouldn't.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Reason is a great tool, but has its limitations. Unlike the application of reason to the natural sciences, it has not been a good tool to resolve the significant philosphical issues that have under discussion since people began to ponder their place in the universe. I do not expect any definitive answers anytime soon.

There are a couple reasons for this that you refuse to acknowledge. First of all, philosophy by its nature attempts to answer questions where the methodology for answering them is unclear. When the methodology for solving a problem becomes clear, it ceases to be philosophy. Physics, biology, linguistics, psychology, etc. etc. all began as philosophy.

So you are saying that once practical people realized that continuing their study of things in philosophical terms was getting them nowhere, they figured out a better way to get answers? Keep in mind that the questions dealt with by philosophers do not originate within philosophy. They exist independent of it. Philosophy is just one approach to answering them enjoyed by those with time on their hands. And from what you said above, it is an approach that is quickly abadonned as soon as possible.

If one wants an answer to "life's big questions", I suggest just picking what appeals to you and shaping your life around that. At that point you can apply all the reason and logic (or love and magic) you want, to build something that is coherent and makes sense for you.

That's a completely meaningless method. It can be used to build literally any answer you want to any question. That doesn't make it deep or -inducing, that makes it moronic.

Meaningless? How so? Are you the keeper of what is meaningful? You imply that for something to be "meaningful" it must be complex and struggled through, and have greath depth. Why is that? Do you carry some bias against simplicity? Why couldn't Truth be simple and teh complexity you love just be "noise" we create to make us feel more important?

In the 2,500 since the Golden Age of Greece the process of arguing philosophy has gotten more complex and esoteric, but few answers of note have been forth coming. (Isn't there a popular definition of insanity that can be applied here?)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The problems tackled by philosophers today are extremely clear, and philosophy in general is done in a much more clear manner. Today, for instance, I was doing some research on something called "the problem of material constitution". I read some Aristotle on it, and it was extremely difficult to make heads or tales of what on earth he was saying. Then I read a contemporary article on the exact same problem, and it was much easier to comprehend. That fact that you don't get it doesn't make philosophy bad, it just means either that you don't want to get it, or that you are too dumb to get it, or that you just haven't read enough philosophy to form any meaningful conclusion about it. I'll leave it as an exercise to figure out which of these three is most true in your case.

I am too dumb to get it. I do not think that philospohy is bad, just that has become pointless. People do lots of things in this world that are pointless. Pointlessness doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

The topics of philosphical discussion are infinitly interesting and rich, but the impenetrable jargon and belabored process of constructing arguments has sucked the life and value out of them.

Hey, at least you said one thing that wasn't wrong and ignorant!

but the impenetrable jargon and belabored process of constructing arguments has sucked the life and value out of them.

This is just an argument from incredulity. In short, you're saying "I'm too dumb to understand it, so it must be valueless." I can read an article in nearly any area of contemporary philosophy and find it perfectly comprehensible, after just a couple years of serious study. Thats hardly "impenetrable jargon", its just a fact about academic discourse. In philosophy, one of the biggest problems is getting very clear on what you are talking about. In order to get super-clear, you must introduce stipulative and technical definitions so as to eliminate ambiguities. The fact that something is incomprehensible to someone who has never seriously studied it is hardly meaningful. If I picked a random page from some electrical engineering journal that would be perfectly comprehensible to Perfection, I probably wouldn't be able to make heads or tales of it. But that's my problem, not the discipline's.

I've already said that I'm too dumb to understand philosophy, but that was not my point. My point was that philosophical arguments quickly cease to be about the topic, but rather they focus on the methodology of the argument and in doing so they reduce the question at hand to dry logic and symbolic language. All the significant questions of philosophy are answered everyday in millions of ways by people everywhere. They are answered in celebration with song and dance and in private weeping and terrible pain.

And with all that super clarity of language what has philosophy accomplished for anyone who is not a philosopher?

 

[Sui Generis]

Alright, I refined my question.

I used the words "Universal Truth" without even understanding what I meant by it. I guess I said that in an almost jingoistic manner.

Anyway, after much thought, here is my revised question.

Can we ever know whether God(any and all incarnations) exists or not?

I personally believe that it is impossible for us to ever know if God exists or not. Unless of course, if God revealed itself. Even then though, people would still have plausible ways of saying that it isn't god, but some alien possers with advanced technology . .. .. .. .ing with our heads. Of course, God could simply "zap" our brains and make us know.

I hope I am a bit clearer then before on what I mean.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

 

[Agent327]

Alright, I refined my question.

I used the words "Universal Truth" without even understanding what I meant by it. I guess I said that in an almost jingoistic manner.

Anyway, after much thought, here is my revised question.

Can we ever know whether God(any and all incarnations) exists or not?

I personally believe that it is impossible for us to ever know if God exists or not. Unless of course, if God revealed itself. Even then though, people would still have plausible ways of saying that it isn't god, but some alien possers with advanced technology . .. .. .. .ing with our heads. Of course, God could simply "zap" our brains and make us know.

I hope I am a bit clearer then before on what I mean.

I don't see how Can we ever know whether God(any and all incarnations) exists or not? is a refinement of Is there a Universal Truth unless you consider God to be Universal Truth.

I could just repost my previous post, but: since God requires faith, the answer is no. You cannot prove the existence of God, therefore you cannot learn the existence of God (and I considered the Saul/Paul conversion in this). Either you accept God, or you don't. No universal truth involved, sorry.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

one last universal truth - david bowie has groovitational pull.

You Sir, made it to my Christmas card list.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

It is.

(P AND not P) always evaluates to FALSE. NOT FALSE always evaluates to TRUE.

This formula right here ¬(P & ¬P) consist of propositional variables. It is merely a proof method on regarding the "laws of non-contradiction." So it axiomatically means no statement is both true and false at the same time.

Example: Let's say that "Warpus can comprehend propositional logic" stand for q

Now that is given, we can now go further and prove anything we want by applying the reductio method to ¬q

assume ¬q

The contradiction p & ¬p
Warpus can comprehend propositional logic and can't comprehend propositional logic.

p & ¬p Violates the "laws of non-contradiction"

So we reject the assumption which gives us ¬¬q then therefore it follows that if ¬¬q is true, then q is true.


A tautology would be something like ¬(p & p). Or something like this ¬(¬p & ¬p).

 

[Smidlee]

No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is probably the closest you can possibly get to a universal truth.

Except when dealing with the creation of the universe. The 2nd LoT general tells us the universe is running down.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

A tautology would be something like ¬(p & p). Or something like this ¬(¬p & ¬p).

(P & P) evaluates to P. Are you claiming that ¬P is a tautology?