Are there absolute truths?

[DrPizza]

Re: mathematics

No, in mathematics, there are no absolute truths.
Proved by Godel
Any system of mathematics is necessarily based upon assumptions - thus, these can not be proven true or not true within the system.

Example: Geometry - parallel lines never touch = assumption of Euclid.
Fast forward a few thousand years to non-Euclidean geometry. Assumption = parallel lines meet.
And then, "whoa! The Universe follows non-Euclidean geometry" Surprise!

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: OOBradm
Im a compulsive liar.

believe me?

Just because your lying about being a complusive liar doesnt MAKE you a compulsive lair.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Re: mathematics

No, in mathematics, there are no absolute truths.
Proved by Godel
Any system of mathematics is necessarily based upon assumptions - thus, these can not be proven true or not true within the system.

Example: Geometry - parallel lines never touch = assumption of Euclid.
Fast forward a few thousand years to non-Euclidean geometry. Assumption = parallel lines meet.
And then, "whoa! The Universe follows non-Euclidean geometry" Surprise!

Basic arithmetic laws will always be true regardless. As was said earlier, 2+2=4. That is true for every situation and can be proven time and time again.

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Sting sucked after he left The Police.




Aahbsolute dead on balls acurate Truth.

Jar Jar Binks was a bad idea.

 

[piroroadkill]

I'm pretty sure beer is good.

 

[Schadenfreude]

The only absolute truth: cogito ergo sum.

/thread

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda

Originally posted by: Nimloth
2+2=4

absolute truth?

You have 2 fathers and 2 sons in a room. How many people are there in total? Not 4!

Man1
+Man2
 +Man3

 

[phisrow]

The cogito is actually a rather troublesome one. To say "cogito" seems to imply asserting a subject before you have proven one. It might be better to say "there being a thought, a thought is". Which is somewhat less useful, as it doesn't clearly imply that the thought requires a thinker.

Obviously, I wish to tread lightly when speaking about the works of people who are rather a lot smarter than I am; but the cogito, while brilliant, is hardly as unquestionable as I'd like it to be.

 

[Zolty]

2+3 = chair?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: phisrow
The cogito is actually a rather troublesome one. To say "cogito" seems to imply asserting a subject before you have proven one. It might be better to say "there being a thought, a thought is". Which is somewhat less useful, as it doesn't clearly imply that the thought requires a thinker.

Obviously, I wish to tread lightly when speaking about the works of people who are rather a lot smarter than I am; but the cogito, while brilliant, is hardly as unquestionable as I'd like it to be.

Semantically speaking, you're right.

Which makes me not right.

()

edit: y'know, I just realized - I just read Kant's refutation of ontology part . . . it's right there in my face and I didn't get it! Gah!

<-- Me sucks at Phi

 

[Dark4ng3l]

This is easey.......

I think therefore I am

 

[OrganizedChaos]

nothing is absolute. in an infinite universe everything is possible, some things are just are just infinatly improbable.

 

[qaa541]

Since truth is a human concept, no. Humans defined truth and what it means. Who are we to say something is absolutely X. We could easily redefine truth to be lies, and from the person that knew the truth as lies, they would say the opposite of someone who believed in the truth.
Who is to say which one is right? Maybe the absolute supreme being? Maybe the almighty queen spider? Toss a coin?

Truth is a human concept defined by assumption. Actually our whole lives are based in assumptions (Philosophy) and even science and mathematics are rooted in Philosophy. It just matters what assumptions you make to determine what you believe in.

 

[Mucho]

There is one absolute truth and it's: there is no absolute truth.

 

[Howard]

0 * 0 = 0