• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are there absolute truths?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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!
 
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top