Morality

Absolute truth doesn't exist.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
youtube.com/watch?v=tdbTOaRh79U
youtube.com/watch?v=kszLwBaC4Sw
youtube.com/watch?v=GX90dr8ldSw
youtu.be/3lnMFSlSkho?t=213
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(mathematical_logic)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Proverbs chapter 26 verses 4 and 5.

The phrase "absolute truth doesn't exist" is an absolute.
You're fucking dumb.

Including that statement? Good to know.

Indeed. What's your point?

Yep.

The bible was written by imperfect men.

Therefore absolute truth as a concept does exist.

The greatest men form their own truth

My point is, you know it's bad when the burger is calling you out for being stupid.

You sound like a stinking liberal commi!

The concept of absolute truth exists in our minds yes.

:)))))))))

I agree

Yes you do.

of course there is an absolute truth, but us as humans just can't grasp it, as we'd need omniscience to do so.

As for morality, well, unless you see it from a religious perspective, it just can't be absolute, since it's something made by humans to answer certain needs, thus varying from culture to culture.

that statement is self-contradictory.

It is not because I do not claim that my statement is absolute truth.

Proverbs chapter 26 verses 4 and 5.

How do you know there is absolute truth?

.

Read crime and punishment. Sound like an interesting character in that book. he learned his lesson.

2+2=4

Technically it does, its just not achievable.

But different interpretations and perspectives result in variability.

To humans, absolute truth doesn't exist, only observable truths relative to the observer themselves.

Indeed.

(((OP)))

If you were able to see and understand how everything works in this universe or in the multiverse (considering the theory is true), you'd know the absolute truth, because there wouldn't be any questions without answer to you.

How do you KNOW absolute truth exists?

Jews are stupid.

Then you should have said may not instead of does not.

How do you know?

Watching atheists argue for moral relativism using circular reasoning is like watching a retard masterbate.

Make me.

So basically you have a small penis ok.

Because that's the reality of existence.

Universal constants and physical laws bestow absolution to our world, even if we can never comprehend them.

I can't make you be semantically consistent since you don't have a strong grasp on the words you use.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem

So please define absolute truth so I can know what it is you are talking about.

Protip: You can't. See link

How do you know that gravity will continue to exist tomorrow?

Because that's logical. If you learn something, the unknown withers to you. If you know all, there wouldn't be the unknown

Perhaps I can't. I don't care to try either way :D

So then you're just speaking nonsense.

How much would you be willing to bet that it won't

No, you just perceive it as nonsense :)

youtube.com/watch?v=tdbTOaRh79U

KING FELIX

How do you know there isn't? Also, what is absolute truth anyway? See

Nothing, because I believe that gravity will continue to exist tomorrow.

I don't.

But from observing it, I would say it's rather unlikely, as its intrinsically tied to the state of having mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=kszLwBaC4Sw

DAUGHTER OF MAN

No... It is literal nonsense. I don't think you completely understand your own position, you can't defend it.
There is contradiction in the posts above, yet you want to assume I don't understand and therefore you're right?
Sounds like 5-year old whining...

I don't know there isn't.

I agree.
Yes you do sound like a 5 year old whining.

"I know you are but what am I?" LOL

R E K T
E
K
T

What makes you know you believe gravity will exist tomorrow?

The fact that gravity has existed for my whole life.

How do you know that is a fact?

Tarski's theorem presupposes that absolute truth does indeed exist. It does effectively put a limit on your ability to know all of it, though. This is because it entails that a system at least as complex as simple arithmetic cannot contain its own truth function. And if you knew all the truth about the universe, then you would serve as that truth function (mapping statements to whether they are true or not). But the theorem certainly doesn't say absolute truth doesn't exist! If it doesn't then the theorem is invalid.

Because I stick to the fucken god damn ground.

>Absolute truth doesn't exist.
Your own statement just said that this statement isn't really true, so why should anyone believe it?

How do you know that is caused by gravity and how do you remember doing that as an infant?

True, perhaps gravity stopped existing for the periods of time I don't remember as an infant :D

Amen

How do you know you were an infant?

Because I have observed other humans being infants and I understand that I am like them.

>Because I stick to the fucken god damn ground.

>Absolute truth doesn't exist.

OP IS ALWAYS A FAGGOT
AUSSIES ALWAYS SHITPOST

"Words and shit that make no sense so instead I'll go make cents." - New Jew

Mathematics allows you to define truth by constructing a statement. It doesn't prove the absolute truth of a premise. Math is an abstraction tool and doesn't define an absolute. Science and math claim no absolute truths

Suck muh dick cunt

That all seems fairly absolute.

youtube.com/watch?v=GX90dr8ldSw

Not only does Absolute truth not exist.

But neither does universal morality.
Morality can be mad and implicated but is has no real world bases.

Like all metaphysical things, they are without meaning.

Obviously you guys have never heard of the Omphalos hypothesis. The universe could have been created 5 minutes ago.

All your memories, your bodily scars, your experiences and all of human history could have been made at only 5 minutes ago.

objective truth > absolute truth

debate me, morns

absolute truth > objective truth

Also all time and space could have been frozen for a billion years 5 minutes from now and we'd never notice.

Doesn't matter as long as I'm frozen while fucking your mom for a billion years

Found the kike.

KYS

It makes no presupposition about the existence of absolute truth. But should absolute truth happen to exist then no truth function (definition) exists within the system to define truth. I.E. no definition of truth exists within the system.

That is there is no way to distinguish for all statements in the system whether or not they are true.

Math has rules it follows for determining the truth of statements but never explicitly defines truth.

We choose axioms enlarging the space of theorems we can prove 'true' whatever that means never defining it but according to Godel's incompleteness theorem there are always unprovable 'true' statements in systems complex enough to express arithmetic.

We will never be finished enlarging 'truth' because we will always be in the position of choosing new axioms to do so. And because axioms are chosen arbitrarily, there is no way to judge the way we choose them for validity so long as they are consistent with the axioms already in use.

There is no way to say statements provable only using the new axioms should be considered true or not since 'true' depends on the axioms you choose.

That is we are free to choose our own working definition of truth, but that definition is not special, and there will be true statements we cannot prove using that definition of truth.

Also others may have chosen different axioms and so have a different working definition of truth that may even conflict with ours. That concept of truth is just as valid as ours.

And no absolute definition of truth exists in any system complex enough to express arithmetic.

This is a consequence of competition. Should player A or player B get to live?

If we can only choose one, then the rules of morality must favor either A or B. Since they are biased, they cannot be said to be universal. We choose the loser as 'Evil' and the winner as 'Good'. From the evil one's point of view the game is rigged and they rightly say Fuck You.

All our 'truths' come from our observations through our five senses. There could be a whole range of stuff we can not sense directly or indirectly. Thus we can not discover absolute truth even if such a thing existed.

But you really only lasted 5 minutes.

I mean... That's what she said.

not an argument

>But should absolute truth happen to exist then no truth function (definition) exists within the system to define truth. I.E. no definition of truth exists within the system.
A definition can exist where a function cannot. If you hold to a constructionist philosophy, then I suppose you might be able to require all definitions having to entail a corresponding function.

But if you've denied absolute truth, how can you call people with a non-constructionist philosophy of math wrong? Their philosophy would be just as valid as yours in that case, and thus we could not say your conclusions are correct.

Constructionism pervades many of your following statements, whose technical aspects I do agree with; just not the Constructionist implications. And again, why should I believe Constructionism? It so happens that I don't. In fact, physics leads me to believe Constructionism is wrong, but that's off-topic I suppose.

But even supposing Constructionism were true, you merely seem to lay out why humans can have differing ideas of what is true, as if humans transcend truth, rather than the other way around, and truth transcending humans.

Nihilism is shit and so are you OP.

>Absolute truth doesn't exist.

Yes it does. Its meaning is hidden deep within the memes. Search through the memes, embrace them and you shall find it.

I'll give you an absolute truth you titanic faggot, I'm going to find you and I'm going to kick you directly in the dick.

I'm going to travel across this country and I am going to knock on your fucking door and when you open it, I'm not even going to be disguised, I'm going to be holding a picture of your post in one hand, and a crowbar in the other to pry the door open if you manage to shut it before I put my foot in it.

and then, once I'm inside, I'm going to chase you around until I can deliver the perfect dick destroying kick of your nightmares.

That is a truth, and it is ABSOLUTE.

That is GOING TO HAPPEN, no matter what.

If North Korea fires nukes as soon as I hit post, I will still make it so help me god I will open a wormhole with my willpower alone, thrust my foot through it straight into your dick.

I'm going to find you, and I'm going to kick you in your worthless pedantic cunt of a dick.

fuck you, fuck your family and fuck the road you live on, you barbaric dick gobbler, go back to africa.

Wouldn't "absolute truth" have to [probably] exist within our universe, since we cannot prove or disprove something that is neither seen or unseen, yet is observed [even as an idea] by our consciousness which we know to be the only [somewhat] absolute? It goes on the premise, which might dismantle my previous claim, that anything generated by our consciousness (or collective conciseness) has to have or will exist because it wouldn't have otherwise if we hadn't thought of it or will think of it? Perhaps too flip floppy of an answer, and revolves around our view of time as a singularity, but it's this lack of sight which restricts that endless possibilities will be achieved, yet this is to us like counting to infinity.

A definition is a truth function.

Eg: Mammal(x) -> {True,False} defines mammal.

How do *you* define 'definition'?

I don't call non-constructionists wrong and constructionists right or vice versa.

Whether to be constructionist or not is an arbitrary choice.

One trivial meaning of "constructive", used informally by mathematicians, is "provable in ZF set theory without the axiom of choice.", whether or not you choose to use the axiom of choice is an arbitrary decision. So whether to be constructionist or not is an *arbitrary* decision.

Both constructionism and non constructionism have equal claim on being true, but are nonetheless in conflict.

Fuck off with your dumb marxist propaganda. Reminder relativism is a synonym for degeneracy of the worst kind.

youtu.be/3lnMFSlSkho?t=213

This refusal by the loser to abide by rigged rules confirms our estimation of them as evil and we pat ourselves on the back for being such great judges of character

Come at me bro

>A definition is a truth function.
A truth function can act as a definition, but not all definitions are truth functions. E.g. A predicate in predicate logic can (and frequently is) easily be used as a definition, but the axioms may not be enough to construct a truth function from it. So, a definition, but no truth function.

A deeper problem with your definition of "definition" is that you haven't specified the Range of x. If the range is the class of all statements, we can construct a contradiction since the definition is itself a statement. So typically you need to restrict the range, and it's not always trivial to do that in a good way.

It's true that constructionists reject the axiom of choice, but they typically reject a whole lot more than that. E.g. rejection of Negation Elimination in sentential and predicate logic is common. And that has many more implications than the axiom of choice. (The "Intuitionistic" fragment)

But more to the point, if non-constructionists are right, then your conclusions in your previous post are all wrong. So again, why should I believe them?

...

>Morality

Edgy user edgy.

Mathmatics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(mathematical_logic)

"In mathematical logic, a predicate is commonly understood to be a Boolean-valued function P: X→ {true, false}, called the predicate on X."

So a predicate is a truth function.

Not sure what the problem with a definition being a statement is.

Intuitionism is thought minus the law of the excluded middle which states either a or not a.

That is one of the three classical rules of thought and really even those rules are chosen arbitrarily themselves.

See : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws

It's not edgy, it's just a statement of basic fact. There is no evidence of an absolute morality, therefore it doesn't exist.

No, that wikipedia page is just trying to give an intuitive picture. In fact, predicate logic is used as an underpinning to define set theory, and in turn, define functions (which are a kind of object in set theory, an incomplete theory). This gets into the details, but they are definitely very different entities, though they superficially look similar. It can be rigorously proved that not all predicates permit the construction of unique truth functions. I can recommend grabbing a textbook on predicate logic sometime though, it really is worth a read :)

But anyway, it isn't key to the question of absolute truth. What I'm saying is that all your arguments for truth being relative seem to be based on the idea that logic and math are just something we humans construct, and that mathematical structure is just arbitrary and at our whim. But by your own position (of there being no absolute truth), that statement isn't really true (otherwise it would be an absolute truth). And thus your conclusions aren't valid.

Again, to summarize: by your relativist position, non-constructionist philosophies are just as valid as your constructionist philosophy. So why should I listen to your constructionist arguments? Do you see the problem there? You want to say that your arguments are true, but you've also said nothing is really true. It's contradictory.

If I drop a ball in a gravity feild it is going to fall and attempt to get as close to the center to the center of said gravity feild as it can so long as the ball is made from normal matter and not say, antimatter or some other crazy shit we don't know about.
>but muh human imperfection in science
Ok then try this
>All bachelors are single men.
Or
>OP is a faggot who just got BTFO

An interesting discussion, but it's past 2am here, so I'd better get some sleep. Sleep well, user!