Absolute truths exist
Humans are incapable of knowing them
If a human did know one (s)he would be incapable of explaining it
If a human did explain it clearly,
the audience would be incapable of comprehending it
The human sensorium is so flawed
that we cannot perceive the detail required
to observe absolute truth
[which is why science requires constant revision]
The human mind is so variable
that we cannot comprehend the intricacy of details required
to know the truth
[which is why science required testing of hypotheses]
Human communication is so poor
that we cannot clearly communicate ideas
without some level of distortion
[which is why science requires repeatability]
The only way a human could stumble
upon absolute truth is by guessing
but (s)he would never know it was absolute,
(s)he would never be able to test it for absoluteness
(s)he would never be able to share the idea
with another human in a way that would allow the other
to comprehend exactly what the truth is
In theory one person
might be able to attain
pure knowledge in one small area
of human existence,
but they could never share that knowledge
clearly with another person
I think absolute truths lie only in the definitions, and definitions are only in the intended and understood meaning of words and sentences.
We agree in-so-far as that goes,
however I would argue
that no two people can
ever agree on a definition
for the same reasons I gave above.
I do not know what you mean by e.g.,
"cold" or even
Exactly, but a definition can be true, if the intended meaning, and the perceived meaning are the same.
I think it is fair to say
that we can agree
on the terms and condition
at least enough to build a functioning society
I am not convinced that leads to
(or even allows for) "truth"
Perhaps it allows some fuzzy and arbitrary level of mutual understanding.
To me truth is irrefutable
and I am up for refuting anything that comes my way.
Well we can't always understand the "truth" of any given statement, aside from simple totalagies, like 2+2=4, simply because 4 is the definition of 2+2.
The point being
that as a student of mathematics
I learned that 1+1=10
and as a student of Zen I learned that
the is no "2"
all is 1
2+2=4 is not a totology. 4 could be defined by 3+1 or 2x2.
And what about "in a triangle, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the two other sides squared"? Isn't it of the most absolute truth ?
Mathematics are the only concepts distinct from the human perception (and I'd say the mathematics are all that and only that). They are therefore not subject to the huges biases of perception, that's why they are the basis of science.
Ever study the Riemann sphere?
The Riemann sphere can be visualized
as the complex number plane
wrapped around a sphere
with the pole set to +- infinity.
The sphere allows us to view
all of "math"
from a different perspective that
includes division by zero
parallel lines that cross
other events that are "not possible"
any rational function
can be extended to a continuous function
any meromorphic function
can also be thought of as a continuous function
This allows us to contemplate
such as quantum mechanics.
It is very much "breaks" the rule
of the "absolute truth"
that so many people think exist in math
I am convinced there are other projection of math
[not yet discovered]
that will further demonstrate that
if there is a truth
we have yet to discover it
The point that we cannot know the true nature of existance is often the final agreement in discussions on this topic. This seems to lead us nowhere. It suggests that efforts to understand are pointless. We must set in the darkness and know that we can't know. I reject this line of thinking. Better to enjoy our search for understanding, to wonder at the limits of knowing. To live and experience the universe as we can perceive it.
I think the point in agreeing
that we "cannot know"
is just that - to avoid being content
People who "think they know"
stop looking for answers
We who understand we will never know
are the ones who continue to question
those who have the answers
and also tolerance. how much trouble caused by people unwilling to try to understand another's point of view.
Why? What evidence do you have for that?
That totally makes sense.
Causality does seem to exist
indicate objective rules
even if I don't understand them fully