Defining 'Truth': A Puzzling Quandary

[Sikz]

Defining "truth"

What is the actual definition of "truth"?

The obvious answer would be "something that can be proved". But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable. By our definition, then, axioms are untrue (false), and the results of our proofs are void.

Hmmm... What do you guys think?

 

[wahoo q]

truth is perception...define truth!

 

[Jeebus]

I find that there are three types of truth.

• Truth truth
• semi-truth
  and
• pseudo-truth

How you define these gives truth a whole new meaning. The interpretation of truth can exist inside your subconscious. One person's perspective of truth can be a whole different ballpark to another person's truth. So as wahoo q said, please give your definition of "truth" first, then we can start playing around with the "meaning" of it.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
What is the actual definition of "truth"?

The obvious answer would be "something that can be proved". But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable. By our definition, then, axioms are untrue (false), and the results of our proofs are void.

Just because an axiom is unprovable doesn't make it untrue or false. So I strongly disagree with your premise.

There's proof in the perfect, absolute sense, which must be based on axioms that are assummed to be valid and true. That's one kind of proof.

Then there's a somewhat less pure truth, which corrosponds with experience to an overwhelming degree (like, getting bitten by my cat is going to hurt, and that's the truth). That's a bit more complicated than can be formally laid out in a mathematical proof. But in another sense it's far more real and just as certainly true.

Take your pick.

 

[Sikz]

Just because an axiom is unprovable doesn't make it untrue or false. So I strongly disagree with your premise.

You are correct, it doesn't- but under the definition of "That which can be proved", an axiom would indeed be unprovable, which is why I concluded that that particular definition is incorrect.

And I can't give you my definition of truth, as I don't know it. I posted this thread wondering what it was, because I realized I didn't seem to have a good, working definition.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
And I can't give you my definition of truth, as I don't know it. I posted this thread wondering what it was, because I realized I didn't seem to have a good, working definition.

Well, that was my two cents. There are two possible definitions of truth: 1) the pure, absolute truth based on what can be derived from assumed axioms, and 2) the impure, relative truth based on correlations with individual observations of personal experiences.

The first may very well not apply to anything (almost certainly won't, since the axioms are likely to be very elementary and abstract). The second is subjective and, no matter how stronly believed to be true by the individual, is unlikely to be agreed on by another.

Anything more than that isn't available for sale in this universe. Fortunately, a little bargaining often yields some very workable compromises between the two.

 

[Sikz]

Hmmm... What about "What you believe"? Seems incorrect, but is there actually any logical reason why it can't be the actuality?

 

[Adam]

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3. Sincerity; integrity.

4. Fidelity to an original or standard.

5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth

But all proofs are built upon axioms, which are unprovable.

What on Earth makes you assert such a thing?

 

[Sikz]

What on Earth makes you assert such a thing?

Axioms can't be proven, all theorums are built on axioms, all proofs are built on these things. Right?


And the dictionary.com definition isn't a working definition, it just lists synonyms of "truth" (EG actuality, fact, reality).

 

[Adam]

Axioms can't be proven,

Right.

all theorums are built on axioms, all proofs are built on these things.

This is the odd bit. Why say this? Give a reason for saying this.

 

[Kakorot]

truth is whatever your memory says it is, and whatever you believe it is. For instance, you may believe in God, you may not, whichever one you believe is "your" truth, but it may not be the actual truth.
Plus you can't be sure of anything anyhow because the whole universe could have been created 2 seconds ago along with all our memories and such. And no one would be wise to it. So it is impossible to even prove to others that you exist, because as soon as you do, your proof becomes a memory and there is no way to prove a memory to be true. Its all faith.

 

[Thallium]

I need a little clarification before I can say anything. What is an axiom?

 

[Adam]

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).

2. An established rule, principle, or law.

3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=axiom

 

[olde drunk]

****!

i've said many times, 'the only truth is that there ain't no truth'.

all is relative to what we believe or want to accomplish. societies establish truths so that there is the opportunity to interact and communicate and/or excommunicate.

science sets up truths to explore the external/physical universe. as we progress these truths are revised and disgarded as new truths are revealed.

the best definition of truth that i have heard is what the lawyers say, 'truth is whatever the jury says it is!'.

i got mine and i am ready to throw any or all of them away as each days presents new information.

then again?? who really knows?

 

[Adam]

1) Not all truth relies on axioms. This is a very silly thing which I have seen people type a lot, but it simply isn't true. Ohm's Law is not built on any axioms.

2) Not all "truth" is relative. Ohm's Law is not relative. It just is.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Adam
1) Not all truth relies on axioms. This is a very silly thing which I have seen people type a lot, but it simply isn't true. Ohm's Law is not built on any axioms.

2) Not all "truth" is relative. Ohm's Law is not relative. It just is.

But Ohm's Law isn't "truth" as I think the original poster intended, which seemed to be looking for absolutes. And it's not actually a law. It's a modeled explanation for an observation, and it's only an approximation. Ohm's law applies more or less and in a limited domain; it doesn't account for relativistic effects, or quantum effects; it doesn't apply in superconductivity or in extremely high magnetic fields. As a simplified, common sense interpretation of normally experienced reality, it works very well, and that's good enough.

In a physics forum, I'd say nitpicking like this is just annoying. But what is Philosophy if not a lot of nits?

 

[Stryker]

I have no idea what an axiom is, but this is how I veiw truth.

1- Relative truth. What we percive to be true. What we "know". But just maybe we live in a giant marble like at the end of MiB.

2- Eternal truth. But for this to work there has to be a belife in an unchangeable unaterable God. A supreme being that lives by the truths that all eternity is bound by. This is what would make Him a God.

All this science that we do, all the experiments that we procede with. There all measured from perseption. And until we have a perfect math that we may derive equations from, science is only relative truth.

 

[Adam]

1 + 1 = 2

Perfect math.

 

[Stryker]

Touché

But have you ever heard of the 1+1=3 therum. Two people working together create the same amount of work as three indaviduals.

And we also need a math that can properly define infinity. Last I read the big bang started from an infinitly small point. Then couln't it expand forever and never reach a real number size. I believe that figuring infinity is the last big step we need in math.

 

[Adam]

Infinity already is defined. In terms of numbers, it's not really a number, it's more like a function. Spiffy explanation: http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

 

[olde drunk]

1 + 1 = 3!

the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

if the big bang occurred billions of years ago to create our physical world, where did it take place? in a void?

imho, it is/was an idea let loose by the conciousness of a creator. how different are we from the characters in a novel? the author created their existence and then let them loose and recorded their exploits. only difference is that we are aware of who/what we are and have the freedom to write the next page or chapter in an unending story {until we choose to move to another book (demension)}.

wow! how about all the worlds and characters we created! infinity just gets bigger and bigger. we emerge from an infinite universe and we create more universes, WOW!

 

[Stryker]

Intaresting. Nice Adam.

 

[vedder]

truth, an idea or course of action that is relatively benifeicial at the moment of it's conception or realization.

?

 

[jammieg]

What are the typical effects of knowing the truth to you?

 

[jammieg]

The other cold and hard truth

The truth is also mostly the things people don't want to know about themselves because it is common to run from pain and seek pleasure, common to capitalize on strength and conceal weakness, possibly that's why Socrates was fond of saying, "I have no positive knowledge to offer".

 

[Les Sleeth]

One difficulty I see for contemplating the meaning of truth here is that the several ways of looking at it are all mushed up together in this discussion. On the one hand, some are discussing how one discovers or knows truth, while on the other hand some are talking about the abstract or objective meaning of truth. It might help to clarify things if truth were broken down into the main ways it is considered.

I would begin by distinguishing two primary perspectives on truth: 1) objective, or what is true apart from human perception of truth, and 2) subjective, or what is discovered to be true through human perception; I would also further break down the subjective perspective to mundane, logical, and absolute.

The objective meaning is most difficult to define. To say what is true irrespective of human perception is to say what exists. What actually exists, and I think we have to include what has the potential to exist, is the whole of what is true. If it does not exist, and cannot exist, then we can say it is not true or real. So in terms of objective truth, it’s a derivation of existence. For instance, light (in our universe) exists, so it we say it is “true” light exists, and it is also not true that light doesn’t exist. What exists has no relationship to whether or not we know it exists or affects us . . . it just is. Whatever that objective realm of existence is has been pondered and debated for thousands of years, just as it is now. Is existence at the most basic level monistic, and all the “things” we observe just forms this most basic level of existence has taken? Or is the most basic level of existence multifaceted? Is part of it conscious, or does raw mechanics prevail at all levels?

Moving on to the subjective perspective, because we are conscious, we know things and ourselves exist. We know existence affects us, we want to understand how existence works, and we wonder about the ultimate nature of existence; these three aspects of our awareness determine the three sub-categories of subjective truth. So “mundane” truths are those aspects of existence which are personal, like it is “true” I prefer asparagus to lima beans, that I need x amount of money to pay my mortgage, and that I am most comfortable in a temperate climate. These elements of my existence may not be true for someone else, but they are true for me. Then there is my attempt to understand how the objective universe “works.” Because it appears that at least the physical universe works in an orderly way, logic and reason operate superbly to reveal certain objective truths to our subjective awareness so we can interpret, predict, and develop the practical means for interacting with the physical universe. This is where axioms, proofs, empiricsim, etc. have the most relevance. Finally, there is that very difficult ontological question of the ultimate or absolute nature of our own existence. Are we purely physical, or is there something “more” behind the physical? This is truly the most challenging truth to know. Some say logic, reason and sense observation can answer this, while others say only some deep inner experience reveals the truth about the nature of our absolute existence.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Truth does not need axioms. It is free-standing experience, the only sure way of certainty.

Side Note: Mystic Masters (whoever you consider as such) would say that it is the experience that tops all experiences.

Axioms are Useful and coherent assumptions that if you build upon them as a foundation - you can do things with it. You choose axioms based on past experience.

Truth in my opinion must stand above axioms. It is the most useful of assumptions - the most constant of these.

The 'experience' I speak of can only be ordinary sensual experience for the common man. There has been a stream of constant claims througout history of those people who say that have reached a level of experience beyond that of the bodily senses. You decide if they lunatics or illuminated.

 

[honestrosewater]

What is the actual definition of "truth"?

Why do you use the word "actual" in your question? :)

When you ask for a definition, are you expecting a sentence or a conversation?

What is the definition of cow?

How simple can a definition be? Is a definition something to start with or end with?

Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?

Perhaps Socrates claimed to not know anything because he knew that any argument he put forward could be spun in circles or picked apart until it was a meaningless pile of symbols or sounds.
Or perhaps he claimed to not know anything so that others would think about what he meant and question why he would make such a claim.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

 

[New|c]

my point of view.. truth cannot be define actually, but can be related to whatever that you have learn and understand. Example, to a cave man. his truth is that fire is a god or someone upthere. But actually, its combustion. That is what we think it is, so we might actually get it wrong also. So truth is relative. simply.

 

[honestrosewater]

my point of view.. truth cannot be define actually, but can be related to whatever that you have learn and understand. Example, to a cave man. his truth is that fire is a god or someone upthere. But actually, its combustion. That is what we think it is, so we might actually get it wrong also. So truth is relative. simply.

Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?

EDIT- where are my manners? Welcome to the forum.
How do you pronounce your name? I'm not sure what that character represents (New?c).

 

[olde drunk]

now, 'a cow is a cow'. this is a true agreement, not 'truth'. we agree that the word will define a 4 legged bovine (see, there is another word for that creature) and agree that the term is true in our communication.

relative truth, is relative because it relies on the holder of that truth.

love and peace,
olde drunk

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Doesn't what you said - a cow is a cow - also depend on the holder of the truth? Both of them?

 

[New|c]

Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?

EDIT- where are my manners? Welcome to the forum.
How do you pronounce your name? I'm not sure what that character represents (New?c).

its newic, its pronouce as new-wic. Yes, its my point of view. I am based in Singapore, tropical type you know.

 

[loseyourname]

Even if you didn't define the word, it wouldn't change the fact that the object itself is that object, regardless of what you call it. That is true, and there is nothing relative about it.

 

[honestrosewater]

"A cow is a cow" could be restated as "A is A", and is similar to the statement "truth is relative". It's different because "is" is not an equivalence relation, ex. "truth is relative" does not mean "relative is truth".

However, I think olde drunk was pointing out the difference between a name and the thing that is named.

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/logic.htm]The[/PLAIN] word ‘thing’, which occurs in each one of the principles of logic, refers to anything about which you may want to say something. Thus, an object (the Eiffel tower, your computer) is a thing. So is an animal (your cat), a person (me, you, your father), or a fictional character (Mickey Mouse). An historical or fictional event (the Second Gulf War, the Big Bang, your birth, your neighbour's marriage, the death of Sherlock Holmes) is a thing. Other things are a letter of the alphabet, a word, a sentence, an argument; and so on. In short, a thing is anything that is or can be the subject of something one says.

What one says about a thing is called its predicate -- it is what one predicates of it. For example, you might predicate of a subject that it has, or does not have, a certain property; or that it stands, or does not stand, in a certain relation to some thing(s).

Notice that one should always make a clear distinction between a thing and the names or descriptions by means of which one refers to it. The name 'Oliver' is composed of six letters, but the person (if any) to whom the name applies is not composed of letters. The name 'Dracula', as the proper name of a vampire, does not refer to a real thing--thát Dracula does not exist--but obviously the name itself does exist. Consequently, in the context of a description of the real world, the 'axiom of existence' applies only to the name 'Dracula', but not to the non-existent Dracula. Thus, one should not read the axiom of existence as if it said 'for every name, there is a thing to which the name refers'.

Sometimes, we find that a thing is known by more than one name or description. For example, the names 'the morning star' and 'the evening star' refer to the same planet. However, that fact does give us a counterexample or an exception to the principle of uniqueness. In other words, it is not the case that we have here a pair of things--the morning star and the evening star--such that the one thing is the other thing: there is only the one planet. Nor is the case that we have here a pair of things--the name 'the morning star' and the name 'the evening star'--such that the one name is identical to the other.

This is what I was trying to point out by asking, "Is the statement, "Truth is relative" relatively true?" and "Mustn't you agree before you disagree? Otherwise, what is the basis of your disagreement?"

Happy thoughts
Rachel