Can we know the truth?

Post Reply New Topic

But my answer depends on what definition you give me. The difference is just semantics (as is the rest of the debate). Ah whatever.

Using my most stringent criteria:
"No, the truth is impossible to find out because the data required is beyond knowing"

The Truth is unattainable, as no one mind can grasp all knowledge. Ideas made of "Smoke & Mirrors" are used to fill in the gaps or provide a comforting womb to wrap around our ignorance. Ideas like Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Darwinian Evolution, Quantum Theory, Religion, Spirituality, String Theory, Superstition, and Theology, to name a few.

However, objective Truths - discrete portions of The Truth - are readily attainable, even if their understanding exceeds our cognitive capacity. For instance, we have completely grasped Classical Mechanics, Orbital Mechanics, Chemistry, Bricklaying, Carpentry, and other mundane concepts of everyday life.

Insofar as subjective "truths" are concerned - that is, those "truths" that one believes in without benefit of repeatably verifiable proof - well, they litter the ground of our common knowledge like so many piles of excrement in the gutter.

Foremost of these subjective "truths" is the fallacy that "There is no single truth, as everyone's truth is their own." This is based on (1) ignorance of causality, the light barrier, and relativistic effects, (2) laziness in investigation, (3) iconoclastic desires, and (4) moral relativism.

(1a) Causality: A cause must precede its effects in time. This means that if two events happen simultaneously, neither one can be the cause of the other. It also means that our actions today cannot influence the events of the past. Thus, there is no such thing as "Magic" (however you may choose to spell it).

(1b) Light Barrier: Thou shalt not travel at a velocity that meets or exceeds the speed of light. This law is inviolable, except at the Planck level (below the scale at which quantum effects dominate). And even this is largely conjectural, as scientists never actually see anything happening this small; they only have mathematical models to explain events that they don't fully understand.

(1c) Relativistics: Reality itself propagates at the speed of light. Thus "Warp Drive" and teleportation are impossible. In other words, you can arrive at your destination only after your departure could have be registered at your destination. Not at or before, but after. So, even if you somehow did manage to teleport yourself to the Alpha Centauri system (4.3 light-years away), you would depart now and arrive there 4.3 years from now.

(2) The Scientific Method is the best method there is for finding out the truth. All those "CSI" investigators use this method. So do judges, lawyers, and prosecuting attorneys. So does your physician (he or she had better be!). It is the best method, but it is also tedious - relying on independent verification, absolute standards, and meticulous data-mining - but it works.

(3) Iconoclastic Desires: You simply want the truth to be something else; perhaps something that would be more comfortable for you, or that would enable you to decide the fate of others. Either way, in order to establish your own truth as The Truth, you must first tear down all bastions of science, and nearly 5000 years of scientific knowledge.

(4) Moral Relativism: This is one that allows one person to justify his or her perverted, squalid, sociopathic, or merely egocentric lifestyle as normal. It also allows those people to decide what the morés of that lifestyle will be, and to change them on a whim. This is the realm of despots, dictators, and sex offenders.

The Truth is The Truth, and does not require anyone's belief or understanding. It simply is.

After thinking about this more I'd say it comes down to whether or not the Universe, or Multiverse, is infinite in extent.

If it is not, then it is possible for a being to know the truth, though unlikely

If it is, then it is most likely beyond any being's capabilities.

However, if the truth is knowable, in our current biological state we cannot know the truth. It may be told to us but we cannot prove it to ourselves so I'd say that the truth is beyond our skills right now.

But the truth could be theoretical known if the universe is finite.

Edit: Whoops should have put in that whether or not time is infinite changes things too. I think that given an infinite amount of time in a finite universe the truth can be known, and in a finite universe with a finite amount of time it could also be known, although it could be more difficult and certainly less likely.

Last edited by burnse22 on 05 Jun 2008, 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand your rebuttal.

My problem with the question Can we know the truth or theory of everything? is that it is such a vague question that it is impossible to determine what might or might not be an answer. That's why I invoked Douglas Adam's answer to life, the universe, and everything -> 42.

What's to say that 42 isn't the answer? It doesn't feel like one, but how do we determine if it really isn't the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Maybe if we understood the question of "what is the truth?", it would make perfect sense, just like 1+1=2. But since the question itself is vague, there's a good chance that even if we knew what the answer was, it wouldn't make any sense.

Well, technically, I do not discriminate against the use of the answer 42 as being the truth. Do you believe that 42 is the truth, how would you define it? If I gave you a definition of truth, what if another person thinks my definition of truth wrong? Is there a meta-truth above truth? Perhaps, but that stretches into the world of nonsense.

Well, the issue is how much luster can you muster to describe a position that almost officially defies description?

Yep, that's pretty much my argument. Any answer given doesn't actually answer anything.

Nihilism is pretty easy to mock. Still, I've seen enough people promoting pseudo-nihilistic views to wonder sometimes how pervasive such a philosophy is.

There are plenty of pseudo-nihilistic views out there, but the most precise look at nihilism cannot afford it much detail or explanation for nihilism itself denies the validity of such things. I mean, if you want to suggest a more basic and lengthier definition for the position, then go ahead, I might change if I think it is more intellectually honest, but actual nihilism is best described with that simple statement.

I think the issue is that I regard nihilism as crap. I can't really give an appropriate definition for it, in the same manner that I am not a very good source to ask about Keynesian economics because I disagree with it and will therefore tend to give biased definitions against it. But, here's my attempt for nihilism: There is no truth, reality exists only as a construct of the human mind. We can't make this previous statement with any real certainty, because by its nature, it can not be held to be absolutely true. Which isn't an issue anyways, because we already said that there is no truth, so the contradiction wishes itself away or else confuses the hell out of people until they decide "screw philosophy, economics at least allows you to claim rational ignorance and leave it at that." (sarcasm here, I know that's not really an appropriate use of the idea of rational ignorance)

My adviser for college want me to take a philosophy class. What do I do if my professor is some kind of nihilist or post-modernist or something?

Depends if you are associating truth with fact. Truth is something that is believed to be not false, but cannot be incontravertably proven. Hence the statement 'God is truth' is a rhetorical, because it cannot be proven or disproved. It has to be taken as faith by those who believe. Fact on the other hand is something that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are writing in this forum, that is fact because we can read each others responses. God is real however is not fact, because no-one can see a physical form, and therefore it's only belief that means existence.

You shouldn't worry. Nihilism isn't a common position. Post-modernism is a continental philosophy and most departments focus on analytical philosophy. Continental philosophies are the weird ones, and analytical philosophy is typically more logic based.

Yeah, I know, and in an intro course it should be fine, but I really was looking forward to having my entire college education consist of biology, chemistry, and mathematics. There's a reason I took EVERY AP test offered in the humanities, I didn't want to deal with it in college. If it's more logic based though, that could go well with the discrete math course I want to take...

Well, the humanities aren't THAT bad, and I doubt your philosophy professor will be terrible. I mean, most non-artsy things try to be somewhat clear. Some are better or worse than others. Discrete math and philosophy go together quite well given that a lot of philosophy is actually logical proof.

I don't believe science will ever find the truth or theory of everything.

Religions claim to hold the truth, but I don't hold with absolute truth.
God is said to be truth and The Devil the father of lies.
But the first line of the Bible "In the beginning" actually translates as "In the eternal past"
How long has the battle to shape reality been waging?
Certainly it's not black and white.

I'm a Taoist and we believe that we must look beyond the Dichotomy, the duality.
Also that reality and everything in was birthed from unreality.

In its primordial state, the Tao, the universe has no truth or untruth, everthing possible from universes to dimensions to beings all exist in potential in the Tao but are not yet real.