Absolute Truth

[Sardaukar]

One of my friend's is trying to tell me that we can not be sure that 1+1=2. It started with me stating that there is such a thing as absolute truth and most of my friends saying "you can't be sure".
Logically there has to be absolute truth eg. "There is no absolute truth" which is a paradox.

What are your thoughts on absolute truth, and in particular the truth of the statement "1+1=2"?


Sorry if this has come up before, but I did a search and found nothing...

[Vympel]

They were just spouting a line of metaphysical bullfuck.

[Shinova]

When your friends said not sure they were probably referring to morality. That you can't be sure of.


1+1 on the other hand, there's really no way one can conceive of an answer other than 2.


Mathematics(1+1 is arithmetics, IMO), however, is a mostly abstract concept. In the same way, much of science is an interpretation, not absolute truth.

[Temjin]

One of my friend's is trying to tell me that we can not be sure that 1+1=2.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

1+1 cannot equal anything but 2. It does not matter how the fuck you look at it, it will always equal 2.

[data_link]

Yes. No matter what kind of relitavistic or solipistic arguments you want to get into, there is nessecarily at least one absolute truth we can be sure of: cognito ergo sum. (I think therefore I am)

[Shinova]

One of my friend's is trying to tell me that we can not be sure that 1+1=2.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

1+1 cannot equal anything but 2. It does not matter how the fuck you look at it, it will always equal 2.

The only way it can not equal two is if one takes into consideration that a number (along with the equation 1+1=2) is an idea, an abstraction, not a tangible, real-world object.

But that's still pushing the borders.

[Temjin]

One of my friend's is trying to tell me that we can not be sure that 1+1=2.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

1+1 cannot equal anything but 2. It does not matter how the fuck you look at it, it will always equal 2.

The only way it can not equal two is if one takes into consideration that a number (along with the equation 1+1=2) is an idea, an abstraction, not a tangible, real-world object.

But that's still pushing the borders.

Even then, it will still equal 2. One shoe + one shoe = two shoes. The idea of math in the first place was to count real world objects.

[Shinova]

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

1+1 cannot equal anything but 2. It does not matter how the fuck you look at it, it will always equal 2.

The only way it can not equal two is if one takes into consideration that a number (along with the equation 1+1=2) is an idea, an abstraction, not a tangible, real-world object.

But that's still pushing the borders.

Even then, it will still equal 2. One shoe + one shoe = two shoes. The idea of math in the first place was to count real world objects.

I might be wrong, but the fact that you know it's one shoe, not two, is still an idea.


Ack, nevermind.

[The Dark]

Yes. No matter what kind of relitavistic or solipistic arguments you want to get into, there is nessecarily at least one absolute truth we can be sure of: cognito ergo sum. (I think therefore I am)

Actually, my class (along with our professor) rediscovered the fact that that's fallacious in Principles of Philosophy*. All you can truly prove is that thinking is occurring. There is no evidence within the process of thinking for a singular I. The one absolute truth is that thinking occurs. In order to have meaningful discussion, one must assume some form of I or we, but from a strictly skeptical point of view, Descartes proved only that there was thinking, not that he actually existed.

*In that we came across the arguments without previously reading them, not that we reformulated lost arguments.

[Perinquus]

Ahh, philosophy. I remember taking those classes in college (never would have either if it hadn't been for those pesky gnereal education requirements). I'm inclined to agree with Robert A. Heinlein's opinion of philosophy: easy, lots of fun, and absolutely guaranteed not to teach you anything, since in 2500 years of philosophical speculation not one of the basic questions asked in philosophy has ever been answered.

But I will disagree with Heinlein partly at least - it was philosophers who first formulated the principles of logic and taught them and that has been useful. It's just a pity they don't teach critical thinking in grade school and high school.

[Sardaukar]

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

1+1 cannot equal anything but 2. It does not matter how the fuck you look at it, it will always equal 2.

The only way it can not equal two is if one takes into consideration that a number (along with the equation 1+1=2) is an idea, an abstraction, not a tangible, real-world object.

But that's still pushing the borders.

Even then, it will still equal 2. One shoe + one shoe = two shoes. The idea of math in the first place was to count real world objects.

Those last two points are what me and my girlfriend talked about just recently, she kept saying numbers and maths are just concepts that we've made up and cannot be absolute truth, but I said that it ultimately comes from a way to describe objects (in this case, 2 shoes).

She kept implying that if I was to "believe" in absolute truths, that I am leaning towards believing in a god

[InnerBrat]

Thing is, I'm not a mathematician, but I have a nagging feeling that they do think in terms of abstract concepts - we only percieve two shoes, or something.
What we need here, is a postgrad mathematician. Anyone?

[Vympel]

Thing is, I'm not a mathematician, but I have a nagging feeling that they do think in terms of abstract concepts - we only percieve two shoes, or something.
What we need here, is a postgrad mathematician. Anyone?

I don't think a postgrad mathemetician will help in terms of whether the shoes in front of us are *really* there

Quite frankly I think it's all a load of nonsense ....

[Darth Wong]

Oh, for fuck's sake. I hate philosophical bullshit.

1+1=2 because the concepts of numbers and addition are both manmade, and they were defined that way. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Do we deny the definition of a straight flush in poker? Of course not; it is DEFINED that way. Our ability to apply it to real-world events is applied mathematics, but mathematics is a self-contained system which need not necessarily have anything to do with reality.

As for "absolute truth", philosophers and their "I think therefore I am" bullshit are just playing solipsism. In reality, we all know that truth is observation of objective reality.

And as for the idiot friend who thinks that absolute truth = religion, he/she's got it backwards. Religion denies absolute truth in favour of subjectivism, much as philosophy does. "Philosophy" in the colloquial sense is a way for people to call themselves intellectuals in such a manner that nothing they say can ever be proven wrong. Unfalsifiability is its mantra, and uselessness is its result.

[Zoink]

All you can truly prove is that thinking is occurring. There is no evidence within the process of thinking for a singular I...Descartes proved only that there was thinking, not that he actually existed.

Semantics. We know for a fact that we are made from small individual organisms (cells), yet the label "I" is still valid because we define "I" as such. Whether Descartes is a singular being, a network of interrelated organisms, a part of a larger organism, or a computer simulation doesn't change the fact that "something" (ie. what he defines as Descartes) exists that is doing the thinking. Descates at this time in his book is equally open about the nature of his own existance.

Descartes later goes on to discuss what this "I" is and whether his perception of this "I" and it's relation to reality is correct (which is full of logical fallacies) but I see no problem with the fact that thinking requires something to exist.

[Zoink]

I dragged this up regarding Descartes:

"I thence concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or
nature consists only in thinking, and which, that it may exist, has need
of no place, nor is dependent on any material thing; so that " I," that is
to say, the mind by which I am what I am, is wholly distinct from the
body"

Descartes defines his "I" as this thinking. He is showing that "I could not therefore suppose that I was not", ie existance vs nonexistance.


[edit]
quotes from: "Discourse On The Method Of Rightly Conducting One's Reason And Of Seeking Truth In The Sciences", Rene Descartes.

[Darth Wong]

If that quote is correct, then Descartes was an idiot. There is no logical reason to conclude that one's thoughts are independent from one's physical existence.

[Zoink]

If that quote is correct, then Descartes was an idiot. There is no logical reason to conclude that one's thoughts are independent from one's physical existence.

[edit]the quote is taken out of context, "concluded" is really meaning "assumed" in this case[/edit]

He's doing it because he doesn't want to assume that his mind requires a physical existence.

He's basically saying that [paraphrase] "I wont assume that thinking requires physical existence, because my perceptions of that existence might be false." He wants to prove that his thoughts (ie mind) exists, and then prove that his physical form must therefore exists.

He precedes the above quote with:

Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations...

That being said, I do agree:

Descartes *was* an idiot. He starts by showing that his mind exists (in some form at least)... he than requires that God exists, which he proves by saying that [paraphrase] "I can think of a infinitely good/powerful existing being therefore it must exist". He then uses God's existence to show that what he perceives as the physical world is correct because such a being wouldn't deceive him.

[Yogi]

It is impossible to look outside a given system when one is within it. For example, one can not use conventional mathmatics to figure out alternate systems of working with numbers.

That being said, there IS an "ultimate truth". The only problem is, is what we think is the truth actually tha truth?

[Ghost Rider]

We define absolute truths for ourselves.

Thus looking outside...how?

We are still looking at it...thus 1+1=2 is still us, not us extrapolating from outside sources.

[The Dark]

All you can truly prove is that thinking is occurring. There is no evidence within the process of thinking for a singular I...Descartes proved only that there was thinking, not that he actually existed.

Semantics. We know for a fact that we are made from small individual organisms (cells), yet the label "I" is still valid because we define "I" as such. Whether Descartes is a singular being, a network of interrelated organisms, a part of a larger organism, or a computer simulation doesn't change the fact that "something" (ie. what he defines as Descartes) exists that is doing the thinking. Descates at this time in his book is equally open about the nature of his own existance.

Within what you're saying, yes, it is semantics. However, as applied to proving whether an individual human being exists based on cogito ergo sum, it is very important. Something does exist doing thinking. However, we cannot prove that it is not something entirely different from what we believe ("Am I a man who dreamed I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I am a man"). Without making certain base assumptions about the reality of observation, the ultimate skeptic is forced to conclude that the only certainty in reality is that thinking occurs, and that there logically should be a thinker doing the thinking.

Descartes later goes on to discuss what this "I" is and whether his perception of this "I" and it's relation to reality is correct (which is full of logical fallacies) but I see no problem with the fact that thinking requires something to exist.

Right, and I have no problem with that. However, it does not prove the existence of the individual human being. The whole argument was one whether "I think, therefore I am" is true or not. When the "I" is defined as an individual human being (as tends to be assumed, and as Descartes concluded), then it is not true. When it becomes "Thinking is occuring, therefore there is a thinker," then it is true.

[Exonerate]

If I remember correctly, in abstract mathematics, or some other math course, you have to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

[Temjin]

If I remember correctly, in abstract mathematics, or some other math course, you have to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

*Wonders how the hell you're supposed to do that*

[RedImperator]

It doesn't matter if there's absolute truth or not. If 1+1=2 works in the real world, then it's good enough.

[UltraViolence83]

1+1=2 is not an absolute. In binary, 1+1 would equal 11. 1 and 1, not eleven. the only absolute truth is that there isn't one.