.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thanks for your response, but I see we continue to disagree on the meaning of truth.

Unfortunately, I am unable to comment on your mathematical demonstration as my formal education ceased at primary school. My proficiency in mathematics is limited to the four basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

However, I see that David f. has replied to that part of your post. As he is a physicist, I am sure we can have confidence in his judgment.

I find very significative the last sentence of your post :

« … Reality is the same for everyone and at all times and circumstances, it follows that absolute truth can only be one. »

That sentence embodies our disagreement.

It signifies that for you, Yuyutsu, absolute truth means the perfect representation of reality. In other words, that truth is dependent on the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality.

In your view, truth is the relationship between what the observer expresses about reality and reality itself.

Whereas, in my view, truth has nothing to do with the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality. He may totally misrepresent it. But provided his expression is sincere and not intended to mislead anyone, it is the absolute truth.

In my view, truth does not depend on the concordance of his expression with reality but on his sincerity, honesty, and absence of intention to mislead.

In short, you see truth as the concordance of one’s expression with reality. Whereas I see truth as the concordance of one’s expression – not with reality – but with one’s perception of reality.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You also indicated in one of your earlier posts that you consider that there is only one absolute truth, the God of your belief. You describe that God as “the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists”.

Naturally, I respect your belief in that hypothetical God, but I do not share it. Nor do I see how a hypothetical God could qualify as “absolute truth”, unless, of course, it is some sort of honorific title such as an Order of Chivalry like the Most Noble Order of the Garter founded by King Edward III of England in 1348.

Perhaps the equivalent of the medieval knights in the Hindu religions are the Rama deities who I understand are considered to be the embodiment of chivalry and virtue – particularly Ramachandra, the seventh incarnation (avatar) of Vishnu.

That said, Yuyutsu, I don’t know if you consider “absolute truth” to be a divine attribute of your God or just an honorific title.

Please forgive me for saying so, but I must confess that neither one nor the other possibility makes any sense at all to me.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Whereas, in my view, truth has nothing to do with the degree to which an observer correctly represents reality.»

What you write about, could better be described as truthfulness.

Truthfulness is an important virtue: a truthful person's words equal their thoughts, so they are true relative to the person's knowledge; they are also true relative to other people who lie or do not tell all they know; they are also true relative to the time and space allowed to speak them out - which here for example, is limited to 350 words a post, 4 post per topic per day. If what one knows in order to provide a truthful answer is longer, then they might have to compromise and truncate what they say.

«It signifies that for you, Yuyutsu, absolute truth means the perfect representation of reality.»

Which cannot be done. There is what there is, it is true, but is beyond the ability of words to describe. Absolute Truth cannot be represented.

«In your view, truth is the relationship between what the observer expresses about reality and reality itself.»

That is still just relative truth. While all expressions are real, Reality itself cannot be expressed.

«you consider that there is only one absolute truth, the God of your belief. You describe that God as “the Truth of you and me and everyone else, of existence itself and of everything that exists”.

Naturally, I respect your belief in that hypothetical God»

What do you mean by "hypothetical"? You may possibly dislike my use of the word 'God', but do you doubt that you are real, do you doubt that there is the truth of what you really are (whether you know what it is or not)?

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I don’t know if you consider “absolute truth” to be a divine attribute of your God or just an honorific title.»

God has no attributes. "Absolute Truth", alternately just "The Absolute", refers to that which does not depend on anything (including on time thus never changes, including on the viewer and whether they are awake or asleep, etc., etc.), yet everything depends on which. This term can be used as a synonym for 'God', especially by those who are allergic to the word 'God' due to its historical abuse in various parts of the world.

Lord Rama/Ramachandra is believed to have been a historical man, born of human parents (King Dasharatha and Queen Kaushalya), and who served as an example of righteousness to humankind, especially concentrating on the aspects of patience, forbearance, respect, humility and friendship.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « There is what there is, it is true, but is beyond the ability of words to describe. Absolute Truth cannot be represented. »
.

As I indicated in my previous post, Yuyutsu, in my view, absolute truth is the concordance of one’s expression – not with reality – but with one’s perception of reality. And as that is the determining factor, apart from a few exceptions (e.g., mentally ill persons), we are all capable of achieving it – unless we choose otherwise.

I agree that, for us human beings, concordance with reality is nigh on impossible. Nature has not equipped our bodies with all the sensors and receptors that would be necessary for us to capture, record and interpret reality in all its complexity and significance.
.

2. « What do you mean by "hypothetical"? You may possibly dislike my use of the word 'God', but do you doubt that you are real, do you doubt that there is the truth of what you really are (whether you know what it is or not)? »
.

By “hypothetical” I mean : “highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence” (OED).

My understanding is that we have inherited the God concept from primeval man, generation after generation, as an explanation of the universe and everything in it.

Time has passed and we now have a better understanding of the universe but for much of humanity, the basic concept of deity continues to be considered relevant. The concept has been relayed by various prophets, gurus, mentors, and political and religious leaders down the ages, to such an extent that there are now over 4,000 different religions operating throughout the world, each with its own particular concept of what some (but not all) consider to be a unique God.

The fact is the God concept has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and continues to remain a simple hypothesis.
.

3. « Lord Rama/Ramachandra is believed to have been a historical man, … »
.

Thanks for those details, Yuyutsu. Much appreciated.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

1) Suppose two people make the same statement, but for one of them that is exactly what they know/believe while the other believes that statement to be untrue.

Is their statement an absolute truth?

No - the truth of the statement is relative to who made it.

It can even be the same person who made this statement twice, first they believed it to be true but subsequently they received more information (and/or forgot something) that made them believe it to be false, yet still they said it anyway.

- in that case, the truth of the statement is relative to the time it was made.

«By “hypothetical” I mean : “highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence” (OED).»

Are you highly conjectural? Is Reality highly conjectural? You might not know what you are, you might not know what Reality is, but can you doubt that you are? can you doubt that Reality is?

2)
«My understanding is that we have inherited the God concept from primeval man, generation after generation, as an explanation of the universe and everything in it.»

Concepts of God abound, some ancient others modern, some are used to try and explain the universe, others not, some consider God to be a deity, others not - yes, none of these concepts was ever proved, but I was not referring to a concept of God, I was referring to God!

If you don't like any of these concepts of God, then as I said earlier, you may as well replace 'God' with 'Reality', which seems to appeal to you more, and read 'Reality' wherever I used the word 'God'.

By definition, everything relies on God, yet God does not rely on anything.

Same for Reality: everything relies on Reality, yet Reality does not rely on anything.

There are even more synonyms of 'God' which one could use, but from all I read from you, I think that 'Reality' is closer to you heart.