# Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

## Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Not that it would change anything but could you give an example of a thing that is neither true or false?

Two events being simultaneous.

Gödel proved that there are mathematical statements that cannot be proved to be either true or false.

Quote

The absolute truth that I am leaning towards in this discussion doesn’t care about that too.

How do you know that there is such an absolute truth if it is unknowable?

• Replies 185
• Created

#### Popular Days

On 3/14/2018 at 9:50 AM, dimreepr said:

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

2+2 = 4.

"Marcus was wrong."

##### Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure. But the truth doesn’t care about Marcus Aurelius’s statement too, nor about the fact that you posted it twice in this thread.

I posted it twice because you didn't seem to get it the first time.

43 minutes ago, koti said:

Not that it would change anything but could you give an example of a thing that is neither true or false?

I've given a few so far, if you measure the truth arbitrarily it's both true and false, it depends on perspective and what you've been told.

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

2+2 = 4.

"Marcus was wrong."

Who told you that?

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

2+2 = 4.

"Marcus was wrong."

In 1971 the UK went from an imperial measure of money to a metric one, so overnight a penny went from 1/212 (if memory serves) to 1/100; which one is wrong?

##### Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I posted it twice because you didn't seem to get it the first time.

I've given a few so far, if you measure the truth arbitrarily it's both true and false, it depends on perspective and what you've been told.

Who told you that?

In 1971 the UK went from an imperial measure of money to a metric one, so overnight a penny went from 1/212 (if memory serves) to 1/100; which one is wrong?

What does that have to do with it?

The number 1 plus the number 1 is the number 2.

Unless you're disputing this, Marcus was wrong.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What does that have to do with it?

The number 1 plus the number 1 is the number 2.

Unless you're disputing this, Marcus was wrong.

I've just disputed it and you quoted me, so either you didn't understand or you didn't read.

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've just disputed it and you quoted me, so either you didn't understand or you didn't read.

You said pennies.

A number is a concept.

1 + 1 = 2

2 + 2 = 4

That's how it is.

##### Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Strange said:

How do you know that there is such an absolute truth if it is unknowable?

Based on my current understanding of what truth is, it doesn't matter that I don't know what the absolute truth is or that its unknowable. None of these things matter.
Mentioned quantum superposition which causes two events to hover until observation is performed, or whatever other answer other than the Copenhagen interpretation is correct have no more meaning than any other example. As I mentioned earlier - it doesn't matter how complex the system is, the truth doesn't care.

I will have to look up what those Gödel math problems are, this is interesting.

Edited by koti
##### Share on other sites

Just now, Raider5678 said:

You said pennies.

I said the value went from 1/212 to 1/100.

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

A number is a concept.

An arbitrary one.

20 minutes ago, koti said:

Based on my current understanding of what truth is, it doesn't matter that I don't know what the absolute truth is or that its unknowable. None of these things matter.

I'm confused if you don't know what the absolute truth is, how do you know it doesn't matter?

##### Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, koti said:

Based on my current understanding of what truth is, it doesn't matter that I don't know what the absolute truth is or that its unknowable. None of these things matter.

I wasn't making a point about whether you know what the truth is, but how you know truth is absolute.(I don't know that (*), so I guess it must be an opinion and therefore not true or false :))

Quote

Mentioned quantum superposition which causes two events to hover until observation is performed, or whatever other answer other than the Copenhagen interpretation is correct have no more meaning than any other example. As I mentioned earlier - it doesn't matter how complex the system is, the truth doesn't care.

I will have to look up what those Gödel math problems are, this is interesting.

You have ignored the simultaneity example, which I think undermines the concept that truth is absolute.

(*) I don't know it isn't true, either...

Edited by Strange
footnote
##### Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm confused if you don't know what the absolute truth is, how do you know it doesn't matter?

I think its very clear what I said - "Based on my current understanding of what truth is" and based on that current understanding I am basing my view (its a view, yours is a view too)

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I wasn't making a point about whether you know what the truth is, but how you know truth is absolute.(I don't know that (*), so I guess it must be an opinion and therefore not true or false :))

You have ignored the simultaneity example, which I think undermines the concept that truth is absolute.

(*) I don't know it isn't true, either...

Sure. You can state that 2+2=4 is also an opinion but it's a boring line of thinking imo.
I haven't ignored it, I explained it in my statement about QM above. The simultaneity example, which you think undermines the concept that truth is absolute, is false in my opinion. The truth is weird in this case but its weirdness doesn't mean it is not there. It doesn't matter how strange the truth is or whether we know it or not, or whether it can be knowable or not. If you have a system/situation in which a "thing" is both true and false at the same time then that fact is the truth.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I think its very clear what I said - "Based on my current understanding of what truth is" and based on that current understanding I am basing my view (its a view, yours is a view too)

Indeed, but I don't care either way so the burden of truth is yours.

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure. You can state that 2+2=4 is also an opinion but it's a boring line of thinking imo.

I wouldn't say that was an opinion. I would say it is something that is true and proved to be true. In all cases. It is an absolute truth, in that sense. I am just not convinced that all truths are absolute.

5 minutes ago, koti said:

The simultaneity example, which you think undermines the concept that truth is absolute, is false in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you think is false. We know simultaneity is relative; this was proved by Einstein over 100 years ago. So I guess it is the fact this undermines absolute truth?

But it can absolutely true for one observer that A happened before B, but for another observer it is absolutely true they happened at the same time, and for yet another it is absolutely true that B happened before A. So we have three absolute truths which are contradictory. I don't know what to make of that.

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

I wouldn't say that was an opinion. I would say it is something that is true and proved to be true. In all cases. It is an absolute truth, in that sense. I am just not convinced that all truths are absolute.

I'm not sure what you think is false. We know simultaneity is relative; this was proved by Einstein over 100 years ago. So I guess it is the fact this undermines absolute truth?

But it can absolutely true for one observer that A happened before B, but for another observer it is absolutely true they happened at the same time, and for yet another it is absolutely true that B happened before A. So we have three absolute truths which are contradictory. I don't know what to make of that.

The fact that you are not convinced that all truth's are absolute does imply that all truths are not absolute.
There are people who are convinced that there are preferred frames in relativity but it doesn't mean that there actually are preferred frames in relativity.
I said "Based on my understanding of what truth is" It seems we have a different understanding?

This is getting dangerously close to the "light is visible or not" thread.

Edited by koti
##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, koti said:

This is getting dangerously close to the "light is visible or not" thread.

Wanna bet?

##### Share on other sites

Just now, koti said:

The fact that you are not convinced that all truth's are absolute does imply that all truths are not absolute.

Agreed.

1 minute ago, koti said:

There are people who are convinced that there are preferred frames in relativity but it doesn't mean that there actually are preferred frames.

It is absolutely true that there are no preferred frames!

Which makes the truth of simultaneity quite a challenge.

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I said "Based on my understanding of what truth is" It seems we have a different understanding?

I'm not sure what a good definition of truth is. Something that everyone would agree was a fact, maybe?

So if everyone in one frame of reference says two events are indisputably simultaneous then it must be true (to them) that they are simultaneous.

But if everyone in another frame of reference agrees that they are not simultaneous then their truth is different.

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Agreed.

It is absolutely true that there are no preferred frames!

Which makes the truth of simultaneity quite a challenge.

I'm not sure what a good definition of truth is. Something that everyone would agree was a fact, maybe?

So if everyone in one frame of reference says two events are indisputably simultaneous then it must be true (to them) that they are simultaneous.

But if everyone in another frame of reference agrees that they are not simultaneous then their truth is different.

Truth is relative. I'm going to write a paper:  On the Relativity of Truth.

##### Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wanna bet?

I made a bet with @StringJunky few weeks ago as to if someone new on the forum was a religious nut or not and I lost a beer, so it is temping to get that beer back. You have to be specific on what you want to bet on though.

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Agreed.

It is absolutely true that there are no preferred frames!

Which makes the truth of simultaneity quite a challenge.

I'm not sure what a good definition of truth is. Something that everyone would agree was a fact, maybe?

So if everyone in one frame of reference says two events are indisputably simultaneous then it must be true (to them) that they are simultaneous.

But if everyone in another frame of reference agrees that they are not simultaneous then their truth is different.

We both know very well that there are no preferred frames in relativity and that due to different measurments things are different in different frames. That is the truth. Is it absolute? I don’t know...maybe we find out 50 years from now that this is not the whole picture - the truth doesn’t care about that too. Can’t you see how all this proves my point of view on truth?

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Truth is relative. I'm going to write a paper:  On the Relativity of Truth.

I would love to read it. You will show the truth about the relativity of truth

Edited by koti
##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, koti said:

I would love to read it. You will show the truth about the relativity of truth

Keeping on the relativity them - which we know to be true - it would seem to me that the absolutes (universal truths) could be those properties which are invariant in all frames.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strange said:

I am just testing how one would define it as absolute when it can be different for different people.

The way one would define anything is subjective. In science work must be peer reviewed.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

What about the spin of a particle that hasn't yet been measured? As far as we know, it doesn't have a value until you know it.

We (humans) create paradoxes. They are not artifacts of the natural world we observe. What we measure, how we measure, and what we make of those measurements all are limited by our capabilities.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So truth is conditional?

No, our perspective is.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, StringJunky said:

Keeping on the relativity them - which we know to be true - it would seem to me that the absolutes (universal truths) could be those properties which are invariant in all frames.

I have a simpler and broader view which I'm trying to convey but it's not working out so far.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, koti said:

I have a simpler and broader view which I'm trying to convey but it's not working out so far.

A fundamental property of absolute truth, I would think, is that it is constant in all cases.

##### Share on other sites

In recent decades I've viewed truth as a colloquial expression, useful for conversations where the participants share common backgrounds and worldviews, but out of place in a serious conversation in science or philosophy. I prefer a world characterised by shades of reality and perception.

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, koti said:

Can’t you see how all this proves my point of view on truth?

Not really. Relativity of simultaneity seems to directly contradict your view. How can it be true that two events are simultaneous but also be true that they are not?

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The way one would define anything is subjective.

If you (and everyone else around you) measures two events to be simultaneous, using the best and most precise instruments available, is that subjective? It seems an odd use of the word.

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We (humans) create paradoxes. They are not artifacts of the natural world we observe.

But the indefinite nature of quantum objects seems to be a fundamental part of the world, not a human invention.

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Keeping on the relativity them - which we know to be true - it would seem to me that the absolutes (universal truths) could be those properties which are invariant in all frames.

That's a good definition.

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

In recent decades I've viewed truth as a colloquial expression, useful for conversations where the participants share common backgrounds and worldviews, but out of place in a serious conversation in science or philosophy. I prefer a world characterised by shades of reality and perception.

Best we can hope for is to have an intersubjective consensus.

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not really. Relativity of simultaneity seems to directly contradict your view. How can it be true that two events are simultaneous but also be true that they are not?

Relativity of simultaneity is the truth. The issue were having is the definition of the word „truth” Im using a broader view, you’re looking at individual issues.

## Create an account

Register a new account