11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

What I meant is, if the present ever became absolute truth, it wouldn't ever change and thus time would stand still. This is akin to Chairman Mao's writings about all motion being due to contradiction. This is why I personally don't believe in absolute truth. Like infinity, it is a useful concept but may not describe anything real.

Like Schroedinger's cat which you don't know if it is dead or not until you look, a fact doesn't exist until it is far enough in the past to be shown true.

Not really, I meant some truth's can be extrapolated into the future and remain constant, there's a reason most prophets predict a future prophet, in the various traditional religions; when the conditions are right/wrong in a culture, that culture will birth the next iteration, that will lead them out of the desert.

And tomorrow's fact, will probably change.

On 7/24/2026 at 1:19 PM, sethoflagos said:

It must by now be clear to all that our outlooks on life are diametrically opposed. You stated

... and then refused when asked to be more specific. I'll give you a response to your argument if and when you get around to presenting one. Until that happens, then yes, I really can't be arsed to enter into what is little more than a juvenile slanging match.

But I asked first and I even said please, and you're gaslighting an answer.

13 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The observed state of the present IS the absolute truth. 1=1 now, then, and forever unto eternity. This does not stall the arrow of time.

Perhaps, but how much of that state are you/we able to observe and is/will it ever be 100%? I don't believe that it will ever be 100% and that it is the reason people have different "truths", often even when agreeing on the "facts". At present, I am more likely to believe that human view of "state of the present" is closer to 0% than 100%

Edited July 26Jul 26 by npts2020
clarification

15 hours ago, npts2020 said:

a fact doesn't exist until it is far enough in the past to be shown true.

What about facts we know to exist, but don't know what they are ?

What is the date of the death of Charles Brewster Ross?

It must be a fact but no one has any means to determine what that date is.

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Perhaps, but how much of that state are you/we able to observe and is/will it ever be 100%? I don't believe that it will ever be 100% and that it is the reason people have different "truths", often even when agreeing on the "facts". At present, I am more likely to believe that human view of "state of the present" is closer to 0% than 100%

Perhaps this is best answered by a couple of clips from the wikipedia page on Metaphysical Realism

Philosophical realism—usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters—is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder...

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.^[10] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more often contrasted with anti-realism...

Speaking as a retired engineer, my career would have been impossible were my fellow engineers and I unable to agree on the reality and nature of the various facilities we were called on to design or modify. The subsequent operational success of pretty well all those ventures is more than enough evidence to convince me of its validity.

Others may differ, of course. However I reserve the right to stroke my chin, chuckle, and dismiss them as crackpots.

This thread is not about reality.

Reality must include all manner of things which are neither facts, nor truths, such as ignorances, mistakes, lies, deceptions, disguises, plays and many more.

Facts can indeed change.

Data books such as Kay and Laby, Lange, CRC handbook, Merck, International Critical Tables etc are vast collections of interconnected facts.

Occasionally small changes are made to one of these facts and the effect ripples through the whole data set.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

This thread is not about reality.

I stroke my chin and chuckle.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

I stroke my chin and chuckle.

Just for interest I threw this into Google to see which long forgotten source I'd pilfered it from. Of course the irritating little LLM Google now features had to chip in with:

I see what you did there! It sounds like you're plotting something clever or thinking over a secret. Since you're in a chuckling mood, I’m ready to share a laugh, brainstorm your latest master plan, or help you figure out whatever puzzle you're stroking your chin about.

If you want to bounce an idea around, tell me:

• What is the subject of your thoughts?

• Is there a specific goal you're trying to achieve?

If you want to bounce an idea around, tell me:

1. What is the subject of your thoughts?

2. Is there a specific goal you're trying to achieve?

So I thought, what the hell, and plugged in:

A question has been raised as to whether there is a philosophical difference between truth and fact. One participant has postulated that truth is the degree of conformance between a statement and reality. A second participant has objected, claiming that the nature of reality has no bearing on the matter. What do you think?

Make of it what you will, but this is the answer I received

The philosophical difference between truth and fact centers on the idea that facts are objective, mind-independent realities, whereas truth is a property of language or thought that accurately reflects those facts. [1, 2, 3]

Here is an analysis of both participants' views and the standard philosophical consensus.

The Philosophical Distinction

• Facts exist in the world regardless of what anyone thinks. They are concrete states of affairs (e.g., "The Earth revolves around the Sun").

• Truth belongs to statements, beliefs, or propositions. A statement is true because it aligns with a fact. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Evaluating Participant 1

The first participant is describing the Correspondence Theory of Truth. [9]

• This is the dominant view in traditional philosophy (held by Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred Tarski).

• It argues that a proposition is true if it conforms to reality.

• Your first participant is highly aligned with standard analytical philosophy. [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]

Evaluating Participant 2

The second participant’s objection that "reality has no bearing" aligns with alternative, mind-centered theories of truth:

• Coherence Theory: A statement is true if it fits logically within a larger, pre-existing system of beliefs, regardless of external physical reality. [15]

• Pragmatic Theory: Truth is defined by what is useful, functional, or works in practice, rather than an exact copy of reality. [16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

• Deflationary Theory: Claiming a statement is "true" adds nothing new; it just repeats the statement itself (e.g., saying "It is true that it is raining" is just saying "It is raining"). [21, 22, 23]

Direct Comparison

Concept	Philosophical Definition	Example
Fact	An actual, verifiable state of the universe.	Water freezing at $0^\circ\text{C}$.
Truth	A statement or belief that correctly reports a fact.	Saying "Water is frozen."

Ultimately, Participant 1 is correct under the most common definition of truth, but Participant 2 is correct if you adopt a strict anti-realist or coherentist framework where human perception and logic dictate truth over an unknowable external reality.

If you want to explore this further, let me know:

• Do you want to look at how different philosophers (like Kant or Nietzsche) viewed this?

• Are you interested in how this applies to a specific field like law or science?

[1] https://brewminate.com

[2] https://www.hrpub.org

[3] https://www.cliffsnotes.com

[4] https://www.vedantu.com

[5] https://www.reddit.com

[6] https://www.cliffsnotes.com

[7] https://www.unige.ch

[8] https://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca

[9] https://www.cliffsnotes.com

[10] https://search.proquest.com

[11] https://www.studysmarter.co.uk

[12] https://www.studysmarter.co.uk

[13] https://acujores.acu.edu.ng

[14] https://iai.tv

[15] https://www.studysmarter.co.uk

[16] https://commoncog.com

[17] https://www.worldwidejournals.com

[18] https://www.marxists.org

[19] https://www.scribd.com

[20] https://www.planksip.org

[21] https://miniphilosophy.substack.com

[22] https://www.scribd.com

[23] https://partiallyexaminedlife.com

I do understand the status of LLM outputs on our site, and in no way do I present this as authoritative in any sense (one glance at the reference list is enough to dispel that idea). But I found it interesting nevertheless, and felt I ought to share.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

But I found it interesting nevertheless, and felt I ought to share.

Interesting indeed. +1

I see things a little differently: Reality exists. Truth reflects reality. Fact defines that truth.

When I say reality exists, I am denying solipsism, idealism, or 'its all in your head' type philosophies.

When I say truth reflects reality, I am saying that as long as there is life, there can be truth. This includes all life as all life reflects reality; humans are not the only specie that can reflect reality. Any species that reacts to reality, reflects reality; so an earthworm moving through the ground reflects reality, a tree turning it's leaves to the sun reflects reality -- and truth.

When I say that fact defines truth, I am saying that without language and thought, fact can not exist as it has no ability to define anything. If you took away all thought and knowledge, there would be no facts, because there would be no definitions. Reality would still exist, truth would still exist, but fact would have to be rebuilt along with thought and language. imo

My opinions in this matter probably have a great deal to do with my studies of consciousness, which reflect my thoughts on conscious life, rather than thoughts on human consciousness.

If the click-it club does not agree with this, try to explain why instead of letting your fingers do the thinking.

Gee

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I stroke my chin and chuckle.

I say your hand got stuck to your chin and you are choking .Prove me wrong

6 hours ago, Gees said:

Interesting indeed. +1

I see things a little differently: Reality exists. Truth reflects reality. Fact defines that truth.

When I say reality exists, I am denying solipsism, idealism, or 'its all in your head' type philosophies.

When I say truth reflects reality, I am saying that as long as there is life, there can be truth. This includes all life as all life reflects reality; humans are not the only specie that can reflect reality. Any species that reacts to reality, reflects reality; so an earthworm moving through the ground reflects reality, a tree turning it's leaves to the sun reflects reality -- and truth.

When I say that fact defines truth, I am saying that without language and thought, fact can not exist as it has no ability to define anything. If you took away all thought and knowledge, there would be no facts, because there would be no definitions. Reality would still exist, truth would still exist, but fact would have to be rebuilt along with thought and language. imo

My opinions in this matter probably have a great deal to do with my studies of consciousness, which reflect my thoughts on conscious life, rather than thoughts on human consciousness.

If the click-it club does not agree with this, try to explain why instead of letting your fingers do the thinking.

Gee

I say truth is relative.

We amass a set of data ,set it against another set of data ,draw the set of relationships between the two sets against more such sets that we have stored or are creating in our minds and produce a finding which we feed back into the ongoing process.

As with any "recording" process there are errors and that is why the "truth" is only approximate -but we can improve on the accuracy using any means at our disposal.

But "absolute truth ",I doubt it exists but I am doubtless wrong as that is my normal trajectory

😐

12 hours ago, studiot said:

This thread is not about reality.

Reality must include all manner of things which are neither facts, nor truths, such as ignorances, mistakes, lies, deceptions, disguises, plays and many more.

Facts can indeed change.

Data books such as Kay and Laby, Lange, CRC handbook, Merck, International Critical Tables etc are vast collections of interconnected facts.

Occasionally small changes are made to one of these facts and the effect ripples through the whole data set.

In dementia veritas?

Edited Monday at 11:26 AM5 days by geordief

6 hours ago, Gees said:

I see things a little differently: Reality exists. Truth reflects reality. Fact defines that truth.

Surely truth defines the fact?

6 hours ago, Gees said:

When I say reality exists, I am denying solipsism, idealism, or 'its all in your head' type philosophies.

Who's head are you/it in?🙃

7 hours ago, Gees said:

When I say truth reflects reality, I am saying that as long as there is life, there can be truth. This includes all life as all life reflects reality; humans are not the only specie that can reflect reality. Any species that reacts to reality, reflects reality; so an earthworm moving through the ground reflects reality, a tree turning it's leaves to the sun reflects reality -- and truth.

When I say that fact defines truth, I am saying that without language and thought, fact can not exist as it has no ability to define anything. If you took away all thought and knowledge, there would be no facts, because there would be no definitions. Reality would still exist, truth would still exist, but fact would have to be rebuilt along with thought and language. imo

My opinions in this matter probably have a great deal to do with my studies of consciousness, which reflect my thoughts on conscious life, rather than thoughts on human consciousness.

If the click-it club does not agree with this, try to explain why instead of letting your fingers do the thinking.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say it would be, in this case, bc you were told by the OP that this is not about reality or consciousness; god knows what the +1 clicker was thinking...

On 7/26/2026 at 3:02 PM, sethoflagos said:

Perhaps this is best answered by a couple of clips from the wikipedia page on Metaphysical Realism

I don't believe I have ever rejected the notion of objective reality, only that humans don't see enough of it for their subjective realities to perfectly align with it or even if we have correctly defined what objective reality is. Isn't that why there is such a thing as scientific discovery?

11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I don't believe I have ever rejected the notion of objective reality, only that humans don't see enough of it for their subjective realities to perfectly align with it or even if we have correctly defined what objective reality is. Isn't that why there is such a thing as scientific discovery?

Think about the coomonplace, macroscopic stuff around us: trees, potholes, fork-tailed drongos: the objects that punctuate the everyday experience of everyone in our local environment. You kick a rock in your bare feet and your toe hurts. All reasonable individuals are able to align at this human scale level, surely.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Think about the coomonplace, macroscopic stuff around us: trees, potholes, fork-tailed drongos: the objects that punctuate the everyday experience of everyone in our local environment. You kick a rock in your bare feet and your toe hurts. All reasonable individuals are able to align at this human scale level, surely.

Perhaps, but some people enjoy the pain, for whatever reason, are these people unreasonable?

Almost no 'normal' humans can empathise with their reality, bc pain is to be avoided for us 'norms'.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Think about the coomonplace, macroscopic stuff around us: trees, potholes, fork-tailed drongos: the objects that punctuate the everyday experience of everyone in our local environment. You kick a rock in your bare feet and your toe hurts. All reasonable individuals are able to align at this human scale level, surely.

Of course, and that's why engineers and scientists can agree on reality enough to produce useful things. On a human scale this seems to work pretty well but you are familiar enough with physics and cosmology to know there is a vast amount we don't know and some of what we do know is changed on a pretty regular basis. The problem with defining reality (which I would equate with truth) becomes more acute as we delve into the microscopic and galactic realms because we see even less of it than what is discernible by our senses at "normal" scales. The fact (beginning to love that word) that humans discover things that seem to give us better explanations for this or that, makes me think that there is some ultimate or objective truth. The fact that we are STILL discovering things tells me we aren't there yet and might never get there.

31 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

... but you are familiar enough with physics and cosmology to know there is a vast amount we don't know and some of what we do know is changed on a pretty regular basis.

This is generally the case only at the frontiers of scientific understanding and discovery - where any novel idea is hyped to the max in the wildly speculative clickbait environment of youtube. The major elements of our endeavours utilise mature technologies that have been well understood now for generations. We have been able to accurately predict eclipses, occultations, and transits now for centuries, irrespective of Newtonian gravity being superseded by General Relativity a mere century ago.

And don't get so hung up on absolute accuracy: absolute truth doesn't require that. If you announce a result as being accurate to two significant figures, and it actually IS so (ie.the precise value must lie within o range of +/- 1% or so), then that IS the absolute truth.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps, but some people enjoy the pain...

If you can be giving me spiteful, unmerited neg reps, then you can stop trolling my posts for attention, right?

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

And don't get so hung up on absolute accuracy: absolute truth doesn't require that. If you announce a result as being accurate to two significant figures, and it actually IS so (ie.the precise value must lie within o range of +/- 1% or so), then that IS the absolute truth.

This is where we disagree. I think absolute truth demands absolute accuracy, hence the reason I see absolute truth as possibly being unattainable by humans. Making things work in engineering and other applications doesn't generally require perfection, just being close enough that things turn out the same every time. In manufacturing that's why there are +/- specs for quality control, your car or tube of toothpaste isn't exactly the same as all of the others made like it but close enough that one can't tell the difference without using extreme (beyond your senses) means to do so. It is the same with reality/truth no two people have exactly the same view of it but the more we agree on what are actually "facts" the closer our perceptions of what reality is or should be.

Edited Tuesday at 06:18 PM4 days by npts2020
clarification

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I think absolute truth demands absolute accuracy, hence the reason I see absolute truth as possibly being unattainable by humans.

Okay.

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I think absolute truth demands absolute accuracy, hence the reason I see absolute truth as possibly being unattainable by humans.

Sometimes absolute accuracy is possible.

How many eggs are there in a half dozen box ?

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

How many eggs are there in a half dozen box ?

Was it a bakers dozen?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sometimes absolute accuracy is possible.

How many eggs are there in a half dozen box ?

Numbers aren't physical objects ,are they?(metaphysical?)

We can all be 100% certain in our own minds.

But ,if all knowledge of physical things is relative,then that knowledge is not absolute.

I wondered if we ever created a scenario where we knew a physical quantity for certain that we would destroy the universe.(like the nuclear bomb but with information)

39 minutes ago, geordief said:

Numbers aren't physical objects ,are they?(metaphysical?)

You might find the wiipedia page on Abstract & Concrete interesting.

The philosophical concensus is that abstracts such as numbers exist independently of space-time (and its contents) and therefore in a sense go beyond metaphysics: they are thought to be entirely valid in the realities of all possible universes.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Sometimes absolute accuracy is possible.

How many eggs are there in a half dozen box ?

True, (if you discount the possibility of a half egg from a baker's dozen--thanks iNow 🙂) but that is an infinitesimally small piece of the facts required to describe reality IMO.

On 7/27/2026 at 7:25 AM, geordief said:

I say truth is relative.

Thank you.

On 7/27/2026 at 7:25 AM, geordief said:

We amass a set of data ,set it against another set of data ,draw the set of relationships between the two sets against more such sets that we have stored or are creating in our minds and produce a finding which we feed back into the ongoing process.

As with any "recording" process there are errors and that is why the "truth" is only approximate -but we can improve on the accuracy using any means at our disposal.

But "absolute truth ",I doubt it exists but I am doubtless wrong as that is my normal trajectory

Absolute truth does exist, and you even know about it. What is the one thing that you can tell me about the universe that applies to all life, all matter, all forces, everything? You can tell me that there will be change -- whether the change is constant or intermittent, whether it is slow or fast, whether it is immediate or takes billions of years, it will happen, because change is an absolute truth of reality. Another absolute truth is balance, because in all of this change, balance tries to reassert itself over and over.

When we look for something that is absolute, we think of it as being constant and static. Maybe we would like to take reality, grab hold of it with both hands and give it a shake to make it hold still so that we can know it. But that is not going to happen because reality is always in motion -- another absolute truth. imo

I tried to explain this idea early on in this thread with the two buckets analogy, but I got downvoted. Maybe I did not explain it well enough, or maybe someone did not understand my meaning. Truth is necessarily analog because it reflects motion. Fact is digital because it reflects thought and language. This is the real difference between truth and fact, and this difference leads to many other differences.

I don't want to say much more here because I am a little nervous about how this will be accepted, so let me know what you think.

Gee

20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

If you can be giving me spiteful, unmerited neg reps, then you can stop trolling my posts for attention, right?

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps, but some people enjoy the pain, for whatever reason, are these people unreasonable?

Almost no 'normal' humans can empathise with their reality, bc pain is to be avoided for us 'norms'.

Did you not recognise the question mark?

For humans to communicate effectively we have to recognise relative and relevant information, or IOW empathise with their reality, and the fact is some people enjoy pain

So, I'll ask again are these people unreasonable?

BTW How sure are you that I gave you a neg and why do you believe it was out of spite? And what makes you think it was unmerited?