CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Mathematical certainties. A tangent to a circle will always be perpendicular to the radius between the tangent and the center of the circle. The sum of a triangle's angles will always equal 180. The list goes on. While it's true that there are many instances where one must consider the relativity of an object or measurement, certain quantities will always have the same value. Absolute truth.
Math is a model/ system of thought, not something like an object. Many consistent system can be said to have something which is true in all cases, the question then becomes if that system is correct. Math is a proper modeling tool for many things, but is it a proper model for the universe(we still need a " theory of everything" ) and if it is/will be then does the model actually represent the universe or is it something related to it in a similar manner as Newtonian mechanics is to quantum mechanics; a simplified/net effect version which works in certain cases. It may be that those cases where the model doesn't work have yet to be discovered, you don't really know and thus there is always some form of uncertainty.
Also, I know the sum of a triangle's degrees can be more, less or equal to 180 degrees in non-Euclidean geometry.
If i remember correctly I read somewhere that if a triangle is drawn on a curved surface then it has a different number of degrees. I can look it up to make sure.
If one applies certain stringent barriers around a theory or mathematical model, then it is true for all cases (within that domain). So it is true, within it's limitations. I suppose you could say that you don't apply fluid dynamics to Coulomb's law.
Wouldn't absolute truth be true outside of a limited domain.
If weather something is absolutely true or not depends on the domain we are trying to see if its true on, then wouldn't it be relatively true if we test its truth value both in and outside of its domain.
If looked at in the appropriate domain the following is absolutely true " an apple currently rests in my hand"
No. It's absolute truth that a triangle drawn on a 2D plane will have 180 degrees. It's true that the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle is pi. It's true that the integral of velocity with respect to time represents position.
That is "absolute truth." We put restrictions on those statements so that they will be absolute truth. I don't see how you can say that it's not absolute truth that a triangle on a 2D plane will have 180 degrees just because it doesn't apply to every other case (meaning cases that that law doesn't apply to).
I do agree with you in principle - in terms of the geometry (and its implications). But such a descriptive constraint is similar to someone arguing that it is absolutely true that my CreateDebate screen-name is Mahollinder. This is entirely dependent on the qualifier: if and only if, and as long as my screen-name is Mahollinder. It's contingent on its linguistic referent and therefore subject to change. I don't think that such a contingency or descriptive constraint is sufficient for "absolute truthhood". I think that there is a need for a static correspondence for absolute truth. That is, the very term "triangle" must necessarily refer to a non-linguistic object, in a non-process being in order for any description of it to be absolutely true. Or, the very term "triangle" itself must never change uses, which is not guaranteed. But even then, it seems to me that mathematical truths are somewhat fundamentally arbitrary in their consistency. Mathematics leads to mathematical truths, and I think that is in itself sufficient to satisfy.
Is it really absolute truth if you have to put restrictions on it?
With in restrictions something may be true in every case. Then its hypothetically true; the question then becomes if the hypothetical is actual or just an approximation to reality correct?
If a definition states that something is so, it is so. If there is no definition withholding the situation from opinion, then opinion, even if not thought of, makes Absolute Truth not so, as you can never fully find the cause of everything- the chain reaction causing the situation would be endless, and you couldn't find the truth behind everything, because you have no evidence to support, say, an apple falling from a tree, 3000 years ago, which could cause a murder today. Ripple Effect.
If something is true by definition would it be correct to say it is hypothetically true, then the question becomes: does the hypothetical situation match an actual one?
Something may be absolutely true in a hypothetically/theoretical system; but does that really make it absolutely true. Can we really ever have an actual circle in reality or only in description/math/definition?
to create an allegory: It may be true that a character in a story did something, but is the story true? Is this two different types of true?
Upon analyzing Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy" in my philosophy class, I can certainly say "Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am)." However, I believe this to be the only absolute truth about the world. No matter what else you think of, you could be dreaming or imagining. The only think we know is that we exist.
It doesn't matter what "I" truly am. I could be nothing more than a massless, colorless, shapeless mind or I could be an organism. I could be dreaming or I could be awake. The bottom line is that if I can think about my existence, then I truly exist. Something that doesn't exist can't think about it's own existence because there is nothing there to do the thinking.
hmm... This is difficult to counter. What if thought, is thought from something besides ourselves which we can so intimately experience it is hard for us to perceive the difference between ourselves and that experience. Maybe the thoughts we have do not originate from us.
I've been thinking about it, wouldn't the truth of "I" existing be only absolutely true to that "I". You may truly exist, but you only truly exist relative to yourself. On the outside looking in you could be a figment of my imagination, a computer program, a dream, a illusion, a creation of an all inclusive bi-cameral mind, a false memory even. Although, I guess the experience of you would still exist; I just couldn't tell what that experience is. So perhaps whether or not another exists, or anything really, is the same thing as weather or not "I" exists. However if the other is just a mental creation of my unconsciousness, a false memory, a dream etc it isn't something which can experience rather it is an experience. So we can not say for sure if others exist. we can only say the experience of them exists. It seems the only thing that could be said to be for sure is our personal raw unannotated experience, yet this experience is only experienced though one reference point making it some type of absolute yet relative truth.
Of course. There is always truth. We cannot always see it and it's naive to think we ever have it all (thus the truth is relative phrases). Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Because as much as we enjoy personifying truth for poetic purposes, truth is not really a noun. Truth is an adjective, something not expressed well even in the english language as the word "truth" implies that it is a noun. But truth is a descriptive word. You cannot search out "truth" and find it somewhere because it is not corporal, but you can find "the truth" about something... and then discover again that you did not know the whole story and search again for "the truth." The important thing is that truth in itself cannot be sought, but the truth ABOUT something can.
To make this less ethereal, it must be applied. If I want the truth about about what water is made of, I might search and discover it is 2 parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen. Have I discovered truth or the truth? Maybe. It's naive to believe I have the whole truth, because there may be something I don't know or understand about water, but that doesn't diminish that fact that weather I know it or not, water is made of something. Thus, truth exists, but we may not, and probably do not know it.
If we're talking about a grand cosmic truth such as, does God exist, one person may believe that he does, and someone else may believe that he doesn't. Both people might believe they have the truth, so someone might say that truth is relative, or that truth is in the eye of the beholder, but this is very egocentric and untrue. God either does or does not exist, independent of what anyone believes. This can be concluded using any similar analogy. Truth is absolute, but to believe we have or know it, or that what we believe is truth and what someone else believes isn't, is foolish, as truth is almost certainly too complicated for either of us.
water could be nothing more then "signals" sent to our "brain" by some type of "machine" in a difficult to imagine universe where everything is fundamental(except the universe) and not made of other things. I'm thinking the signals being some type of field force or something. Alternatively the concept of "something" may be a incorrect model of the universe and maybe the idea of fields, connections etc are more accurate.
I like the idea of truth being an adjective. your correct, if there is absolute truth we may not and probably do not know it. If there is always uncertainty about what might be true, can we really say that there is something absolutely true and not relative/dependent on something? At best we could say, there might be absolute truth; not that there is correct?
Is it possible for a car to simultaneously travel 5 miles an hour, and 60 miles an hour ?
It is if your using two different reference points. All reference points are arbitrary, if there were to be an “absolute” velocity the best candidate for a reference point would be the center of the universe; thus even “absolute” velocity would be relative. Now generalize out into everything, and you'll understand what is meant by “all truth is relative, even this truth”
Velocity is speed in a given direction, not to or from a point.
This means that the speed of light in a vacuum is indeed a constant.
Also, mathematical absolutes are absolutes regardless of what mathematics is. Can a circle contain any less than 360 degrees? No it cannot. This does not change, regardless of position, because in order to be a circle it must have 360 degrees exactly.
Your argument is akin to saying that an inch is indefinite because rulers can bend.
speed is a change in position, a change of your coordinate points.
Math is like a story. It may be true that a character in a story did something, but is that story true? Are these two different types of true? Can we ever really have a circle in reality?
Which mother? Definitions break down here, the dual nature of a mother as typically defined is broken up into more then one person. Is your mother the woman who raised you, or the woman who gave you birth? Is she both, do you have 2 mothers? If so you have 2 mothers, both being mothers in one of two possible ways but neither as in the original definition. If your mother is only the woman that raised you, are you really her son if she never birthed you? Definitions change in that situation.
If the statement, “There is no absolute truth.” is true, then the statement denies that which it seeks to affirm. It is self-refuting and is therefore not truth.
If the contradictory statement, “There is absolute truth.” is true, it affirms the principle of truth.
According to the law of the excluded middle term, two contradictory propositions cannot be simultaneously true or false. One is true and the other is false.
And given the axiomatic nature of my argument the only thing that remains is the question: What are the absolute truths of the universe and all that is therein?
Is it true that a car, any random one; moves at both 5 miles a hour and 10 miles a hour(even if its moving at 0 miles per a hour relative to the ground)? if so, is this possible under the law of non-contradiction?(A is not non-A) I claim that the law of non-contradiction has its limits, and is only valid under certain circumstances. If it was valid in all situations then the car would be like light in a vacuum, constant speed no matter your reference point correct? I must admit my argument by analogy breaks down when one mentions light, I do think it still illuminates an important point.
The law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, as you are probably aware, are distinct laws.
I have no problem predicating non-contradictory attributes of the same subject. However, it is true to affirm as an absolute truth the car is moving to or from something. Either it is moving or it is not, there is no middle term. Consequently, your example allows me to affirm the absolute truth of movement.
Let’s refer to your example.
If the assertion/ observation/s is true that a car can move at both 5 and 10 M.P.H. having zero ground speed it must be conditional. But, regardless of the conditions of movement, it moves. The movement is observable. The movement is absolute, but the rate of movement is relative.
Here is one possible explanation that fits what you observed in your example.
You car is being vertically lowered to the ground by a helicopter that is descending at 5 M.P.H. while the cable the car hangs from extends at 5 M.P.H.
To the person on the ground below the helicopter the car is moving toward him at 10 M.P.H.. The car is also moving at 5 M.P.H. from the pilot. Both of which observe zero ground speed.
(This is one of many examples that explain your example.)
yea, they are different laws. They just seem similar and related to me, and the law of non-contradiction is more familiar so some how my brain replaced one for the other.
In your example of the helicopter, both the car and helicopter can be said to observe 0 horizontal ground speed, but vertically it will either seem like they are being lowered to the ground, or that the ground is coming up to them.
hmm, if the rate of moment = 0, is it moving?
Perhaps Moment is best described not as a property of an object, but a relationship between two points; maybe we could leave all of these questions about weather something is or isn't, by not considering things as objects; but as some type of relationship. Mass can be conceived as a resistance to force, shape can be conceived as the relationship among particles and outside forces, color as a double relationship between a "thing", photons, and our eyes etc. If we turn every property into a relationship though, what is left that is being related? All the universe would become nothing but relationships, and objects would be where enough relations come together in such a way to form one. I try to view this model of reality as a web, with each relationship being a strand of web, and where those strands connect being "objects".
