Absolute knowledge

[Lozzer]

Answering a question is a correspondence, the answer isn't necessarily true but we presume that it is. When one asks 'what is the Big Bang' the only reply in an normal conversation(or even in a book) would be restricted to a few minutes of conversation or perhaps a few hundred written words. The time it would take to answer a question in full would take allot longer, and even then the human-mind would be limited in its knowledge of what the Big Bang is and what it entails in complete detail. The Big Bang was the moment where space began to expand, no? Is that true? Yes it is. But its an immensely simple answer, and simple answers aren't really the truth but a fraction of it, and if its nothing but a fraction of truth, then why consider it a truth?

The only way to make a complete explanation to a question would be if one had absolute knowledge. An absolute understanding of everything. However, questioners do not require such knowledge (and couldn't) because otherwise they wouldn't need to ask--this raises another conundrum: could a being with omniscience ask questions? Could it ponder?

Without omniscience, there can be no real truth. With omniscience, no question can be answered. If there was such a thing as omniscience, I don't think I would be writing this...but if there was an omniscient-being, Its name would be God. I think its wise to conclude that I'm contented with superficial truth.

Can someone destruct this for me in an intelligence manner? I don't like these thoughts any more, I've got all of this out of my box of consciousness and now It needs to be thrown away. Such tripe disturbs my cognitive function and if I keep it inside my skull it makes me feel as if I'm descending into madness.

[AshtonBlack]

Pragmatism. Even the philosophical/theological types take things to be de facto truths, such as gravity, the need to eat etc.

Bearing that in mind, absolute truth maybe a fallacy for us humans, but it has little value (IMHO) other than as a concept to ponder.
Not all knowledge has equal value to our species even if it logically correct.
Also, again, IMHO, some questions, are just silly. For example, those that say what was before the big bang? may as well be asking what is north of the north pole and I think "what is truth" is one of them.

[Lozzer]

Pragmatism. Even the philosophical/theological types take things to be de facto truths, such as gravity, the need to eat etc.

Bearing that in mind, absolute truth maybe a fallacy for us humans, but it has little value (IMHO) other than as a concept to ponder.
Not all knowledge has equal value to our species even if it logically correct.
Also, again, IMHO, some questions, are just silly. For example, those that say what was before the big bang? may as well be asking what is north of the north pole and I think "what is truth" is one of them.

What is pragmatism?

I agree, but pondering isn't enough for me.
I don't they're silly questions, they're just redundant. Asking 'what was before the Big Bang'?' is the equivalent of asking 'red blue 99 Saskatchewan?'

No, I beg to differ, having an understanding of what truth is is an important epistemological question.

[AshtonBlack]

Pragmatism. Even the philosophical/theological types take things to be de facto truths, such as gravity, the need to eat etc.

Bearing that in mind, absolute truth maybe a fallacy for us humans, but it has little value (IMHO) other than as a concept to ponder.
Not all knowledge has equal value to our species even if it logically correct.
Also, again, IMHO, some questions, are just silly. For example, those that say what was before the big bang? may as well be asking what is north of the north pole and I think "what is truth" is one of them.

What is pragmatism?

I agree, but pondering isn't enough for me.
I don't they're silly questions, they're just redundant. Asking 'what was before the Big Bang'?' is the equivalent of asking 'red blue 99 Saskatchewan?'

No, I beg to differ, having an understanding of what truth is is an important epistemological question.

Pragmatism, is being practical about things. I would like to see all the worlds defence budgets poured into scientific endeavours. I know this is impractical and therefore I take a pragmatic view of this wish.

[AshtonBlack]

Pragmatism. Even the philosophical/theological types take things to be de facto truths, such as gravity, the need to eat etc.

Bearing that in mind, absolute truth maybe a fallacy for us humans, but it has little value (IMHO) other than as a concept to ponder.
Not all knowledge has equal value to our species even if it logically correct.
Also, again, IMHO, some questions, are just silly. For example, those that say what was before the big bang? may as well be asking what is north of the north pole and I think "what is truth" is one of them.

What is pragmatism?

I agree, but pondering isn't enough for me.
I don't they're silly questions, they're just redundant. Asking 'what was before the Big Bang'?' is the equivalent of asking 'red blue 99 Saskatchewan?'

No, I beg to differ, having an understanding of what truth is is an important epistemological question.

Pragmatism, is being practical about things. I would like to see all the worlds defence budgets poured into scientific endeavours. I know this is impractical and therefore I take a pragmatic view of this wish.

Don't get me wrong, epistemology has some practical applications and perhaps I was being a little disingenuous. Ponder is too light a word. Thought through to a logical conclusion is perhaps a better description. I believe that solipsism is the only logically defensible position to take about "truth" but as on the other thread, it's impractical and one must live one's life accepting some things as de facto true.

[Lozzer]

Pragmatism. Even the philosophical/theological types take things to be de facto truths, such as gravity, the need to eat etc.

Bearing that in mind, absolute truth maybe a fallacy for us humans, but it has little value (IMHO) other than as a concept to ponder.
Not all knowledge has equal value to our species even if it logically correct.
Also, again, IMHO, some questions, are just silly. For example, those that say what was before the big bang? may as well be asking what is north of the north pole and I think "what is truth" is one of them.

What is pragmatism?

I agree, but pondering isn't enough for me.
I don't they're silly questions, they're just redundant. Asking 'what was before the Big Bang'?' is the equivalent of asking 'red blue 99 Saskatchewan?'

No, I beg to differ, having an understanding of what truth is is an important epistemological question.

Pragmatism, is being practical about things. I would like to see all the worlds defence budgets poured into scientific endeavours. I know this is impractical and therefore I take a pragmatic view of this wish.

Don't get me wrong, epistemology has some practical applications and perhaps I was being a little disingenuous. Ponder is too light a word. Thought through to a logical conclusion is perhaps a better description. I believe that solipsism is the only logically defensible position to take about "truth" but as on the other thread, it's impractical and one must live one's life accepting some things as de facto true.

Things are impracticable so far as individuals are concerned, and for me, it seems "disingenuous" to accept subjects such as truth under false pretences. Truth's impact, definition and quality is important to me, because I live in a world which (for the most part) lacks it.

[AshtonBlack]

Ok, think I see where you are coming from.

Can we agree that a truth is an assertion by a human which has not been disproven in the judgement of another human?

The reason I say this, is because, I believe, it is not truth's quality nor it's definition that impacts our world but what humans do with it. Perhaps psychology, or socio-anthropology would be a field of study to help you in your ponderings?

[Lozzer]

Ok, think I see where you are coming from.

Can we agree that a truth is an assertion by a human which has not been disproven in the judgement of another human?

The reason I say this, is because, I believe, it is not truth's quality nor it's definition that impacts our world but what humans do with it. Perhaps psychology, or socio-anthropology would be a field of study to help you in your ponderings?

In further introspection, I think I can agree with that definition. But bear in mind, its not the mainstream definition of truth which would be

# conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Maybe, but I heavily doubt that I'd find any satisfaction is either. I much prefer personal interaction as opposed to curriculum.

[AshtonBlack]

Ok, think I see where you are coming from.

Can we agree that a truth is an assertion by a human which has not been disproven in the judgement of another human?

The reason I say this, is because, I believe, it is not truth's quality nor it's definition that impacts our world but what humans do with it. Perhaps psychology, or socio-anthropology would be a field of study to help you in your ponderings?

In further introspection, I think I can agree with that definition. But bear in mind, its not the mainstream definition of truth which would be

# conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Maybe, but I heavily doubt that I'd find any satisfaction is either. I much prefer personal interaction as opposed to curriculum.

Ah, that's a pity, since I think, with your seeming thirst for understanding you could make a contribution to those fields and write your own truth, as it were.

I think, the mainstream definitions are just a form of short hand, since they beg the question, what is reality etc etc.
(Oh, I've never read any philosophy, and all MY assertions are based on similar thought processes, I think, you are going through, my experiences and interactions with others.)

[Lozzer]

Ok, think I see where you are coming from.

Can we agree that a truth is an assertion by a human which has not been disproven in the judgement of another human?

The reason I say this, is because, I believe, it is not truth's quality nor it's definition that impacts our world but what humans do with it. Perhaps psychology, or socio-anthropology would be a field of study to help you in your ponderings?

In further introspection, I think I can agree with that definition. But bear in mind, its not the mainstream definition of truth which would be

# conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Maybe, but I heavily doubt that I'd find any satisfaction is either. I much prefer personal interaction as opposed to curriculum.

Ah, that's a pity, since I think, with your seeming thirst for understanding you could make a contribution to those fields and write your own truth, as it were.

I suppose that's an AshtonBlack compilment haha.
Sociologists and psychologists study me, its not the other way round

[AshtonBlack]

Aye mate. It was a compliment. I like to see someone who can think critically.

[Don't Panic]

I view absolute knowledge the same way I view absolute power, a noble cause and a laudable thing to aim for, but probably not achievable within my lifetime.


My I am Dawk... thingy on RDF kinda covered that with it's last line:

...I know that in one hundred lifetimes I could not learn all that I want to know.

[Lozzer]

Aye mate. It was a compliment. I like to see someone who can think critically.

Awesome.

Critical thinking isn't something to be proud of, to me its a curse. You have no idea of how I envy the ignorant masses.

[AshtonBlack]

Aye mate. It was a compliment. I like to see someone who can think critically.

Awesome.

Critical thinking isn't something to be proud of, to me its a curse. You have no idea of how I envy the ignorant masses.

You say so much in that statement.
I disagree entirely with the first part. But can understand the second.
Let me ask you this, you can refuse to answer if it's too personal.
What would your "mates" say if they knew you'd written the OP?

[Lozzer]

Aye mate. It was a compliment. I like to see someone who can think critically.

Awesome.

Critical thinking isn't something to be proud of, to me its a curse. You have no idea of how I envy the ignorant masses.

You say so much in that statement.
I disagree entirely with the first part. But can understand the second.
Let me ask you this, you can refuse to answer if it's too personal.
What would your "mates" say if they knew you'd written the OP?

Why so?
Nothing is too personal.
I'm not certain as to how they would react, an understand of the terms used is needed to grasp the concept of the OP, but given their usual behaviour to my rants, they would either make a gesture by throwing their hand over their head while ushering 'whooosh' or say 'wtf' and ridicule me for it. Or as usual, ignore me and continue to talk about old people falling over.