Is it possible to know all that is true? Probably not. Especially if there are a lot of facts. Besides, human beings are very limited creatures with only five senses. Even if we could discover all that is true, it would be difficult to comprehend.
Is it possible to know anything that is true? Maybe. Let's argue. Keep in mind that my arguments assume that logic works.
Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth vs. No Truth
Relativism
If you talk to most people, you occasionally hear the phrase, "It may be true for you, but it isn't true for me."
Is such a thing even possible?
Let me call that viewpoint relativism (The alternatives being absolutism and the belief that truth does not exist). That is the belief that the truth of a statement is relative depending on the observer. This implies that there is no absolute truth of a statement and therefore no ultimate observation.
The definition of the term contradiction is a statement that holds that a claim and its counter-claim are both true at the same time and under the same consideration. "Under the same consideration" means that the terms (semantics) are agreed upon such as a specific object rather than different ones. In formal logic, it is usually expressed as Statement AND NOT Statement. This always equates to a value of false.
Relativism holds that a statement can be true and false at the same time and under the same consideration but with different observers. This is a contradiction so therefore relativism must be wrong. The observers agreed to the same terms but held different truth values to a statement. This seems to suggest that this kind of observation does not work to discover the truth.
Counterpoint
"Yes, but what about the reasons why the two observers disagree?"
Exactly. Assuming no bias (we will get to belief theory later), the two observers disagreed because there were differences in the terms of which they were unaware. For example, Observer A sees a red light and Observer B sees a blue light. In actuality, the light source is white and there are respective filters in front of A and B. The truth is the previous sentence. A blue light, a red light, and a white light are all present. The observers are simply unaware of the other colors. Also, their bewilderment does not make either of their beliefs true. If it did, it would be a paradox.
"But what about these experiments with subatomic particles that suggest that past events can be controlled by present observations, and that states are determined by observations?" (I am not an expert physicist, but this section may be too detailed for some readers)
Let's take something we have already proven into consideration: states cannot be determined by observations. Otherwise, we would end up with a contradiction. In other words, logic does not work. I am not going to believe that, but you may believe what you want.
So what then? What else have we shown that can help us explain the problem? Perhaps, the observations are wrong? Perhaps the terms are not the same? In my above example with the two observers, it is easy to think of them as two human beings. It is also possible, but less comprehensible, to think of them as any objects. Any observer could be fooled when it does not have the correct knowledge of the situation (terms). In the case of these subatomic particles, the observers are more subatomic particles.
What if... and I know this is a big "what if"... What if these observations are flawed and our knowledge of these states are flawed? For example, an electron is in one location in observation A and another location in observation B, but in reality, the electron only appears to have a "location" state in this dimension but actually has one in another. It would show that the observation is limited and not a description of the actual state. The terms are also not agreed upon because there are unknown differences between the observations.
Nihilism
One alternative to relativism is the belief truth does not exist. First, let us see what this implies.
If truth does not exist and logic works, then everything is false. If everything is false, then it is not true that anything exists. So nothing exists. This belief I will refer to as nihilism ("nihil" = nothing,
"-ism" belief)
I will show you that nihilism is a self-defeating argument. It quickly comes to a contradiction.
Proving Nihilism Wrong:
1. Existence is a thing.
|2. Nothing exists. //Assumption for reductio ad absurdum
|3. There is no existence.
|4. Nothing exists and there is no existence. //Contradiction
/Therefore something exists. //The opposite of the assumption must be true.
Remember, if you disagree, you have to disagree with the assumed axioms that existence is a thing and that logic does work.
The proof against the non-existence of truth is similar.
Proving Non-existence of Truth Wrong:
|1. Everything is false. //Assumption for reductio ad absurdum
|2. Everything is false is a true statement. //This is simply restating what line 1 actually means.
|3. At least one statement is true.
|4. Everything is false and at least one statement is true. // Contradiction
/Therefore some things are true. //The opposite of the assumption must be true.
Absolutism
What we have here is a conclusion. We have eliminated relativism and nihilism from reality and are left with absolutism: the belief that all statements (things that can have a truth value) have an absolute truth value that is not determined by the observer. The argument that we have just proven valid:
1. Logic works.
/Therefore the truth value of a statement is absolute under the specific considerations.
Let us include time as one of those considerations from now on.
This means that when considering all statements with all situations, truth is absolute.
Counterpoint
"What about opinions?"
Well, what is an opinion? Let us take an opinion for example: "That movie is good."
What do we have here? We have terminology. This terminology is understood by semantics. The speaker has a specific definition for the terms "that movie" and "good." "Is" also has a meaning, but its meaning is unlikely to change within its use in the English language (Yes, I know: Bill Clinton). "That movie" refers to a specific film and possibly a specific film experience. "Good" refers to the standards that the speaker sets on quality film, which have their own terms. The statement is absolutely true if the movie meets those standards. Of course, another observer can say otherwise of the same film because those standards for "good" differ. Also, the standards can differ within the same person for different films. Hence the term "double standard."
An opinion is a quick reference to an long and often unknown list of terms, but they can be true or false. The thing that is changing is the definition of words. This is what I refer to as semantics, a relative meaning. Later I will delve more into meanings, semantics, and purpose and how they all apply to truth. In short, opinions are simply not useful in discussing truth because it is often unclear what is meant.
And so my introductory argument ends. I will use what I have shown here in future posts and these will slowly build into the defense of my world view: what I hold to be true. I am convinced that with the simple assumption that logic works that we can learn the truth of dozens of important topics. One such topic I will cover is the existence of God. Of course, you can disagree with me, but be prepared to accept what I outline as the only alternative: that logic does not work. In fact, one must use logic to prove otherwise and proving it true is the ultimate circular argument. I, for one, cannot accept that alternative because I use it everyday. I do not see how I can rely on it and believe it is not there. That is like willfully sitting in a chair that you do not believe exists.
I hope you had fun reading. Please feel free to email me your counter-argument if you have one with whatever name you would like accredited to you. I would like to post it on this blog. gotcha1357@gmail.com
