Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:06 pm

HOLY CRAP things are getting ALL COLOURFUL !! (making things less comprehensible)

Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology. :oops:
Last edited by attofishpi on Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:17 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am
Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:

* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
I like.

But I must contest. The 3rd party intelligence that constructs , what we perceive as reality , can switch our synapses and whatever else is contingently required for our consciousness to the point where two 'brains' can precisely be tuned to the same 'language' - - POV - - .

The last point was where I have the greatest contention. I HATE infinite. ...not sure Y.

And I am pretty sure U will agree - beyond consciousness there is NO requirement for a 'reality' to be generated by such a system.

ps. I am only testing myself on that last point. :)

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3921
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Lacewing » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:48 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:36 am
Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

From the wikipedia page on Neopragmatism Quine's argument for ontological relativity follows:

* All ideas and perceptions concerning reality are given to our minds in terms of our own mental language.
* Mental languages specify how objects in the world are to be constructed from our sense data.
* Different mental languages will specify different ontologies (different objects existing in the world).
* There is no way to perfectly translate between two different mental languages; there will always be several, consistent ways in which the terms in each language can be mapped onto the other.
* Reality apart from our perceptions of it can be thought of as constituting a true, object language, that is, the language which specifies how things actually are.
* There is no difference in translating between two mental languages and translating between the object language of reality and one's own mental language.
* Therefore, just as there is no objective way of translating between two mental languages (no one-to-one mapping of terms in one to terms in the other) there is no way of objectively translating (or fitting) the true, object language of reality into our own mental language.
* And therefore, there are many ontologies (possibly an infinite number) that can be consistently held to represent reality.
This sounds good... except ultimate "reality" remains questionable. The way the concept of "reality" is used above helps to make understandable distinctions, but maybe it's just a tool for that.

And in answer to your question "Does it undermine the notion of Absolute Truth", I would say "no" (only) because the above refers to what's "mental", whereas someone could say that "absolute truth" is outside of that. But, I personally don't believe in an ultimate reality or absolute truth because I think vast creativity and evolution are constantly in motion.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:01 pm

...er...Skepdick never mentioned 'ultimate' reality. -That has always been your spin.

Actually, I am about to hit the sack - but what the *** is 'ultimate' reality as compared to reality?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3921
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Lacewing » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:09 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:01 pm
...er...Skepdick never mentioned 'ultimate' reality. -That has always been your spin.

Actually, I am about to hit the sack - but what the *** is 'ultimate' reality as compared to reality?
...er...Skepdick refers to "absolute truth", which is not so different (if at all) from "ultimate reality". I'm referring to any notion of some static reality beyond any individual or group or human or otherwise limited reality. Such as what religions might believe in.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6016
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:51 pm

Repeat
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6016
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:52 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:01 pm
...er...Skepdick never mentioned 'ultimate' reality. -That has always been your spin.

Actually, I am about to hit the sack - but what the *** is 'ultimate' reality as compared to reality?
Ultimate reality would be the totality of all phenomena, reality would be that which is observed from a particular perspective.

Reality is a subset of ultimate reality, like a part is a subset from a whole.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by attofishpi » Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:41 am

Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology. :oops:

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:01 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:27 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:59 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:19 pm
Since the idea of the "absolute" would be something like a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.

It is hard to see where this could be related to truth, since truth relies on a correspondence between statements and actualities.
Truth has to relate to a range of things. Since there is no an absolute place to stand, nor is it possible to utter "truth" without a statement standing in relation to the state of affairs which it seeks to represent, there can be no "absolute truth".
False logic! It would seem you're in a conceptual spiral, swirling in your head, trying to keep the concepts straight, yet lost in the attempt.
Projection.
Ignorance!

That which is absolute is something that is not dependent upon external conditions, such as our belief, knowledge or creation. It exists without us and always has.
Truth is the actual state of the matter, conformity with fact and reality, an indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
That's called fudge.
Truth does not exist on its own. It is about a relationship.
Again, ignorance!

So now we have the absolute truth as I see it.
Contradiction.
You can't know what you don't know!
Please don't be mistaken and confuse it with human kinds relative truths as touted ever differently depending upon whom and when you ask, that's just pretty much fear, lies, denial, delusion, etc, etc, etc!

An example of an absolute truth is the origin of our universe, whether we know what it was doesn't matter, all that matters is what it actually was. Which we may know or come to know.
The "origin of the universe", is a human concept used to fulfil a design for knowledge and curiosity. Thus far there have been a multitude of cosmologies since the dawn of time - all of them wrong. At best they represent a RELATIONSHIP between observable states of affairs and the interpretations we use to satisfy that what we are capable of observing fits with a theory.
In an absolute sense we cannot even know if "The origin of the universe" is even a meaningful phrase, since it has to stand in relation to our interpretations.
You're lost. My words went over your head! You're speaking of what some believe they know, not grounded in fact. I'm speaking of that which is grounded in fact, beyond what some believe the know!

Some absolute truths are extremely huge, like the one above and some are relatively simple like the fact that we found that our planet is a spheroid instead of flat, or that we finally realized that there are no crystal spheres that encapsulate the planets and stars.

The absolute truth is that which came before us that we can come to finally understand, after much time of ignorance, usually due to extensive scientific endeavour.
Truth is not absolute, since it is a relation of ideas.
Your ignorance is speaking of that which humans only believe they know, where there are multitudes of various fanciful incorrect opinions, which has noting to do with the facts! 'A rose referred to by any other name, smells just as sweet.'
Or so as not to loose you again, such as simpletons are easily undone: 'That one calls something the truth, does not make it so! One actually has to "know"'


Skepdick
Posts: 4100
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:06 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:01 pm
Or so as not to loose you again, such as simpletons are easily undone: 'That one calls something the truth, does not make it so! One actually has to "know"'
If you knew what truth was you wouldn't need to learn anything.

Meno's paradox...

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:29 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:09 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am
Of course you'll deny what you are, as you have no clue!
I don't deny that I have no clue what I am. If you think you know what you are, then you don't even have a clue that you don't have a clue.
Wrong! It's a life long endeavor! It's not instantaneous! Some know more, some know less. It all depends on how much one studies philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, cultural anthropology, cosmology, physics as well as others and are capable of placing the correct pieces of the puzzle in their correct places.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am
No only dumb asses like you believe that.
You got that exactly backwards. And you are a dumbass for thinking like that.
You're correct! I was wrong to say dumbass, I was being snarky! In truth I should have said ignorant, because that's the actual state of affairs.
I'm ignorant of some things and know others. Which is the only way anyone can actually proceed honestly in such debate. How about you?


SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:09 am
So what's your point here?
My point is that

Gravity works; Airplanes fly; Fire burns and Wild WIllow Bark cures headaches and all of those things are true even if the premises used to arrive at those conclusions are false.
So you're speaking of invalid premises, OK!


Competence in leveraging gravity, airplanes, fire and medicine does not require comprehension of their inner workings.
But leveraging them is the truth, which doesn't mean that there is no necessary truth of their inner workings that can be gleaned through logic!


Only a Philosopher would believe that if the premises (foundations?) of their arguments are false then gravity will cease to function; airplanes will stop flying, fire will stop burning and salicylic acid (the active ingredient in Wild Willow Bark) will stop curing headaches.
Incorrect! Putting the cart before the horse! Sequence is everything, a posteriori. Your vagueness, generalizations, do not a point make, that you are not specifically accurate, to any high degree, allows you to believe such falsehoods!

But let me not waste any more of your precious time. You seem to be very busy with very important things.
Thinly veiled condescension to cover your ignorance, strawmen! If you care not to argue the topic with me, of course you do not have to, yet you've seen something in my words that you believe require addressing, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted to set me straight.

Would you prefer to allow me to push your buttons, or would you rather rise above them, seeing them for what they are?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:32 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:06 pm
HOLY CRAP things are getting ALL COLOURFUL !! (making things less comprehensible)

Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology. :oops:
Like you could ever really talk over my head fish boy! Do you see anything in the pretty colors, like maybe gods or something, huh? :lol:

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:35 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:41 am
Hey SpheresOfBalance - sorry dude! I've been quite nasty to you over the years...please accept my sincerest apology. :oops:
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more valid, but then I expect that kind of logic from the delusional.

Skepdick
Posts: 4100
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:38 pm

**delete duplicate**
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:38 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:01 pm
Or so as not to loose you again, such as simpletons are easily undone: 'That one calls something the truth, does not make it so! One actually has to "know"'
If you knew what truth was you wouldn't need to learn anything.

Meno's paradox...
That you try and ignore what I meant, instead arguing with yourself, does not impress anyone that has any real degree of intelligence.

Rethink and try again!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests