Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

[Skepdick]

"Dick" is the only truth about you.

I thought you said you don't have a religion?

Except the religion of Truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Does the notion of Ontological relativity (introduced below) undermine the notion of Absolute Truth?

No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth. The real question for humankind is what is, and what is not the absolute truth. And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!

[Skepdick]

No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth.

OK, but two different people describe the "actual state of affairs" in to different ways e.g they have two different ontologies.

Whose ontology is closer to "the actual state of affairs"?

And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!

Do you believe Science when Science tells you that it's not after Truth? It's after constructing models of reality. By definition a model is not "Absolutely True". By definition a model is incomplete.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No! Because all that is the actual state of affairs is the Absolute Truth.

OK, but two different people describe the "actual state of affairs" in to different ways e.g they have two different ontologies.

Whose ontology is closer to "the actual state of affairs"?
I never said I know all the answers to all things. I'm the same as others, (relative to the universe, very young), only capable of knowing those things that have been uncovered up till now, while possibly capable of only 'slightly' pushing the envelope forward.

And thanks to science, a revisionist study, the absolute truth becomes clearer every day!

Do you believe Science when Science tells you that it's not after Truth? It's after constructing models of reality. By definition a model is not "Absolutely True". By definition a model is incomplete.

Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.

Know that to me facts and truths are synonymous. Also there are only truths and falsehoods, and the aim of science is certainly not to create models of falsehoods for the sake of falsehoods themselves, rather only models that illuminate potential truths.

I believe science states such that you've mentioned because it's revisionist in nature, that it realizes that it's quest is still ongoing. In such a case it's best, for now, they leave truth on the drawing board.

[Skepdick]

Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.

Q.E.D You are arguing for Ontological Relativity.

The ontology of yesterday is not the ontology of tomorrow.

What was said yesterday cannot be said tomorrow.
What was true yesterday is false tomorrow.
What was factual yesterday is fictional tomorrow.

The language of yesterday is not the language of tomorrow.

If Science was capable of Absolute Truths it would not require revision.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like I've already said, Science is a revisionist study. Which means that what is said today, may be different tomorrow.

Q.E.D You are arguing for Ontological Relativity.

What was said yesterday cannot be said tomorrow.

If Science was capable of Absolute Truths it would not require revision.

That's not true, what was said yesterday may be said today. You said cannot, that's not what I said. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.

The topic is: "Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?" The Absolute Truth is the actual state of affairs. If the current state of affairs is that we don't currently know, then that's the absolute truth. If ontology is currently incorrect as to any particular aspect of metaphysics then that is the Absolute Truth. If relativity of anything is the actual state of affairs then that is the absolute truth.

Maybe you don't understand what the Absolute Truth is as I see it. It's the truth from the universal perspective, not necessarily humankind’s. If all humans are bat shit crazy and don't have a clue about anything, then that's the absolute truth. Any set of things that humankind believes they know, may be the absolute truth while any particular set of things that humankind believes they know may not be the absolute truth. When there is any sort of argument about anything, that is an example of relativity. Relative knowledge, relative capability, relative understanding, relative language, relative comprehension, relative ability to convey, relative programming, etc. But within any particular reference frame the absolute truth always remains the same, much like the speed of light.

Einstein's model of relativity may inform calculations that humans can use to solve problems, but may not necessarily be what's actually happening at the universal level, in other words not absolute truth. The same with ontology. Any particular within ontological theory may not be absolute truth. It may just be a theory relative to the absolute truth, or another theory.

So while the absolute truth is a constant it's humankinds theories that are relative, whether ontological or not. So whatever is actually going on with respect to the model of gravity, for instance, is seemingly one more bit of the absolute truth of this universe.

[Skepdick]

That's not true, what was said yesterday may be said today. You said cannot, that's not what I said. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.

You are mistaken. I am attempting to pull the words out of your mouth, not put them there.

According to you it MAY be said that Earth is flat. Just as it MAY be said that the Earth is round.

To argue that both of those things MAY be said is precisely the argument for Ontological Relativity!
If you are agreeing with me - just say it. There's no need for sophistry.

The Absolute Truth is the actual state of affairs.

In this one sentence you have fallen for Sorites paradox.
You are using "the" incorrectly. In the English language "the" is known as the definite particular.

There is fuckall "definite" or "particular" about the sentence "THE state of affairs", when 'the' said affairs keep changing, and when 'the' said affairs keep being described in different language by different people.

"the state of affairs" It's so vague a sentence as to be meaningless.

If the current state of affairs is that we don't currently know, then that's the absolute truth. If ontology is currently incorrect as to any particular aspect of metaphysics then that is the Absolute Truth. If relativity of anything is the actual state of affairs then that is the absolute truth.

How can something that is changing from one moment onto the next be an "Absolute Truth"?!?

Maybe you don't understand what the Absolute Truth is as I see it.

That's certainly the case, since I reject the very notion of Absolute Truth. Since you don't - perhaps you should explain it?

It's the truth from the universal perspective, not necessarily humankind’s.

As a Human, how could you ever come to acquire knowledge from such a perspective?

So while the absolute truth is a constant it's humankinds theories that are relative,

You are a human (are you not?), so how have you come to know anything about Absolute Truth, if all your knowledge is relative?

Surely Absolute Truth is not relative to anything? Because it's Absolute.

[uwot]

Then let me give you an example: I don't believe you don't know what believe means.

OK, but I don't know what 'believe' means, because nobody knows what "meaning" is.

Yeah you do. You keep banging on about pragmatism. Meaning is what works.

At best - meaning is contingent and highly subjective, so your sentence is meaningless to me.

Bollocks. Granted it may not be precisely what I mean, but your version is close enough that you can respond to it in way that appears cogent and appropriate. It works.

[Skepdick]

Yeah you do. You keep banging on about pragmatism. Meaning is what works.

You are conflating meaning with truth. Pragmatist say "truth is what works", while making no claims about meaning whatsoever.

What works for me may not work for you (if you don't know how to use my instruments) and so what is true for me may not be true for you.

Bollocks. Granted it may not be precisely what I mean, but your version is close enough that you can respond to it in way that appears cogent and appropriate. It works.

Appropriate for or working towards what shared goal/objective?
Works (or doesn't) according to what criteria for success/failure?

Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said "Two people playing different games cannot be said to be communicating"?

[uwot]

Yeah you do. You keep banging on about pragmatism. Meaning is what works.

You are conflating meaning with truth. Pragmatist say "truth is what works", while making no claims about meaning whatsoever.

Pragmatism isn't a dogma, so to imply that there is a coherent group that all agree is simply untrue. Off the top of my head, Peirce's theory of signs had a lot to say about meaning.

What works for me may not work for you (if you don't know how to use my instruments) and so what is true for me may not be true for you.

Call me old fashioned, but for me 'true' refers to what obtains. For instance, it is true that any number of narratives can account for the observations. It doesn't follow from the fact that there are many interpretations of the data that there is more than one reality.

Bollocks. Granted it may not be precisely what I mean, but your version is close enough that you can respond to it in way that appears cogent and appropriate. It works.

Appropriate for or working towards what shared goal/objective?

You have whined about philosophers challenging your particular brand of fruitloopery. You really should accept that we don't share all the same objectives.

Works (or doesn't) according to what criteria for success/failure?

I'm with Feyerabend on this: who cares?

Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said "Two people playing different games cannot be said to be communicating"?

Sounds plausible. Is that an appeal to authority?

[Skepdick]

Pragmatism isn't a dogma, so to imply that there is a coherent group that all agree is simply untrue.

It sounds like you are saying "Pragmatism means many things to many Pragmatists"...

It sounds like you are making my argument for me on the "plurality and contingency of meaning".

Off the top of my head, Peirce's theory of signs had a lot to say about meaning.

On the one hand you say Pragmatism is not dogma, on the other hand you put all Pragmatists under Peirce's semiotics. What gives?

Would you say that the theory of semiotics works? What signified does the signifier "meaning" point to? Do you have an ostensive definition or is the signified a concept?

What do you make of the fact that there are multiple theories of meaning? Which theory of meaning is most meaningful?

Call me old fashioned, but for me 'true' refers to what obtains.

That is not a complete English sentence. Obtains.... what?

For instance, it is true that any number of narratives can account for the observations. It doesn't follow from the fact that there are many interpretations of the data that there is more than one reality.

Surely that depends entirely on the use/meaning/interpretation of the word "reality"?

What signified does the signifier "reality" point to? Do you have an ostensive definition or is the signified a concept?

The very context (and its contents - a complete reference frame) in which you interpret the data is what I call a "reality". A Universe in Type Theory. Multiple interpretative Universes results in Multiple realities.

Deep at the logical level it boils down to the stand-off between classical and quantum logic. It's a choice - do you accept the principle of distributivity or not?

Classical logicians accept it - it leads to realism.
Quantum logicians reject it - it leads to anti-realism (MWI).

Is Logic empirical?

You really should accept that we don't share all the same objectives.

You really should accept that's precisely the point I am making. Ontology is a function of telos. This is typically how most engineers approach problem-solving - you work your way backwards.

My ontology (Universe?) works for my objectives.
Your ontology (Universe?) works for your objectives.

Whose ontology is "correct" if both ontologies work for our respective objectives?

I'm with Feyerabend on this: who cares?

At least the person who defines the meaning of "it works" and "it doesn't work".

Sounds plausible. Is that an appeal to authority?

You may see it that way.

You could say I reached my own conclusions before I discovered Wittgenstein reached the same conclusions 100 years before me.

[uwot]

Pragmatism isn't a dogma, so to imply that there is a coherent group that all agree is simply untrue.

It sounds like you are saying "Pragmatism means many things to many Pragmatists"...

It sounds like you are making my argument for me on the "plurality and contingency of meaning".

Well yeah, give yourself a pat on the back for working out the punchline to most of Plato's dialogues.

Off the top of my head, Peirce's theory of signs had a lot to say about meaning.

On the one hand you say Pragmatism is not dogma, on the other hand you put all Pragmatists under Peirce's semiotics. What gives?

Oh please. If you really think that because I point out that Peirce had something to say about meaning, it follows that I believe anyone calling themself a pragmatist subscribes to his efforts, you are wasting your time.

[Skepdick]

Well yeah, give yourself a pat on the back for working out the punchline to most of Plato's dialogues.

In your own words: who cares?

Oh please. If you really think that because I point out that Peirce had something to say about meaning.

Peirce didn't have anything to say about meaning (in general). Peirce had something to say about the meaning of signs in particular.

What do you think the sign "meaning" means? Oh wait... Why repeat myself if you are just going to ignore my question.

Would you say that the theory of semiotics works? What signified does the signifier "meaning" point to? Do you have an ostensive definition or is the signified a concept?

What do you make of the fact that there are multiple theories of meaning? Which theory of meaning is most meaningful?

it follows that I believe anyone calling themself a pragmatist subscribes to his efforts, you are wasting your time.

You call yourself a Pragmatist.
You are the one harping on that "use is meaning".
You used Peirce as an example.

What else was I supposed to infer?

[uwot]

it follows that I believe anyone calling themself a pragmatist subscribes to his efforts, you are wasting your time.

Either you are very stupid, or very dishonest to edit the above as you did.

You call yourself a Pragmatist.

No I don't.

You are the one harping on that "use is meaning".

Isn't that your point?

You used Peirce as an example.

What else was I supposed to infer?

That your claim that pragmatists have nothing to say about meaning is false.

[Skepdick]

Either you are very stupid, or very dishonest to edit the above as you did.

Either the above is a false dichotomy; or it's a false dichotomy.

No I don't.

So (just to double-check) you aren't a pragmatist?

Isn't that your point?

I doubt it. My point is usually that making points before agreeing on objectives (e.g setting context) is putting the cart before the horse.

And since we haven't agreed on the objectives of Philosophy as yet it's pragmatically impossible for me to make a point.

That your claim that pragmatists have nothing to say about meaning is false.

It's not true that it's false.

Peirce spoke about the the meaning of signs (signs have no meaning - they have interpretations). Show me something about "Meaning" independent of symbolism.

This is the 2nd time you are dodging the question now. I am already suspecting it's intentional - 3rd time's the charm.

What is the signified for the signifier "meaning"?