I am searching for Truth in the world.
There is endless information available, but which of it is truth?
There is promising, hopeful toned rhetoric that I find idiotic.
There is scary, fearful warnings that, if accepted, destroy all that I place my strength and hope in.
What is Truth?
Can you guide me to it?
Will it make a difference if ever discovered?
What is Truth?
Can it be grasped, held tight?
Friday Closeout Memes!
1 day ago
What a series of questions. I'm in the mood to answer all four:
ReplyDeleteWhat is Truth?
Can you guide me to it?
Will it make a difference if ever discovered?
Can it be grasped, held tight?
I have recently gained a new perspective this month. This is a very new, green formation of thought for me, so please be patient.
Defining truth is very tricky. I believe that perfect truth is a concept that man can only comprehend, meaning that man can never be certain of an absolute truth. This does not mean it doesn't exist; it simply means that humans will never find it by any method. I will explain this in a second (long!) post.
So, why is defining truth hard? Because at some point, the definition of "truth" must reference itself. In other words, a statement that defines a string of true statements must also affirm itself as true. This is the fundamental problem with epistemology - you can never escape a circular reference! Why are circular references a problem? Because they are not comprehensible by our fundamental axiomatic system, by basic logic. Circular references result in paradoxes - this is called incompleteness (I'll talk about this more in the following post!).
I hardly know what I think is true. I have little hope of guiding you. I feel like each person must participate in their own search for truth, since real conviction can only come from one's self. I will gladly explain my beliefs. I simply do not expect you to accept them. And yes, some Christians do not like this.
There are a lot of different competing (contradictory) theories and ideas all claiming to be true - but how do we know that ANY of them are true? If we accept that our concept of absolute truth even exists, how do we overcome the Fundamental Problem so that we may KNOW absolute truth? The point is, we may be all searching for truth in vain. We may have no idea what we're looking for!
This quite beautifully shows why your next question is necessary: "Will it make a difference if ever discovered?" I say no. I'm assuming that one person may discover absolute truth, and that they know absolute truth and are not plagued by uncertainty, incompleteness, or inconsistency! But how, other than personal revelation, can this truth be expressed to the rest of the population in the already-discussed forms of reasoning? What hope is there that we can somehow overthrow the limitations of logic?
So for that reason, I feel like the only practical, useful definition of truth must be personal. A person who goes from one idea of truth to another is *convinced*, but is not *certain*. We may believe that our idea of truth is absolute, but that belief must be either justified by personal experience or rationalized!
So for all these reasons, I cannot grasp truth. I hold nothing tight. This is frightening to me. This is not what I want to hear, this is not what my family wants to hear. I identify myself as a Christian. But I am not sure why I believe. I hold out hope to have some sort of personal revelation. Doubters in the Bible called these "signs." Well, you may call me a doubter. I am a perpetually-doubting Christian. It is one of the most difficult and confusing parts of my life. And I'm not going to lie about it. I'm not going to pretend like I have 100% confidence in heaven as my destination.
I'm simply being honest. Call it telling the truth.
I've been doing some interesting reading lately about the foundations of mathematics (the works of Greg Chaitin and Kurt Godel). Mathematics had always been held as the purest academic area of study, when considered relative to empirical or quasi-empirical sciences such as physics. However, what I read showed me otherwise, and revealed the significance of something that has bothered me for about six years now. That little annoyance has been with the existence of paradoxes. Statements than can be judged neither true nor false. I've always wondered about their origin, and why they existed.
ReplyDeleteBefore exploring that, let's consider, how is mathematical "truth" determined? It's determined by a set of axioms, or rules that mathematics follows. I don't know the details, but we all have experienced these axioms if we've used logical reasoning. It's ubiquitous. Therefore, it seems like an obvious assumption that logic is an inherent property of the universe (or at least an inherent consequence of [1] experiencing the universe and [2] being human). Mathematicians phrased this as "the axioms are self-evident," the implication being that the formal axiomatic system of mathematics is as pure and perfect as anything can possibly be.
Turns out, there is no such thing as perfection. Or at least, humans will never understand its nature. Mathematics, as well as every other formal axiomatic system, is plagued by either incompleteness or inconsistency. Uh-oh! The foundations of humanity's Champion of Perfection are beginning to shift a bit!
The person who proved this is Kurt Godel. He considered the liar's paradox: "This statement is false." This statement is a paradox because if the statement is true, then we must take its word that it is false! However, if it is instead false, then it must be true (a false-false)! This is an absurd result. It does not make sense in our axiomatic system.
Here's the disturbing part: Godel considered instead the phrase "This statement is unprovable!" It is also paradoxical. But what if Gödel's statement is provable? Well, since it affirms that it itself is unprovable, then it's false, it does not correspond with reality. So we're proving a false statement! In other words, if this statement is provable, then our formal axiomatic system is inconsistent; it contains false theorems. This is a frightening possibility!
So let's assume the opposite, that Godel's statement is unprovable. But that's not so good either, because then it's a true statement (in the sense that it corresponds with reality) that's unprovable. So our formal axiomatic theory is incomplete!
This is troubling. We have to accept that there is a hole in the most central pillar of our understanding of the universe. It's like humans have a huge intellectual blind spot that will never be overcome. Notice that those two paradoxical statements referenced themselves. This is where logic breaks down! How can a statement be true if and only if it is false? How do we handle this situation? CAN WE JUSTIFY SWEEPING THIS UNDER THE RUG? Or must we accept that our perspective and our mechanism of understanding are flawed and incomplete?
So we are either forced to believe that we are right for no reason at all (sweeping this under the rug), or believe that we are wrong because of what is shown above.
But wait. If we are not certain of truth, and we accept that our understanding is limited, then how do we know that the above conclusion is true? IT COULD BE WE ARE EITHER WRONG FOR NO REASON AT ALL, OR RIGHT FOR NO REASON AT ALL.
What if truth is arbitrary, meaning:
What if truth does not exist?
The only practical definition of truth that I can give is "something which corresponds to reality." Reality meaning, how we as humans perceive the universe and our collective existence. This only requires making one assumption that every practical person makes, which is empiricism. It's instinctual to assume empiricism and trust that what your senses tell you is corresponding to reality.
ReplyDeleteI don't know any practical people who would deny that they use empiricism. It just can't be proven that it represents or distinguishes absolute truth, because it must be presupposed.
But you knew that already. I find the discussion on the theoretical limits of mathematics and knowledge to be much more interesting. I just wanted to clarify that my question "What if truth does not exist?" should be read as "What if ABSOLUTE truth does not exist?"
"The person who proved this is Kurt Godel. He considered the liar's paradox: "This statement is false." This statement is a paradox because if the statement is true, then we must take its word that it is false! However, if it is instead false, then it must be true (a false-false)! This is an absurd result. It does not make sense in our axiomatic system.
ReplyDeleteHere's the disturbing part: Godel considered instead the phrase "This statement is unprovable!" It is also paradoxical. But what if Gödel's statement is provable? Well, since it affirms that it itself is unprovable, then it's false, it does not correspond with reality. So we're proving a false statement! In other words, if this statement is provable, then our formal axiomatic system is inconsistent; it contains false theorems. This is a frightening possibility!"
Yes, the above examples are paradoxical; however, can't they also be seen as nonsensical? They can't be one, can't be the other, and are designed expressly to define such binary classification.
Or am I flawed in my thought process?
-fogg
I see what you are getting at, Fogg. The point is that they *are* nonsensical. Paradoxes like these are all similar in how they are paradoxical, and the *point* is that they can not be understood in our normal system of understanding! There is no "design" or trickery here. The statements make no sense because our method of understanding cannot capture all true statements; or if it does, it may also capture false statements!
ReplyDeleteThis idea (incompleteness) was actually formulated and proven mathematically by Mr. Godel. Point simply being... there is no sort of invalidity to these questions because they don't make sense.
If you have a statement that is true if and only if it is false, what must you do to justify ignoring it? I don't know. I don't think you can... you have to consider the implications of its result means for your system of axioms that define how you determine "true" and "false".
Well friend, I don't have much time to express all my useless knowledge today, but this is how I see it.
ReplyDeleteTruth, to me, is only what is already known and tangible. What is not tangible or proven to be an ABSOLUTE is simply a theory, or some other synonymous term. A life-long hypothesis.
Miracles? You may believe in them, but until we find what causes miracles, it's still just a theory. Same with religion - that really is a life-long test. Until God or some other divinity strikes me down, I may never know. Maybe I have no faith, some say, but I have nothing tangible of that subject yet. Until I have something in my grasp, I've never really been sure of it. Love can be like this, too, as I've recently been handed that tidbit.....
I probably made no worthwhile contributions to your thought processes, but that's my $0.02. If I can get some spare time, I might expand upon my ramblings.