While reading the gay post I noticed someone made a pretty profound statement about what truth is. Truth is defined as:
That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality.
With that definition in mind, and relating it to ANYTHING you want to relate it to, whether that be justifying homosexuality or the existence/nonexistence of GOD and/or the accuracy of the Bible, I want to know what YOU believe TRUTH is.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
While reading the gay post I noticed someone made a pretty profound statement about what truth is. Truth is defined as:
That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality.
With that definition in mind, and relating it to ANYTHING you want to relate it to, whether that be justifying homosexuality or the existence/nonexistence of GOD and/or the accuracy of the Bible, I want to know what YOU believe TRUTH is.

I think this is a very deep philosophical question...I also find it to be a very ironic subject to be discussing in the "politics" forum....:D

"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father except by me"

Jesus Christ.

This is a new one. Disuccsing truth under a politcs string. lol

Everone holds their own truth. JWJames truth about god is much different than mine. Ask 2 bystanders what happened after a trffic accident and you will get two different stories. Both are their truth.

pagan is gay: that is true

That's all I know.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, are the biggest FALSE Prophets of all time.

THank You once again Authentic for your own beautiful opinion. You know if you want to bash my religin do under the religion forum you crass asinine bastard. I swear you are a total nuisance to ALLforums. I ask a question about truth and you interject crap like that. You got some nerve!

welcome to ALL FORUMS.NET jwjames.....anal is a word you'll be subject to use a lot..............and thats the truth !

Everone holds their own truth. JWJames truth about god is much different than mine. Ask 2 bystanders what happened after a trffic accident and you will get two different stories. Both are their truth.

I would disagree. Both stories are not their "truth", they are their "opinions" about what truely happened. The only opinion that would be true would be the one that described what actually happened.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I would disagree. Both stories are not their "truth", they are their "opinions" about what truely happened. The only opinion that would be true would be the one that described what actually happened. I think now you're hitting on what is truly making a lot of the trouble for our society today. Everyone feels their OPINIONS are the truth and defends them as so. Hardly anyone leaves any room for doubt, because that is a sign of weakness in todays society, and for the most part people believe the person who seems most confident in their answers to problems.

Originally posted by Travh20
pagan is gay: that is true

Are you sure? How do you know? Is it "true" because you believe it to be, or because you know it to be? How certain do you have to be of something before it is "true"?

Originally posted by HaVoK
I think now you're hitting on what is truly making a lot of the trouble for our society today. Everyone feels their OPINIONS are the truth and defends them as so. Hardly anyone leaves any room for doubt, because that is a sign of weakness in todays society, and for the most part people believe the person who seems most confident in their answers to problems.

NOW we are geting into the meat of the question. Opionions are not truth but because of man's stubborness they refuse to believe the truth, which is...

Truth.

What a toughie.

Does truth exist? Conseptions of what is truth has been torn down as history has passed.
These days truth seems to be on the side of those with the most publicized voice or clout.
If truth exists it is twisted to prove a point, court rooms, politics, and mans-religions for example.
So called truths can be handed down from generation to generation until they become accepted principals.
How could one recognize a truth if presented? Some would say that a conclusion drawn after all evidence is presented would be a truth. The problem I see with this is that maybe the evidence was accepted but wrong. Or, new evidence presented later changes what is accepted as truth there-fore rendering the first truth as untrue.
One might state that the heart nows truth. But, the heart can be ruled by emotions leading to untruth.

Conclusion: There is no absolute truth! Truth, as beauty, is truely in the eyes of the beholder.

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the father except by me"

Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Christ is the truth, everything else is either opinion or retelling.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell

Conclusion: There is no absolute truth! Truth, as beauty, is truely in the eyes of the beholder. So you're saying all truth is ambiguous? It's only true because it's percieved that way?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Amen.

Christ is the truth, everything else is either opinion or retelling.

Well...that's one opinion...

To you, Pagan, it is my opinion. I know its the truth, but to you, its my opinion.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I know its the truth, but to you, its my opinion.

You don't know jere...you believe...

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You don't know jere...you believe...

Now, that is certainly, YOUR opinion.

hey , its like when jerry seinfeld was trying to figure out how to beat a lie detector. he went to george costanza because he figured if anyone could beat it, george could. george told him that the secret is " its not a lie,..... if you believe it ..........that is truth !

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Now, that is certainly, YOUR opinion.

Yes I suppose it is, but only because I can't get into your mind and ascertain the level of certainty within.

The kind of "knowing" you describe is a personal sort of knowing, and can also be described as opinion, or belief. There are different levels of certainty when trying to describe "truth".

Your outward expression of of your belief in God, the fact that you "know" he exists, is not for you, but for others to hear. It sounds nice but it has nothing to do with your inner feelings on the subject. You may "know" internally that he exists, but you can never communicate that depth of feeling to another in a way that will make them arrive at your level of certainty. Therefore it is more accurate to say to others that you "believe" he exists.

A person may "know" that God exists, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but one of these "facts" can be "known" with more certainty than the other. You say that God exists and that is "truth", and I say that it is not. We both (presumably) agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that is "truth". Is not one of these statements more "true" than the other?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Yes I suppose it is, but only because I can't get into your mind and ascertain the level of certainty within.

The kind of "knowing" you describe is a personal sort of knowing, and can also be described as opinion, or belief. There are different levels of certainty when trying to describe "truth".

Your outward expression of of your belief in God, the fact that you "know" he exists, is not for you, but for others to hear. It sounds nice but it has nothing to do with your inner feelings on the subject. You may "know" internally that he exists, but you can never communicate that depth of feeling to another in a way that will make them arrive at your level of certainty. Therefore it is more accurate to say to others that you "believe" he exists.

A person may "know" that God exists, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but one of these "facts" can be "known" with more certainty than the other. You say that God exists and that is "truth", and I say that it is not. We both (presumably) agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that is "truth". Is not one of these statements more "true" than the other? Prove the Earth revolves around the sun. What experience have you had in actually seeing the earth revolve around the sun? Or are you only telling me something we both have been taught? How can a statement be "more true" than another? If one is true and the other is not, then the other is false. Not "just" less true.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
A person may "know" that God exists, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but one of these "facts" can be "known" with more certainty than the other. You say that God exists and that is "truth", and I say that it is not. We both (presumably) agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that is "truth". Is not one of these statements more "true" than the other?

In your mind and feelings, one may be truer than the other.

Although they are both true, for some reason, you just deny the former.

A person may "know" that God exists, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but one of these "facts" can be "known" with more certainty than the other. You say that God exists and that is "truth", and I say that it is not. We both (presumably) agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that is "truth". Is not one of these statements more "true" than the other?
No, one of them is nothing more than belief. There are no varying degrees of truth, something is or isn't. Truth has to be provable, something founded within reality. Belief can be anything, and it may be true, but it is an unfounded truth that can't be held to the same regards as other truths. There is only fact and fiction, no semi fact, semi fiction. Fiction may have fact to it, but fact may never have fiction to it.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Prove the Earth revolves around the sun. What experience have you had in actually seeing the earth revolve around the sun?

It can be proven using observation and mathematics, although I will admit that such skills are beyond me.

Or are you only telling me something we both have been taught? How can a statement be "more true" than another? If one is true and the other is not, then the other is false. Not "just" less true.

There are many uses of the word "true", and while in the absolute sense something is either true or not, we regularly accept things as "true" that have varying degrees of certainty.

The problem is that our language is rarely used to describe things in absolutely accurate terms. If I were to ask you whether it was true or false that leopards have spots, the common answer would be that it was true, but that doesn't change the fact that some leopards don't.

This then brings up the question of how you can determine whether a given fact or concept is true if you don't have a reasonably concise definition for this fact or concept. Is a leopard defined by it's spots, or can it be a leopard without them? Does God exist if we have no definition for what God is?

The only point I'm making is that the difference between "knowing" and "belief" is a semantic one, implying varying degrees of certainty. Everyone must make the distinction for themselves as to what they feel they "know" and what they "believe", but what I was saying to jere was that when he says he "knows" that God exists, that statement wasn't made so he could put that knowledge into one category or another for himself. The statement is made so he may impress upon others his level of certainty. He feels that to tell people he "believes" shows a lesser amount of certainty than if he says he "knows", but it doesn't change his feelings on the subject one way or the other.

Yes vile, but then by your statements and mine in this thread we get into the word blibb used in his post.

Reality.

Truth and any other perception depends on the viewer's outlook as to what is reality. Psychiarty states that one that does not view reality as others see it as Schitzo.

My problem with this is that possibly there may be more than one truth to fit a particular situation.

The statement "I believe" is probably appropriate for most situations.

I believe that the earth does revolve around the sun. But, someday it may be proven that the universe was turning or some other thing that effected our perception of reality.

TRAV wrote:
pagan is gay: that is true

Hmmmm, a thread about "truth" and the only thing Trav can bring up is someone's sexuality.

And he said he does not want the gay issue constantly shoved down his throat, yet he brings it up anyway.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Hmmmm, a thread about "truth" and the only thing Trav can bring up is someone's sexuality.

And he said he does not want the gay issue constantly shoved down his throat, yet he brings it up anyway. didnt you know ? travh is the cog that keep this world turning .......lol

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Yes vile, but then by your statements and mine in this thread we get into the word blibb used in his post.

Reality.

Truth and any other perception depends on the viewer's outlook as to what is reality. Psychiarty states that one that does not view reality as others see it as Schitzo.

My problem with this is that possibly there may be more than one truth to fit a particular situation.

The statement "I believe" is probably appropriate for most situations.

I believe that the earth does revolve around the sun. But, someday it may be proven that the universe was turning or some other thing that effected our perception of reality.

Absolutely right Dan. What we perceive as true is limited by what we can preceive. Ultimately it may be that we are incapable of knowing "truth", but just a shadow of what is real.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
In your mind and feelings, one may be truer than the other.

Although they are both true, for some reason, you just deny the former.

I don't deny anything jere, you just think I deny God's existence.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I don't deny anything jere, you just think I deny God's existence.

LOL!!!

Well lets make this whole thing full circle.... I BELIEVE you deny God's existence.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
LOL!!!

Well lets make this whole thing full circle.... I BELIEVE you deny God's existence.

Find something amusing?

I have said in previous posts that I'm an agnostic, not an athieist. I don't believe that God exists but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong.

In this case at least your beliefs are completely wrong.

Since you seem to want to be rude, I'll return the favor and ask how is it that someone who claims to be as much of a Christian as you do is so unfamiliar with what the Bible says, and what it's trying to teach?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Find something amusing?

I have said in previous posts that I'm an agnostic, not an athieist. I don't believe that God exists but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong.

In this case at least your beliefs are completely wrong.

Since you seem to want to be rude, I'll return the favor and ask how is it that someone who claims to be as much of a Christian as you do is so unfamiliar with what the Bible says, and what it's trying to teach?

First of all, I wasn't rude with you.

2nd of all, I dont need favors from you.

Thirdly, I dont claim to be "as much" a Christian....no one is more of a christian than another christian. I just stand up for what I know is right in the Lord.

Fourthly, I am familiar with the Bible and what it is teaching. You may have forgotten that my number of years on this Earth to become a bible scholar are far below yours, however, nothing the bible says or teaches is going to change your mind about anything. Youre just going to keep up little comments for the sake of argue.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
First of all, I wasn't rude with you.

When you laugh at someone it's rude.

2nd of all, I dont need favors from you.

I didn't think you did, it was merely a figure of speech.

Thirdly, I dont claim to be "as much" a Christian....no one is more of a christian than another christian. I just stand up for what I know is right in the Lord.

The problem is that you want to preach about what you know, but not discuss it.

Fourthly, I am familiar with the Bible and what it is teaching. You may have forgotten that my number of years on this Earth to become a bible scholar are far below yours,

You don't seem familiar with the Bible because you claim something is from the Bible, and when asked for a reference you don't respond. If you can't provide a specific reference, perhaps you shouldn't try to say what the bible says.

however, nothing the bible says or teaches is going to change your mind about anything. Youre just going to keep up little comments for the sake of argue.

Jere, this is a forum for discussion.
Nobody is trying to start an argument, just a debate. This isn't a forum for you to tell us what God thinks or what he wants, it is a place to discuss those ideas if you want to. Nobody likes to be preached to.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
When you laugh at someone it's rude.

Wow, I wasn't aware that having a good time was such a bad thing, but hey learn something new everyday.

I didn't think you did, it was merely a figure of speech.

My apologies....


The problem is that you want to preach about what you know, but not discuss it.


You don't seem familiar with the Bible because you claim something is from the Bible, and when asked for a reference you don't respond. If you can't provide a specific reference, perhaps you shouldn't try to say what the bible says.

Like I have already stated to you, I may not have had years of rhetorical learning, where I can memorize word for word a scripture, but the meaning, and usually the gist of the verse stays with me. And the bible verses you asked for are all counted for on the other post.


Jere, this is a forum for discussion.
Nobody is trying to start an argument, just a debate. This isn't a forum for you to tell us what God thinks or what he wants, it is a place to discuss those ideas if you want to. Nobody likes to be preached to.

I am not preaching, Pagan, I am simply telling you what I know. ("Believe" to save argue)

Lets say 2 guys are out fishing and catch a 38 inch bass. They go back to the bar and tell their story. No one there believes them because they all know there is no such thing as a 38 inch bass. The story telling goes on for awhile then 1 of the 2 guys pulls out a picture{or even the fish it self}. The funny thing is there are still those that will not believe it to be true even with the evidence. humans truth will allways be in the eye of the beholder, truth is only true to the person that holds it.

Originally posted by mad dog
truth will allways be in the eye of the beholder, truth is only true to the person that holds it. But the question i have asked earlier and no one seems to want to answer or try to at least is this. If a person doesnt acknowledge that something it true, does that make the truth any less true? Or is this just another example of how todays bullshit PC society always allows for shades of grey to taint every judgement?

I mean, a spades a spade. We all know that is true. But i guarantee you there is someone out there willing to argue that just because i believe a spade is a spade doesnt make it true. And I also guarantee there is someone out there willing to defend the arguement.

(For those of you wanting to literally debate with me about the spade arguement, it was an analogy) :)

Originally posted by HaVoK
But the question i have asked earlier and no one seems to want to answer or try to at least is this. If a person doesnt acknowledge that something it true, does that make the truth any less true? Or is this just another example of how todays bullshit PC society always allows for shades of grey to taint every judgement?

I mean, a spades a spade. We all know that is true. But i guarantee you there is someone out there willing to argue that just because i believe a spade is a spade doesnt make it true. And I also guarantee there is someone out there willing to defend the arguement.


I'm not trying to be PC here HaVoK, but the nature of "truth" and "reality" are not the black and white issues that we all would like to believe, they are neccessarily perceived in shades of grey.

You can't discuss either one without taking the observer into account, because "reality" is defined by the person perceiving it. I don't mean this in a philosophical sense, but in a very solid physical one.

When you examine the nature of matter itself at the subatomic level, the act of observing a particle changes that particle. The nature of light is a good example. There is still debate as to whether light is a wave, or a particle, or some other form we haven't discovered yet. One strange thing about light is that if you set up an experiment to detect light "waves" you detect light as a wave, but if you set up an experiment to detect light "particles" you detect particles. Some sub-atomic physicists have come to the conclusion that "reality" is not what we observe, but rather, what we observe "becomes" reality.

This is bizarre I know, but there is no reason to suspect that this is just some strange sub-atomic phenomenon. It may be true of what we perceive in the macroscopic world as well. It may be that things are "real" only because we perceive them to be so, and if this is true, then your perception of reality may be just as valid as mine, even if they are different.

What a cool fuc**** post, Vile. That was a really neat analogy. :)

See Vile. I think people live in totally different worlds. In my world, right is right, truth is truth. No shades. I respect that not everyone believes this and aknowledge that sometimes i find myself in the minority in things i hold to be "truth".

It just boggles my mind sometimes that people can see the same thing i do and come up with such vastly different perceptions of the very same thing.

If i am not explaining myself very well, please forgive me but i cannot find the words to express my feelings.

If i am not explaining myself very well, please forgive me but i cannot find the words to express my feelings.

No, you're actually doing quite well. I understand exactly where you're coming from, and hell, a large part of me completely agrees with you. I'm blown away when I see a moron grab a spoon, and then swear, up and down, that it's a fork. (figuratively speaking, of course...)

I totally understand your point, HaVoK...

I just thought Vile's "shades of gray" analogy was really effective in helping someone understand the fact that truth can be somewhat subjective, given the right circumstances.

I love this post. But here's another question: seeing that most of you have answered about what you think truth is or isnt, what is there that mankind can really agree on? I mean if their is no truth does that mean that their is no false? Is everything wrong or is everything right? Are we living in anarchy, just believing its order? If the world is NOT black and white, then who has the right to make laws, since the world is everybody's own interpretation? My conclusion is that their has to be something out there that put right and wrong into our minds for us to dictate what truth is and isnt. Otherwise eventually mankind will eventually dissolve into chaos as everybody pursues their own versions of truth and order is destroyed. ABSOLUTE TRUTH MUST EXIST! Without this no laws exist period, whether made by man or the so called natural laws or the laws of physics.

Without some sort of truth, some sort of reality, what is there to say that all of you aren't just a figment of one another's respective imagination, as is the world and how we view it. This post is deep. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of this...

While I was in college, I used have chats like this. To me, it's starting to sound like one of those deeply extrospective conversations you'd have with a roommate right after you pulled a few tubes while watching a muted Teletubbies.

We must also be aware...that we aren't aware of very much.

Our senses are very limited. We see light as long as it falls within a very narrow wavelength band of radiation, we hear sounds in a very narrow frequency range, and our other senses are similarly very limited in scope. Our technology is such that we have just begun to build machines to increase the range of our perceptions.

Since our reality is defined by what we can perceive, it follows that we are just beginning to become aware of what reality is. As we increase the range of our senses, our reality will grow to encompass what we perceive, and it will likely be very different from what reality is now.

There is also the fact that we think and perceive reality in terms of four dimensions, yet there is no reason to suspect that reality is limited to those four. String theory supposes that the universe exists in eleven dimensions. What the additional seven look like, or how they interact with the four that I can perceive is way beyond me, but they might be there nonetheless.

or God could have just created the world and all in it and that could be truth...U know I had to throw that in! ;)

Originally posted by HaVoK

It just boggles my mind sometimes that people can see the same thing i do and come up with such vastly different perceptions of the very same thing.


How do you know that someone is seeing the same thing you do? What we see is influenced by where we are when we see it.

I read a book recently that had a section about Albert Einstein, and how he came up with the Theory of Relativity.

It describes a dream he had shortly before he started work on his theory.

(I must include a diagram for this to work so bear with me)

Sf--------A-----B-----C------e

In this dream, Einstein (e) came upon a mountain pasture, with an electric fence (dotted line), and next to the fence, were three cows (A,B,C). At the far end of the fence from where Einstein was standing was a shed(S), with a farmer (f) working inside. As Einstein watched, the farmer threw a switch activating the electric fence, and Einstein saw all three cows jump away from the fence at the same time. Einstein then walked over to the farmer and told him what he saw.

The farmer said "you're mistaken, when I threw the switch cow A jumped away, then cow B jumped away, and a second later cow C jumped away.

Thinking on this oddity, Einstein realized that as the electricity moved towards him at his end of the fence, it hit the first cow causing it to jump, and the image of that cow jumping moved towards him at the same speed as the electricity until it hit the second cow, causing it to jump and so on with the third cow. The images of the three cows jumping away from the fence all arrived at Einstein's end of the fence at the same time, causing him to perceive the cows jumping simultaneously. The farmer, who was standing at the other end of the fence, would have seen staggered images of the cows jumping away from the fence, because the electrical shock was moving away from him.

The point is, that they were both looking at the same "reality", just from a different perspective.

wow

Originally posted by Jwjames111
wow

Is that a good wow? :D

yes Vile it is an intellectual wow, as in I had no idea that happened

Originally posted by HaVoK
]But the question i have asked earlier and no one seems to want to answer or try to at least is this. If a person doesnt acknowledge that something it true, does that make the truth any less true?

If a person doesn't acknowledge something as being true then I quess it would be untrue to them. Like with my fish story 20 people end up believing that the fish was really 38", but 6 still say there is no such thing. They feel someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. The truth in this case is yes there was a 38" fish, but it still does not seem true to others.

Or is this just another example of how todays bullshit PC society always allows for shades of grey to taint every judgement?

I do understand what you are getting at here, but without shades of gray to we ever have other options? Lets say we never had a person disagree with folks of yesteryear would this still mean the earth is flat? Sometimes shades of gray can help in the learning process even if we don't like the outcome.

I mean, a spades a spade. We all know that is true. But i guarantee you there is someone out there willing to argue that just because i believe a spade is a spade doesnt make it true. And I also guarantee there is someone out there willing to defend the arguement.

I do understand what you are saying sometimes ya just want to hit some folks up side the head with a 2by4 just to get their attention.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Sf--------A-----B-----C------e

In this dream, Einstein (e) came upon a mountain pasture, with an electric fence (dotted line), and next to the fence, were three cows (A,B,C). At the far end of the fence from where Einstein was standing was a shed(S), with a farmer (f) working inside. As Einstein watched, the farmer threw a switch activating the electric fence, and Einstein saw all three cows jump away from the fence at the same time. Einstein then walked over to the farmer and told him what he saw.

The farmer said "you're mistaken, when I threw the switch cow A jumped away, then cow B jumped away, and a second later cow C jumped away.

Thinking on this oddity, Einstein realized that as the electricity moved towards him at his end of the fence, it hit the first cow causing it to jump, and the image of that cow jumping moved towards him at the same speed as the electricity until it hit the second cow, causing it to jump and so on with the third cow. The images of the three cows jumping away from the fence all arrived at Einstein's end of the fence at the same time, causing him to perceive the cows jumping simultaneously. The farmer, who was standing at the other end of the fence, would have seen staggered images of the cows jumping away from the fence, because the electrical shock was moving away from him.

The point is, that they were both looking at the same "reality", just from a different perspective.

Very good point Vile :), but I think what Havok is getting at is that the end result is the same, all 3 cows did move away from the fence. Some people would say no cows moved at all and they could be standing in either spot with the farmer or with E.

Havok I hope you didn't mind me speaking for you, and sorry if I'm wrong.

String theory supposes that the universe exists in eleven dimensions. What the additional seven look like, or how they interact with the four that I can perceive is way beyond me, but they might be there nonetheless.

It's beyond everyone but Stephen Hawking. It's not meant to be understood by individuals with a limited understanding of quantum physics. You or I need not apply...

Originally posted by mad dog
Very good point Vile :), but I think what Havok is getting at is that the end result is the same, all 3 cows did move away from the fence. Some people would say no cows moved at all and they could be standing in either spot with the farmer or with E.


Did they move? If you were standing behind the cows and could not see them move, would they have in fact moved? Perhaps, perhaps not.

The main point here is that our "reality" is defined by what we can perceive with our senses. If we see something different from another person, who's to say what is real and what is not? Whether we want to admit it or not, "reality" is completely subjective, and we can't even trust our own senses to tell us what is "real" and what is not.

This means also that the question of whether there is an underlying "truth" to everything, is simply an invalid question, unless you specify from what perspective that "truth" is to be ascertained.

As much as we disagree, Vile, I’ve come to the realization that your brain works quite well in realms outside that of politics. That was a neat perspective to put on the individual perception of how “truth” and “reality" can differ, and despite the fact that you dislike me; I just wanted to let you know that I'll continue to respect you on a somewhat limited basis because you're a pretty smart dude.

Cheers. :)

Well...er...thanks...I think...:D

BTW, I don't dislike you, I dislike some of your ideas, and the way you choose to express them from time to time.;

While the theory of relativity does hold true in countless experiments, it doesn't necessarily pertain. Philosophically you may think it sounds nice, but even though percieved reality is different to all, it doesn't deny the fact that there may be an absolute reality. A person standing directly behind one cow may say that the cow didn't move, but his percieved reality does not match up with the absolute one, the cow's. We can look on something and see it different than someone else, but somewhere something true, the individual where the thing was acted upon. The theory of relativity was based off that light does not move infinitely fast. The absolute truth is at the origin. That makes sense in my head... did that come out right?

Well Blib, I wasn't using the example with Einstein to show that the Theory of Relativity was relevant. I merely used the example of his dream because it's an excellent example of how our perceptions can be influenced by our perspective.

If in fact there is an absolute reality, it may be that we will never know what it is, because we are limited in our perceptions, and by our perspective. An "absolute reality" by its very nature would not be a local concept, but rather a universal one, and unless we can examine this "reality" from all places in the universe simultaneously, I can't see how this reality would become known to us. In essence, we would have to see the aforementioned fence episode from the perspective of Einstein, the Farmer, and the cows, all at the same time, and this is not possible.

If in fact there is an absolute reality, it may be that we will never know what it is, because we are limited in our perceptions, and by our perspective. An "absolute reality" by its very nature would not be a local concept, but rather a universal one, and unless we can examine this "reality" from all places in the universe simultaneously, I can't see how this reality would become known to us. In essence, we would have to see the aforementioned fence episode from the perspective of Einstein, the Farmer, and the cows, all at the same time, and this is not possible.

Well stated!

Actually our limited perspective can also assist us in determining truth. We can only manipulate three dimensions, yet we can see the effects of the rest of them. We can't manipulate time, but we can tell what it does. To determine the truth of the cow situation you wouldn't need all forms of perspectives, only the one which it is enacted upon. If your observing something, you may miss details, see something wrong due to where you are, distance, etc. However you know what happens if it happens to you. So, there is an actual truth that can be determined, not distorted due to perspective. We don't need to know everything, just what happened, from where it happened at. This is different than observation, or piecing together peices of information to find the whole picture, it has to be captured at one time. In essence determining truth is experimental science, not history, philosophy or descriptive science.

If our limited perspective actually assists us in determining truth, that will only apply in a very limited number of circumstances, namely, those circumstances where we can insinuate ourselves directly into the situation we want to observe. In the "cow and fence" problem, you may be able to take the place of one of the cows, but this will only tell you the partial truth, i.e., what happened to that one cow. It will not tell you what happened to the other cows.

As to discovering "truth" through experimentation, this works only up to a point as well. Experiments are conducted to test hypotheses, and thus are set up with a predetermined result in mind. This can cause problems in itself, as mentioned in the previously mentioned light experiments. It is conceivable that the experiment itself can affect the results.

Hey, I never said knowing what happened to one cow would tell you what happened to the rest! The truth to the rest is undetermined, if we are the cow, we only know what happened to us, the rest is observations and guesses. Therefore the truth is there, it's just in somebody else's mind. I propose sticking mind readers in everybody's brain :D

Having a specific hypothesis might intefere, a little. Most hypothesises are not specific though, mostly along the lines that something will happen. Now mathematic proofs that we are testing, yeah, those are generally specific, but most people don't believe them, I think one person doing the test believing it and one doing the test not believing it evens it out? Besides, tests are done hundreds, maybe thousands of times. The bias is really insignificant that many times. The experiment affecting it? That's what controls are for, there might be other variables that you are unaware of, but most likely they will not affect it all those hundreds of times the test is preformed.

When we are talking about "absolute reality", this is not something that can be proven through experimentation, because if you eliminate the question of perspective by becoming the observer, you eliminate the global nature of "absolute reality" by localizing the observation.

That's not locallizing it. It's taking a specific instance of the absolute reality. Taking a microscope to a bacteria sample and zooming into one spot is not changing the rest of it, it doesn't make the rest of it any less not there, it's just observing one section of the whole. Er, unless you're looking at protons, because you have to fire a proton at it and it moves it, and er... that doesn't pertain.

That's the point though...with any observation or experiment, you'll never get the whole picture. The best you can do is infer how your observation of the part relates to the whole. Add the fact that you must guess as to what effect your perspective has on the observation, and your certainty level drops even further. And again, if we're discussing "absolute truth", there can be no uncertainty allowed.

We're not looking at the whole. We're simply looking at ourselves. Doing that doesn't change the absolute. We may not know the reality a million light years away because it is not occuring to us, but we know what is enacted on us. That is still a part of the absolute. Besides, absolute does not mean infinite(the universe). It merely means pefect, so we don't have to look at everything else, we can have uncertainty about everything else in the universe except ourselves, and it is still absolute.

I'm not just talking about "absolutes"....I'm talking about "absolute truth"...in other words a "truth" that trancends the self. A truth that exists for everyone, everywhere. By it's very nature "absolute truth" will exist regardless of who you are, how you observe it, and where you observe it.

We are talking about absolutes. Absolute truth is not a word, it doesn't have a special deffinition. It is a perfect, complete, certain truth. It doesn't have to have everything, not the stuff that doesn't pertain to it. We don't need to know the absolute truth of something a million light years away just to know the absolute truth of what is happening to you. Of course absolute truth will exist regardless of who you are or where you saw it. Your's may be distorted though, due to other circumstances, so it is not absolute regardless of an observer's position. That's what I was saying. Regardless of observation, something happened. The one who has the absolute truth is the one that it happened to, the others just have ideas, pictures, possibilities. It may have been changed due to perspective. But the absolute truth happened to that person. And no amount of guesswork on the hands of an observer will change that.

For my definition of truth, it would be: Truth is whatever is accepted/believed. If you say you didn't do something and everyone believes it, then it is true, if people however believe that you did do it, then that is true and you are lying. Look at havok's quote by napoleon. Same deal. So, whatever you can make people believe in is what you make to be true. Think about it, if people didnt think Rome was an empire, it wouldn't be. People would rebel, and they would be crushed. But, because they won all these battles and made people believe that they had to follow Rome, it became an empire.

Second, I don't believe time is a dimension. At least in the form we know it in. Time is man-made thing to help us organize. Time can be manipulated. Look at Tivo. I can pause fast fwrd and rewinde 'live' tv with the push of a button. Seriously, if I increase speed i slow time, at least around me. If I increased the speed of everything enough, in theory, I could stop time. And also, time is not an absolute like the other 3 dimensions. Time is all relative, much like truth.

Time is just natures way of preventing everything from happening at once. :D

Truth is whatever is accepted/believed. If you say you didn't do something and everyone believes it, then it is true, if people however believe that you did do it, then that is true and you are lying.
I think that's history. "History is the lie commonly agreed upon." - Voltaire(Napoleon stole it from him). Truth is seperate, history may be the truth, but the truth is not always what's in history. Such the distortions of observance instead of experience.

Now then, on time... Time is generally regarded as the fourth dimension, a dimension is nothing more than a direction you can move in, we can move in three, we exist in the third dimension. Current theory is that strings can move in 11 to 13 dimensions. Time can move in four, it is the motion of our three going forward, kind of. As for TiVo, uh, you aren't stopping live play, you are playing back a recording, you also can't fast forward farther than the broadcast has actually gone. As for increasing speed, you don't slow down time, you slow down your perspective of time. Time is not modified, just the light is. Light has a set speed, it doesn't get faster as we get closer to it, therefore since you are capable of grabbing the light sooner after it leaves it looks like you just slowed down everything around you. Thus, if you increased your speed up to the speed of light, you don't stop time, you stop your existance. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, current guess is that the particles in the atoms move at the speed of light, and if you get faster than that, you just left behind your entire matter make up.

Time is just natures way of preventing everything from happening at once.
What if it is? As humans in the third dimension we cannot manipulate the dimensions higher than us. We may be stuck on a certain place in the fourth dimension that moves in the one direction that we consider time, another section of three dimensional space may move another way. And on the fourth dimension they may be moving in all four directions at all times. Atoms in the third dimension are constantly vibrating in the three. And strings are supposed to vibrate in all 11(12, 13, whatever), making up all actions with exactly how they vibrate.

how dare you imply Tivo isnt actually stopping time!!!