> Nam Nguyen wrote: > >>Rupert wrote: >> >>>As I said, Nam Nguyen seems to be using "absolute truth" to mean >>>"something that is true independently of which semantics we use". >> >>Imho, formally, it's near impossible to *directly* define "absolute >>truth". On the other hand, if we *indirectly* define it as: anything >>that is relative is not absolute, then we have a good chance to >>indirectly understand "absolute truth". And relativity is something >>we could easily define up-and-down the ladder of mathematical >>introspection. For instance, the truth of 1 + 1 = 0 is relative >>to what formal system we choose, hence it can't be an absolute truth. >>Or the truth of (x=x) would depend on what logical system that's being >>assumed, hence it's not an absolute truth. etc... >> >>Imho, mathematical relativity could be grouped into 2 groups: >> >>a) interpretation/semantic-based relativity: this is when a truth value >> would depend on a reasoning being's (model) interpretation, or >> (semantic) interpretation. >> >>b) knowledge-based relativity: this is when knownability of the truth >> value would depend on the knowledge on the reasoning being. For >> instance, without loss of generality, let's k be a number so big >> that Prime(k) is unknown to human being, then Prime(k) is knowledge- >> relative. (If the theory is PA, then it's possible that PA can be >> inconsistent and in which case Prime(k), for there would be no >> model. But PA's shortest inconsistency-proof might be even >> longer than proof of Prime(k). Hence "Prime(k) is true" is a >> knowledge-based relative truth.) >> >>And again, the truth that is relative is not an absolute truth. >> > > All right, so this is one way of understanding what "absolute truth" > means. On this interpretation, in my view the question about whether > absolute truth exists is trivial. It is obvious and uninteresting that > no sentence can be true regardless of which semantics we use.
Then welcome to the (rebel) camp of relativity of truth and reasoning! (There are those who still insists on "universal truth" and "universal falseness"). Just curious though, do you happen to have another way of understanding absolute truth?
> >>>Obviously no such thing exists. >> >>I wouldn't go that far though. >>
> Why not?
On the account that I as a mortal being with limited knowledge and ability of making expressions, I couldn't tell if God exist - or not. So I couldn't go that far to claim if there *exists*, or not, an absolute truth.
You're the one who made such a claim, perhaps you could elaborate on the claim.