Posted: Feb 23, 2012 4:57 pm
HughMcB wrote:0/1 = 0 is not relative truth. There are some absolutes.

For the rest there is probability, which goes enormously against the existence of magical personal deities.

There's confusion about terminology here. You're calling an absolute truth one we can know with certainty. Nicko and chairman bill said that there might be absolute truths it was impossible to know. I'm saying all truth is relative to context - in the case of your example 0/1 = 0 in the context of the axioms in use. Different axioms, different theorems.

John P. M. wrote:logical bob, I think perhaps the others are trying to say "What actually is/was the case, regardless of opinion".
I suppose this is the same as a fact, though.

But in your ice cream example, there must be a fact about what happened to the ice cream. If the fact is that the ice cream was taken and eaten by the other person, then that fact is dubbed 'true' in parlance, isn't it?

If facts are all there is to truth then the idea is vacuous. "It's true that I took your ice cream" provides no more information than "I took your ice cream". As you say, it's parlance. Saying it's true that I took your ice cream might mean that I'm admitting it when I once denied it or that I'm about to offer some mitigation. Parlance shouldn't lead us to think that truth is the name of something which is out there.

Matthew Shute wrote:Do we need another re-run of this?

If people are coming in here and saying that an absence of absolute truth constitutes an absolute truth then perhaps we do.