August 4, 2007
Absolute Truth
Entry 25th March 2005
Absolute Truth
Q: What is Absolute Truth and how does it compare to basic truth?A: To explore Absolute truth, consideration as to what constitutes truth should be understood.
We can look at this from three points of view: Past, Present, and Future in relation to legal, scientific, and theistic absolute truths.LegallyIf we look at the legal area first we may start to understand that truth, or in this case absolute truth, is based on past events. After all the courts, particularly the criminal justice system, are based on discovering the truth of a given past event i.e. did I kill Mr. Jones.To expand: I dug a hole, bought a gun, loaded it, invited Jones for dinner, took him to the hole, shot him dead, and then buried him. Or so that’s what the prosecution claim. Is this true within the criminal justice system (CJS)?
The burden of proof is the moderator of truth. That is: if it is shown to the Jury, through presented artifacts that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ I must have done it, then I did. But this is not to say it is absolute truth. Simply that there is a high probability that it is true that I killed Jones. If the courts had to work on absolute truths then the fact would have to be true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. this can never be proven in legal terms as the future is not predictable.
However, if we look at Mr. Jones it can be argued that it is absolute truth that he is dead. He must be if his corpse is in the hole. But considering there is a probability that I may have shot another man, then nobody knows for sure Jones is dead. Even if Mrs. Jones testified and Mr. Jones’s dentist did too, this is not absolute as it can be disputed at some future date by new evidence – like Mr. Jones turning up five years later with a tan and a new wife.
Therefore, I doubt the notion of absolute truth in legal terms as there is the future that remains uncertain as long as the universe is around us.
Although this sounds absurd from the point of view that Jones’s body has been tested by all the tests known to man and the testimony of the experts points to Jones’ being dead there still remains uncertainty as to the future.
We should understand that a statement may be true – I did kill Jones, but there is no absolute truth as the future is not certain.
The only truth in my opinion from a legal standpoint is there is no absolute truth in legal terms, only a reasonable probability!
This is important as the areas covered in this BLOG are not of absolute truth…but merely of observation and research of others’ observations where I have no reason to dispute the their proof.One of the key points I am making here is if we are looking for absolute truth we should consider that the legal definition is based on probability of a past event. This is unlike the scientific method as science offers truth based on a yet to be proven falsehood. So let’s look at science to find the truth:
ScientificallyIf we look at this quest to seek absolute truth scientifically, which is where we may expect to find truth with directly observed proof, we may understand what constitutes truth. That is to argue that truth is a manifestation of currently observed proof, not, like law, a probability of a past event and facts.We know that the scientific principle is Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. We make a statement, we test that statement through experiment and observation within the physical world to prove the original hypothesis wrong, and if it becomes impossible to prove wrong then it must be true.In practical terms Einstein’s E=MC^2 is true by definition; that is it has been tested through experiment and observation, and currently proven not to be not true.But is this absolute truth?
It seems science may help us understand that the underlying principle for truth is proof as proof is not prone to our own subjectivity. That is, proof must be objective to be relied upon. This is the foundation of scientific fact!
We know for instance that life has five characteristics that have been observed in all living things, and as such an organism that displays all five is indeed alive. These characteristics being: Cells, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Metabolism, and DNA Heredity. I doubt people around me would suggest these tests are not objective. There would be no reason to set these tests any other way. Nothing thus far has disproved this theory nor put in to question these tests, and as such the five points applied to a human being means that it is alive and this has to be true. Until that is that person no longer exhibits one or more of the five characteristics where upon it would be true they are now dead. note, I’ve left the argument of Reproduction to one side as being infertile during any stage of life can not suggest the person is not alive; this is an absurdity…Let’s not go there!
But let’s not forget that truth is proven until it is proven no longer true – through a second truth that proves it false. And the second truth again may not reveal the absolute truth as it too can be discounted. This is correct in relation to Einstein’s argument that time is relative, where Newtonian physics stated it true that time is fixed. Newton was correct and his fixed time a truth but it was not an absolute truth as Einstein later discounted that as false. This suggests that scientific truth is relative based on current knowledge and observation that is restricted within the current observation frame.So science is not the place to find ‘Absolute Truth’.
Would theology be a better place to find Absolute Truth?
TheisticallyIf we ask the faithful if God exists would we expect to apply the scientific method to test. The hypothesis is that God indeed exists. The antithesis is that God does not exist. The observation is what? What is the test? what can the parties seeking Absolute Truth agree is the objective test? One might argue the existence of the complex universe we live in is the test, as this could only have arrived through intelligent design. This is one of the latest theories of the theist movement that attempts to offer an alternative to independent big bang non-theistic Darwinism. Einstein, The great theoretical scientist of our time may chip in and argue, as he did about Uncertainty Theory that “God does not play dice.” This is an indication that Einstein’s proof of the intelligent designer is such that: there is intelligence here so the universe with all its rules has to have been constructed under intelligent design. The probability of the universe creating itself as a random event is so infinitely beyond probability that it had to have been planned, Einstein may say.
But hang on! Is the fact that the universe exists and it is too complex to have arrived by chance a valid proof. After all I have just argued that truth is the result of proof and that the fact that something exists is by no means evidence of proof, merely an observed state.
Let me expand: If we theorise, test & observe, and conclude then we should be able to repeat that proof anywhere and obtain the same results. But to observe the Universe as is and suggest that this is proof of intelligent design without observing its construction, or in fact repeat its construction in a controlled environment, is absurd. Scientifically it merely states that the object exists as we know it - and yes, at this point in our understanding it is complex. Theistically the Universe is complex and although that complexity suggests intelligent design it still requires a ‘leap of faith’ the reconcile and intelligent creator.
To develop this point further we should look at the hypothesis that the Universe is not by intelligent design. As before the Universe exists and there was no observation of its design or creation. As such we can not prove that the Universe was created by another independent means. In fact there is no proof either way and as such one would argue there is no Absolute Truth here that God exists by means of the proof of the Universe’s complex existence.
What I am alluding to is theism is not Absolute Truth but merely a state of mind based on faith. We could go a great deal deeper here and discuss Freud in relation to Man’s pre-disposition to faith which in itself both ratifies and bolsters the view of the believer that what they have is Absolute Truth. That debate will follow in other areas of this BLOG.
But, for for millions around this Earth there is no doubt that a deity exists, has existed, and will continue to exist without any challenge. That to them is an Absolute Truth. So it may be that truth is not based on proof but something else.
These points suggest that those who accept that God exists without scientific proof, or legal probability accept that Truth needs no proof, artifacts or experiment.So what is Absolute Truth? Is it legal beyond reasonable doubt, scientific observation, or theistic faithful belief?
I believe that perception is the fulcrum that brings these forces together. What is true in my Universe may not be true in yours. Sometimes we share truth through shared objective proof and other times we don’t. But that is not to say where we don’t agree there is only one truth and one of us is wrong. We may easily both be right in relation to our perceptive frame…See Schrödinger’s cat for more detail on duality.So, in relation to this blog: The discovery of Absolute Truth is insurmountable since proof is only as good as the next proof that discounts the claim, AND is relative to the person who is looking for truth.
To clarify: I would argue that Absolute Truth is a state of belief that has the highest probability of Absolute Proof, that is observed and repeatable, at this time in my Universe. That does not deny others of their Absolute Truth being a faith leap through spiritual guidance within their perceptive frame. Although in general terms Absolute Truth is merely a state of shared Basic Truth with faith attached.
To conclude, the only time when absolute truth exists is when time itself ends. At this point there will be no possibility that a truth can be refuted. The problem is all energy and matter will be lost at that point. Sadly truth itself will be lost.