4 ms·

1. There are no absolute universal truths. 2. There are only at best absolute local truths i.e. truths which are truths only in a limited local subsystem of th

1. There are no absolute universal truths. 2. There are only at best absolute local truths i.e. truths which are truths only in a limited local subsystem of the entire possible universe. The moment you consider a larger enclosing system of which the local subsystem is only a part then the truth may cease to be. 3. One should be comfortable believing that contradicting truths can co-exist. It is the limitation of the human mind to resolve the contradictions.

danbruc 12y ago
Your second point is a complicated thing - while it is true that everything may be different when you go far enough away it is also true that the assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the (observable) universe is a foundational pillar of science.
- vishalchandra 12y ago
  The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere is equivalent to saying that there are universal truths which I agree with. Second point only highlights our limitations (due to limitations of local observational capability only) to stating those laws of nature / universal truths with enough degree of correctness so that they may really be categorised as universal truths.
Broken_Hippo 12y ago
nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Basic discordian philosophy.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Interestingly, you state #1 as an absolute universal truth. In this, I think that your position is self-contradictory. There is a reality that exists. Statements are true or false to the degree that they conform or fail to conform to the reality that exists. The problem is knowing to what degree a statement conforms to the truth of what exists...
- yetihehe 12y ago
  I've seen nice summary of #1 in one sentence: All generalizations are wrong, including this one.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    Yes, but instead of being self-contradictory, now it's special pleading.
- vishalchandra 12y ago
  But you do not take into consideration #3 when trying to 'appreciate' #1

danbruc 12y ago

Your second point is a complicated thing - while it is true that everything may be different when you go far enough away it is also true that the assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the (observable) universe is a foundational pillar of science.

vishalchandra 12y ago
The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere is equivalent to saying that there are universal truths which I agree with. Second point only highlights our limitations (due to limitations of local observational capability only) to stating those laws of nature / universal truths with enough degree of correctness so that they may really be categorised as universal truths.

Broken_Hippo 12y ago

nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Basic discordian philosophy.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

Interestingly, you state #1 as an absolute universal truth. In this, I think that your position is self-contradictory. There is a reality that exists. Statements are true or false to the degree that they conform or fail to conform to the reality that exists. The problem is knowing to what degree a statement conforms to the truth of what exists...

yetihehe 12y ago
I've seen nice summary of #1 in one sentence: All generalizations are wrong, including this one.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Yes, but instead of being self-contradictory, now it's special pleading.
vishalchandra 12y ago
But you do not take into consideration #3 when trying to 'appreciate' #1