What is truth? Oh my…

I guess any seeker of truth seeker’s journey wouldn’t be complete without a long, boring, and elaborate description of what truth is. What is truth? Oh crap – mindblock. Let’s use google with the term “define: truth”

 # a fact that has been verified; “at last he knew the truth”; “the truth is that he didn’t want to do it”
# conformity to reality or actuality; “they debated the truth of the proposition”; “the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat”; “he was famous for the truth of his portraits”; “he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities”

Those were the 2 topmost definitions. It seems truth has two properties: verifiability and conformity. The literal definition of truth does not seem satisfying though. Most people believe in God, in life after death, that their shitty teams will win the upcoming sports event but the “verifiability” and “conformity to reality” properties of these truths cannot easily be verified. God has not come down from the heavens and in a massive show of lights and sound declared his/her/its existence to the world (at least in our current generation). Things like life after death cannot easily be verified either. Your dead relatives never come back in ghost form and give you detailed stories of the afterlife. Once people are gone in most contexts they are gone never to return to our arena of reality again. People often bet on sports teams which seem hopeless only to have them go on a winning streak or vice versa. The new agey among us believe in things like “unconditional love” and “law of attraction” but their “conformity to reality” factor is hotly debated. In fact most people would instantly summon mountains of evidence detailing how people would take advantage of us if we loved everyone and how we can’t create reality with our thoughts.

 Thus what people believe is true seems to create an alternate kind of truth – a relative truth. There seems to be what we call natural law though which are absolute truths. Things freefall on our planet at 9.8 m/s. The sky is blue. Standing in front of a bullet train will most likely get you killed. 1+1 = 2.

If truth is meant to be true in all contexts then are relative truths actually true? Or are they false and we are deluding ourselves? We can both watch the same movie and I can hate it while you would love it. The hate is my truth – it’s verifiable by my looks of disgust. The love of the movie is your truth verifiable by the fact you won’t shut up about it for the next half hour. Which one of us carries the absolute truth then? Which one of us is right? As I’ve argued many times before I think the absolute truth in this situation is that the movie is neither good or bad – it is what we internally label the movie which gives it the good or bad property. Thus the absolute truth of the matter is that there is no truth except that which we assign it.

If this is the case then is all truth subject to being false? Is there such a thing as truth? What is true for me may not be true for you. We could both read the same line of truth from someone and it would kill me but give life to you. That truth was their truth and it worked for them but it wouldn’t work for me. Is this truth then? Is anything true?

Is absolute truth REALLY absolute? We like to think 1+1=2 but I heard of a person writing a multiple page proof to prove (and others to disprove) this point. It seems if we think hard enough we can bend any truth we want to our liking. The paranormal among us can often predict the future and move things with their minds and do all sorts of other phenomena which would throw all our absolute truths out the window. If this happened then would absolute truth even exist as well? Would there be any such thing as truth?

Maybe truth is synonymous with statistical acceptability. In statistics anything with a confidence value of 95% is considered statistically true. Statistics seems to admit that the world is not perfect and for something to be truth it just needs to happen a majority of the time. 95% chance this venomous snake won’t kill you? This snake must be non-lethal then and that must be an absolute truth. Try telling that to someone on their deathbed from a snakebite from a statistically non-lethal snake.

If we would ask a child what is truth or ask a higher consciousness what is truth we’d come more to something akin to intuition. Thus this would throw our literal definitions of truth out the window. Truth would be something known to be true. And that’s it. Truth is the inner feeling inside us that tells us, “this is true.” Proof is not needed for truth – just confirmation by our inner beings. Have you ever had a hunch of intuition that turned out to be true? A feeling that we shouldn’t go here, shouldn’t do this, should do that, etc… that turned out to be true? In our thinking we like to say that the proof creates the truth but in the intuitive realm the truth creates the proof. Intuitives often know things to be true only to prove them logically later on. Logical thinkers need to create truth from the bottom up, building a new truth from a base of old ones. Intuitive thinkers need to create truth frop the top down, deriving a truth “known” to them as true then deriving a smorgasboard of verifiable and reality conforming truths beneath them.

How many of you have ever been wrong though? I’ve been wrong. In fact this whole site almost seems like the consequences of a man being wrong for most of his life. One interesting fact about being wrong though is that to be wrong you must once have thought yourself to be right. If you knew something you thought was wrong then you would not have really been wrong in the first place because being wrong implies making a mistake. If you did not make a mistake in the first place then you were never really wrong. In my mind being wrong = making a mistake by having something you thought of as true being false. I’ve had logical thoughts which I thought to be correct only to be proven wrong. I’ve also had intuitive thoughts which I thought to be correct be proven wrong as well. Thus it seems anything which is truth can be challenged – leaving no such thing as truth.

What is a way out of this paradox then? I think once again the “all is one” concept works best here. What is true and what is false seems to be a label we humans like to give to certain thoughts. I think there is really no such thing as truth and falseness besides the one core truth that all is one. All being one seems to be a very absolute truth – a core truth – the essence of truth. Only this concept can rectify the duality between true and false. We look at a statement and determine if it is true or false. In total truth though like the movie example paragraphs above maybe that statement is neither true or false and we just give it that labelling.

The above paragraph sounds like a self-sealing argument. And maybe it is but think about this. Does a self-sealing argument automatically make that argument false? Can’t something be true and self-sealing at the same time?

As an exploration exercise let’s take an absolute truth and skew it:

1 + 1 = 2 we take as true. We take this as verifiable by common sense. But I can raise a child from a test tube to death and teach them 1 + 1 = 3 by skewing their concepts of numeric order and math. I’ll just remove the number 2 from the number line in their minds. Thus 1 + 1 = 3 is an absolute truth for them since they don’t know about the number 2. Since 1+1 = 2 is untrue for this one individual we can no longer claim this to be an absolute truth. An absolute truth must be true in all contexts. Sure by consensus the 6.9 billion people – 1 test tube kid believes the number 2 exists on the number line but consensus does NOT imply truth. Consensus once thought the world to be flat. Consensus may satisfy statistical definitions of truth but it does not imply actual truth. We could raise an entire nation in a metal dome then ask them what color the sky is. The sky according to them is gray but the sky according to us is blue. Even if the people in the metal dome numbered 100 billion and the people living outside the dome numbered 34 the fact that 100 billion people think the sky is gray does not change the fact that it is actually blue.

 So what is truth then? I think when I say I am seeking truth I am seeking what is more accurately termed as “optimal payout”. Given a set of life choices – which one would bring me the most happiness? I don’t think one choice is any more right or wrong than another – they just all have different payouts. I could hold out a 1$ bill, 5$ bill, and a 1,000$ bill in front of you and ask you to take one. Taking the 1$ bill over the 1,000$ bill doesn’t make the act wrong in the highest abstract sense – it just gives off a non optimal payout. Is a coffee mug true or false? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous. A coffee mug just is – it has no property of truth attached to it. I think all things are like the coffee mug – maybe there is no truth except that which we define as true. And if this concept in fact is true then the entire notion of logic is gone then. And without logic we are left stranded on the open sea of possibility. I think this is why we are God – because we have the power to choose and imagine without constraint. Thus the search for truth is the search for our long lost God powers. This agrees with the fourth statement presented in the “Conversations with God” series:

Ours Is Not A Better Way, Ours Is Merely Another Way.


About this entry