On truth

Truth is a word that was thrown around quite a bit during the discussions. Tony also brought it up a few times during our discussions.

Many people in the class seemed to think that there is an absolute truth. I find that concept to be somewhat absurd. This truth would have to encompass everything, yet be something that can be stated concisely. Of course, this ultimate truth does not necessarily have to be conveyed by words. In fact, I would think that, should there be such a truth, it would have to be conveyed directly by thought. Language is too rigid and limited to be able to convey such knowledge.

I conceptualize words as being points that indicate a specific "location" of meaning, much like a pin on a map. Each word corresponds to specific coordinates along various axes of meaning. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, everyone places their pins in slightly different places. Therefore, communication through language has two essential problems. First, language is incapable of fully conveying an idea, because it cannot wrap itself completely around it. Thus, language only captures a fraction of the intended meaning. The second problem is that we cannot even agree on the meanings of words; people have different ideas as to what a word means. Everyone connotes their words differently. It often astounds me that we are able to be understood by others at all.

An absolute truth would be something wordless, something that would be impossible to express in words. Another issue is that this truth would have to be fluid. The universe is a constantly-changing place. Of course, this truth could incorporate the idea of the universe as dynamic. However, this would be a lazy shortcut. This concept of a truth being fluid goes against [my] idea of truth, as something that never changes.

To me, the only truth that could make sense in this framework is that the universe is the truth in itself. This idea came to me after hearing Borges' mapmaker story in class. An absolute truth would need to capture the entire universe (or perhaps it's a multiverse?), much like the mapmakers had to make a map the size of the empire in order to be satisfied. Therefore, the universe itself is an absolute truth, as it is the only thing that encompasses everything. I would think that the mapmakers in the story could not possibly have been satisfied with their map, as it would have been lacking in an infinity of details. Their map did not capture the location and positioning of everything single pebble or plant. It did not detail the molecular arrangement of these elements.

This search for an absolute truth seems absurd to me, as there are an infinity of details in the world that we cannot possibly hope to ever capture. How can we possibly know how big or small the universe is? Already, scientists have found that neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, such as quarks. What if there are smaller particles that form these quarks? Will we someday use smaller particles as the new standard for the smallest unit of matter?

What if our entire universe (as we currently conceptualize it) forms a single particle of matter in a yet bigger universe? Could higher forms of life be analyzing our universe, trying to understand how it fits together with other universes to compose their idea of matter? Food for thought.

In short, why bother looking for an absolute truth when we already have the universe in front of us?

The only truth that I am prepared to accept is that there is no truth.