Truth is an absurdity

[Kubrath]

You just said it, that there must be a universal truth.

Therefore, that there must be a universal truth, is a universal truth.

Yet that also implies that there is at least one other universal truth, else it would be false, or at best indeterminable. Thus, there exists some other universal truth. However, I can't tell you what that truth is.

Wrong, it could be a reference to itself.

[Salandriagado]

Yet that also implies that there is at least one other universal truth, else it would be false, or at best indeterminable. Thus, there exists some other universal truth. However, I can't tell you what that truth is.

Wrong, it could be a reference to itself.

Of course it could. This is why I shouldn't post after being awake for 24 hours.

[Normalism]

The statement "No truth is absolute" claims to be absolute. Therefore, by its own definition, the statement is not absolute, and can be twisted to "Truth is absolute."
Self-Destruct.

[Sociobiology]

The statement "No truth is absolute" claims to be absolute. Therefore, by its own definition, the statement is not absolute, and can be twisted to "Truth is absolute."
Self-Destruct.

This is the problem with trying to understand the universe with a brain evolved to find ripe fruit and scream defiance at the ape in the next tree.

[Kubrath]

The statement "No truth is absolute" claims to be absolute. Therefore, by its own definition, the statement is not absolute, and can be twisted to "Truth is absolute."
Self-Destruct.

This is the problem with trying to understand the universe with a brain evolved to find ripe fruit and scream defiance at the ape in the next tree.

You, sir, deserve a place in my awesome quotes section.

[Fusion Corp]

This is the problem with trying to understand the universe with a brain evolved to find ripe fruit and scream defiance at the ape in the next tree.

Don't want to take you out of context (which I will), but humans have evolved higher neuron densities at least 6 times since Australopithecus garhi.

Also, undeniable pillars exist everywhere, because mathematically (and meta-mathematically) certain things can be calculated. For instance, we know for 100% certain, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. 299 762 468 m/s is the mathematical interpretation, and you could pull a strawman and say that this is simply a symbol of a subjectively interpretable variable, but to that I say power to the zarith and that it is certain that the absolute truth is the hindu-numerical metric measurement system value that is scientifically and mathematically agreed upon at the present time is the speed of light in a vacuum, 299 762 468 m/s.
Damn, I started to sound like Kevin Rudd for a moment there.

[Salandriagado]

This is the problem with trying to understand the universe with a brain evolved to find ripe fruit and scream defiance at the ape in the next tree.

Don't want to take you out of context (which I will), but humans have evolved higher neuron densities at least 6 times since Australopithecus garhi.

Also, undeniable pillars exist everywhere, because mathematically (and meta-mathematically) certain things can be calculated. For instance, we know for 100% certain, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. 299 762 468 m/s is the mathematical interpretation, and you could pull a strawman and say that this is simply a symbol of a subjectively interpretable variable, but to that I say power to the zarith and that it is certain that the absolute truth is the hindu-numerical metric measurement system value that is scientifically and mathematically agreed upon at the present time is the speed of light in a vacuum, 299 762 468 m/s.
Damn, I started to sound like Kevin Rudd for a moment there.

No, it's entirely possible to create consistent mathematical structures of the universe with a variable speed of light. It's just that we're yet to see any evidence for them, they're mostly much more complicated and they require more weird assumptions.

[Person012345]

This entire post made no sense.

We not being able to grasp them didn't lead to them. Limitation did not lead to truth. Stop making idiotic nonsensical statements.

Once again you are reinforcing my view on logic. You do not possess the ability to understand my idea, this leads to you proclaiming that my statements are objectively nonsensical, implying that no one will be able to make sense of it. Your limitation has led to your belief that my idea is objectively nonsensical. Limitation has led to what you believe is the truth about my statements.

I'm so sorry that you can't understand this idea.

But you're claiming that they're not nonsensical. Thus my limitation has, according to you, not lead me to the truth. You've just destroyed your own argument.