What is universal truth?

[Brooke Curto]

Yes, this topic is very broad but it has been the question that MANY people have tried to slove, but could not. Let's see who tried and came close... Socrates, Aristotle , and Plato. Plato had is allegory of the cave, but I am putting this debate up here so we could possibly brainstorm what truth might be and how to possibly find it! May the truth be with you :P ~

-Brooke "Alexios I" Curto  

^yes Alexios I was the king of Byzantium during the crusades XD 

**bad grammar may cause bleeding, narsissem, excessive laughter , unexpected Charlie horses, addiction to Dr. Who, strange affinity to fluffy pillows, seeing water talk to you, think that Kony is your best friend, pains in your neck, bloating, and voices telling you that you are the son of God... Please contact your doctor immediately if you suffer from any of these symptoms !**

[KevinC]

If it doesn't work with all physical objects then it is not universal or an absolute truth... Ignoring certain physical objects doesn't make them disappear and retreating from the physical world doesn't enable a term to be universal. By definition an absolute truth or universal term has to apply to everything, nothing can be tested against the claim and found to be incorrect no matter what realm/dimension or order of abstraction it comes from.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Here's the thing though, you are redefining "+". Plus does not mean mix, If you have two plastic cubes of water, and two plastic cubes of alcohol, you will have four plastic cubes. Plus is not the same as mix. 2+2=4 is universal.

[KevinC]

You can't add or plus liquids without mixing them. 2 cubic centimeters of H2O added to 2 cubic centimeters of H2O manages to give you 4 cubic centimeters of H20 so adding liquids by mixing them doesn't invalidate the initial statement.

The point is that there are limits to what any terms can be true for, even the law of gravity. Therefore they are unable to be universal or absolute because there are cases where they don't work.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You can't add or plus liquids without mixing them.

Yes you can. Imagine four little cube containers of liquid. There. You've done it. You didn't have to blend them.

[Nelson]

To address a few points:

Furthermore, please explain how 2 cubic ceintlitres of water plus two cubic centilitires of alcohol does not give you four cubic centilitres of a water alcohol mixture.

Volume contraction. This has to do with the relatively open 'structure' of water which has a lot of hydrogen bonds. Alcohol changes this structure and allows for a liquid with a different density and thus a different volume than the sum of its individual parts.

If it doesn't work with all physical objects then it is not universal or an absolute truth...

It doesn't work for volume, but for mass and number of molecules it still works (2 moles water + 2 moles ethanol = 4 moles water + ethanol (1:1). Thus it still is valid for physical objects, the only thing is that its not valid for all units of measurement or properties of physical objects, while it still is true for others.

Yes you can. Imagine four little cube containers of liquid. There. You've done it. You didn't have to blend them.

A chemist would disagree with you, and as a biologist I disagree as well. However, the debate is going into semantics now, which is generally better to be avoided. But I'll grab this bait for once...

Addition is defined as the operation of combining collections of objects together into a larger collection. It is not defined how this operation should take place. A chemist would use addition (+) to create a collection of molecules where the molecules can come into contact with each other and allow for the ability to undergo chemical reactions. For instance 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O, or 2 moles water + 2 moles ethanol = 4 moles water + ethanol (1:1). However, when chemical reactions enter the picture we're strictly not talking about addition anymore since this violates the associative properties of addition, because here the order matters. When mixing something and no reactions take place the associative and commutative properties aren't violated and we're still validly talking about addition.

However, someone collecting sand from places that they have been to would like to keep all the different kinds of sand in separate containers and keep them that way. So then we would have: Collection at time A + sand from previous travel = collection at time B.

Here's the thing though, you are redefining "+". Plus does not mean mix

TL;DR: Stupid semantics debate is stupid and no one is redefining anything.

[John Eric Tiessen]

Oh, sorry didn't read your comment. Mine feels kind superfluous now. I like your explanation too though.

If I could give you a fist bump while yelling "SCIENCE" I totally would.

[Nelson]

*fistbump*

Thanks though for the more elaborate and informative response.

[John Eric Tiessen]

Excuse me while I drop the science:

Liquids are very different from solids in that they behave almost exclusively in 2D planes. Water and alcohol both form columns when their ability to move to the lowest possible energy level is restricted by things like a measuring device. In practical terms what the liquids are doing is forming millions of sheets atoms thick in which the molecules move around in a lateral pattern. By mixing these two liquids you change the geometry of the planes in which they are being stacked. This can lead to more efficient packing of the molecules and thus they can take up less space.

However:

2 moles of alcohol gas at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) and 2 moles of water gas at STP will result in a mixture that contains 4 moles worth of atoms.

The problem with the way that you were looking at the problem is that you assumed that adding up 2D objects would result in a predictable behavior in the third dimension which honestly is kinda stupid.

[CD]

Do imaginary numbers represent quantity?

What quantity is null?  Is the average a quantity, or does it represent something else, like the aggregate of a quantity, but not the quantity itself?

[Ollie]

Depends what truth is. We have the laws of physics which govern the things we see in uniform predictable patterns that we observe. But then we have our morality laws to dictate how we act and make sure we act properly. 

A univeral truth is hard because it depends on what area of life you are talking about. In certain areas it is a matter of opinion dependant on your environment and what has impacted on your life.

[John Eric Tiessen]

With regards to my original 2+2=4 comment:

People are trying to argue that the above is not always true. Well allow me to give you a little more definition to which this truth applies. The above is true for any system in which distinct bodies can be determined and which can maintain their properties. i.e. are unchanging. This is why you can say that 2 atoms and another 2 atoms makes for 4 atoms. However, you cannot use this for speed! 2m/s+2*10^8m/s does not equal the speed of light plus two meters per second. It equals the speed of light. This is because velocity is a property that goes into a 4th dimension, but we measured it in two. Notice that I said meters per second? Effectively I am measuring the speed of light by with two dimensions, one of length one of time. However, velocity effects all 4 dimensions. This is known as the theory of relativity.

Here is a video to help you understand:

Theory of Relativity

As you hopefully now understand, the dimensions you use to measure a quantity directly affect the meaning of the number that gain when adding into a higher dimension. This is why the water and alcohol argument from earlier doesn't really work.

A little food for thought. If 2+2=4 wasn't true for the whole universe than things like gravity fields and the speed of light could be different in different parts of the universe. If that were the case we would be able to observe galaxies traveling faster than light and stars evaporating due to gravity not adding up in some places.

Some other universal truths:

Maximum speed in universe/speed of light: 3*10^8 meters per second (I rounded, shoot me!)

Volume of one mole of gas at STP: 22.4 Liters

gravitational constant: 6.67300 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2

[KevinC]

All you are doing is saying that it is true within constraints. I am saying that because you have placed constraints on it that it is not an absolute or universal truth, it is relative to the conditions defined.

Alfred Korzybski covers Non-Aristotelian Systems in his book Science and Sanity.