Absolute truth is...

... complete the sentence.

While reading portions of Frank Brady's excellent biography 'Bobby Fischer' (1974 UK ed.) I came across the phrase "the truth of the board" (p.268 final page).

It got me thinking as to what we perceive to be 'truth'. We see reflections of truth in a number of ways, e.g. the precision of mathematical formulae and scientific discovery, the harmony of music, the transcendent beauty of a beautiful painting or a brilliant game of chess, etc... they all contain elements of 'truth'. But how would we define the essence of truth in a few words?

Humorous posts are welcome as well (for in humour lies truth, to a degree).

Truth is what the Universe actually is.  If one would to perceive Truth, they could arguably be considered a God in human form.

Is that statement not contradictory?

Once you eliminate the impossible, what you have left no matter how improbable, is the truth. -  Sherlock Holmes

I guess you can apply this to Chess too. Eliminate the moves you can't make, shouldn't make, what's left is the right move. 

So after we eliminate all the moves that drop a piece or a pawn or leave some nasty hole in our position we play the only move that allows our opponent immediate chekmate.

I don't thik it is. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think that in the philosophy of science falsifiable statement is something that can at least in princible be shown to be untrue. Note that this doesn't imply that the statement actually should be false. For example the statement "objects dropped from the same altitude hit the ground at the same time regardless of their weight" is falsifiable because we can test it in practice and if we find even one exception to this rule then the statement must be false. An example of statement that might not be falsifiable is "there exists a God". Even if God didn't exist we might not have a method to prove this (at least I don't know how to do it).

I am aware of the "Holmes observation" (having read all of the detective stories more than once!), and although on the surface the rule seems to apply to chess in a deductive sense, I think the sheer variety of "possible" moves from any given position lie beyond the "deductive reasoning" comparison. Trying to find the "best move" is a process of elimination, but there is always more than one possibility, depending on the strategy being employed (e.g. sacrificing a piece for advantage). The human element is what makes the game of chess so intriguing, which raises an interesting question - do chess "engines" ever suggest a major piece (e.g.Queen) sacrifice? I don't use computer aid in my games, so I don't know - but I would suspect not.

Thanks for the comments so far.

Immanuel Kant tackles this very question in "Kritik Der Reinen Vernunft", Critique of Pure Reason (1787, 2nd ed.[1781]):

"..all attempts to employ reason in theology in any merely speculative manner are altogether fruitless and by their very nature null and void, and that the principles of its employment in the study of nature do not lead to any theology whatsoever.." (p.528), and:

"The transcendental idea of a necessary and all-sufficient original being is so overwhelmingly great, so high above everything empirical, the latter being always conditioned, that it leaves us at a loss, partly because we can never find in experience material sufficient to satisfy such a concept, and partly because it is always in the sphere of the conditioned that we carry out our search.." (p.518 - The Impossibility of the Physico-Theological Proof).. and..

p.519 "This world presents to us so immeasurable a stage of variety, order, purposiveness, and beauty... that even with such knowledge as our weak understanding can acquire, ..we are brought face to face with so many marvels... nothing has of itself come into the condition in which we find it to exist, but always points to something else as its cause, while this in turn commits us to repetition of the same enquiry. The whole universe must thus sink into the abyss of nothingness, unless, over and above this infinite chain of contingencies, we assume something to support it - something which is original and independently self-subsistent, and which as the cause of the origin of the universe secures also at the same time its continuance. ... we cannot, as regards causality, dispense with an ultimate and supreme being."

Which says to me that although we cannot prove there is a god through experiment (our means being too limited), we can assume the existence due to the complexity and beauty of life, matter, and the wonders of the observable universe.

We'll get back to chess just now. 

Going back to chess then. Absolute truth is knowing that:

(a) when your opponent's king is a square away; and

(b) his queen is close behind; and

(c) your king is backed into a corner; and

(d) it's his turn; and

(e) you're going to be so checkmated.

so true - might be best to fall on one's sword in such a position...

Nah, I just resign ..

No, it is precisely in accordance with the science philosophy of Karl Popper. A truth must be something that is falsifiable (meaning that there must be methods of testing whether it is true or not). If it is not falsifiable it becomes a matter of belief only, and falls outside the realm of science. Note that Padman added to the falsifiability that the truth is something that can withstand endless scrutiny! So it will be true after having withstood an infinite number of critical tests

Thanks for clarifying that Phobetrix. I understand "falsifiable" now. I see in a reference book some notes on his "theory of falsificationism", where it is stated that science is not certain knowledge, but a series of "conjectures and refutations," approaching, though never reaching, a definite truth. I find the subject most fascinating.

Actually, Shakaali already did a pretty good job in clarifying this. I was just accompanying his statement.

We often do not really need the absolute truth in our everyday lives, but a reasonable approximation suffices. For example, we do pretty well with Newton's laws of mechanics in our lives because we generally do not deal with extremely small (atomic scale) or extremely large (stellar) systems where the newer theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are required. These newer theories reduce back to Newtonian laws on the scale of our immediate interest.

Of course, if we follow up this view it simply means that there cannot be an absolute truth, except at infinity, which is never reachable by definition. However, there may be some consolation in the fact that most "absolute truths" as experienced today have an extremely high probability of being just that - the truth

Yes, Shakaali's note was helpful too. Thanks.

Although science may frown on absolute truth I think its a simple concept. Simply stated Absolute Truth is an undeniable, unvariable, unalterable permanant fact. ie 2 + 2 = 4

Sure! Science (as I understand it) does not frown on that. Your example is a statement that is falsifiable. Having tested it several times, I cannot falsify it. So, it is an absolute truth! (until someone shows that it is not quite correct )

Can anyone tell me what happens when something is divided by three? E.g. when we divide 10 by 3 = 3.333 recurring. What happens to the .001 or is it just understood that it's there somewhere? I suppose the remaining tiny fraction becomes infinitely smaller the more 3's you add. But does this mean we can't divide anything exactly by 3? Always wondered...

IF YOU KNOW please say .

Sure you can, try divide 9 by 3

Now you took the wind out of my sails, Phobe!!