Is Finding Absolute Truth Possible?

We live in an age of Weaponized Postmodernism. Activist philosophical ideas are constructed specifically so that they roughly resemble rationality, yet their progress and their purchase on society explicitly depends on invoking irrational responses in both their adherents as well as opponents. And the primary philosophical tool being employed to deconstruct meaning in our society is Moral Relativism.

While the thoughts of the Militant Postmodernists lie at the fringe, and don’t really have a great deal of intellectual purchase, they seem to be taking over our institutions like a disease. This is precisely because they appeal to power, or fear, rather than to reason. It takes a great deal of time to deeply reason through a matter, but it takes no time at all to know when you feel threatened.

Challenging this onslaught of irrationality with reason seems fraught with certain failure, particularly when almost every reasonable attempt to combat an idea like Moral Relativism seems to end up invoking Relativism to some extent.

Is it even possible to construct universally true statements about morality?

I believe that the answer to that question is yes.

And I believe that answer is to fight Relativism with Relativity.

Relativity is the Answer

When I say ‘Relativity’, of course I’m referring to the Theory of Relativity. My intent in this article is to create an abstraction of the scientific theory, and distill Relativity into a set of ideas and methods that apply generally to any act of Truth Finding.

So, what’s the difference between Relativism and Relativity? Sounds exactly the same, right? Well, there’s a similarity for sure, but the difference in final outcomes are dramatic.

Relativism, as well as Relativity, both seek to provide a way to reason about the fact that we tend not to always agree about things that we think are true, by explaining the role subjective experience might play. And this is about as far as the similarity between the two ideas go.

Relativism, after successfully appealing to subjectivity, never introduces a clear boundary for distinguishing what is objective. This means that it leaves an open door to the idea that Truth itself is subjective. Most appeals to Moral Relativism don’t actually take this extreme, but just the existence of the extreme renders Moral Relativism useless in terms of actually adding any meaning, even to our subjective experiences.

The only tool Relativism may employ to add meaning is the making equivalent the validity of different individual experiences. That isn’t that bad on the surface, right? It implies we all share a human bond. It backfires for Relativism, though, because it ends up being the same tool eventually used to remove meaning. Here’s how: Even if most people don’t take Relativism down the extreme road to meaninglessness, the ones who do claim just as much validity as everyone else. The end result is always a pulling down of meaning, and never a lifting up. Our individual experiences end up being equivalent, only in that they are all equivalently meaningless. In the words of a Disney villain, “If everyone is Super, then no one is”.

Relativity, on the other hand, is absolutely the most successful tool we have at explaining, not only the differences inherent in truth observed by subjective observers, but in establishing how to distinguish the subjective from the objective. With this barrier in place, the road to meaninglessness is closed.

Relativity, in describing the nature of the intrinsic conflict arising from subjective interpretation of truth, ends up also providing a mechanism for resolving those conflicts successfully – a feature not shared by Relativism.

Finally, where Relativism can only lead in one direction to meaninglessness, Relativity, almost counter intuitively, becomes the very language of articulating, and even discovering Absolute Truth.

Fundamental Intrinsic Conflict

The core question that is addressed by Moral Relativism is the fact that we tend not to agree. There are, of course, large scale disagreements about Morality between cultures, but we even have small scale disagreements between individuals belonging to the same culture. The primary usefulness of Relativism is then to reason about the source and nature of these disagreements.

Now, there really is something to be said about this. If you believe that there really are Absolute Truths, then you’ll need to honestly tackle the tough problem of explaining why we can’t seem to agree about what the Absolute Truths are.

As it turns out, we disagree, not just about the ephemeral truths of politics and religion, but we also disagree about things that we can very rigorously quantify.

I’ll provide an example of such a quantifiable disagreement.

You are on the freeway driving 60 mph, which the cop, whose car is cleverly hidden behind the billboard, can measure very accurately with his radar gun. However, there is also a robber driving the opposite direction toward you at 60 mph – conscientious of abiding traffic law during his getaway. If the robber, from his moving vehicle, uses the same type of radar gun to measure your speed, he would clock you going 120 mph.

So who is right? The cop, who measures your speed at 60, or the robber, who measures your speed at 120? The radar gun really says 60 for the cop, and it really says 120 for the robber.

Now, you may think this conflict is trivial. But it is a conflict, an intrinsic conflict, over something that is very quantifiable. Both measurements are what we would call “fact”, and yet they do not agree. I’m now going to claim that this conflict has a reasonable similarity to the kinds of conflicts we have with discussions of politics and religion. In particular, there are elements of all of these conflicts that are actually intrinsic and fundamental.

What is interesting to me about this conflict, is that each person is observing something very real, and those observations look very different, even though both parties are observing the very same thing. This conflict cannot be resolved simply by telling each observer to stop disagreeing with the other. It also cannot be resolved by determining which of the perspectives is correct, and which is incorrect.

The resolution to this conflict begins by understanding that the difference in faithfully reported observations can be entirely accounted for by the fact that there is a difference in the perspectives and state of the observers.

This is the principle of Relativity.

Observation vs. Truth

The number on the radar gun, either 60, or 120, is a measurement, or what I’m going to call an Observation.

What is the difference between Observation and Truth? I’m reserving the word Truth to mean something that we can all agree on, regardless of who, what, when, or where we are. An Observation, on the other hand, is the subjective manifestation of that Truth, which depends on the subjective state of the Observer, and so it’s something we will very likely disagree on.

Galileo, in the 1600’s, wrestled with the fact that our measurement of speed comes into conflict, and ended up formulated a principle which has become known as Galilean Relativity. Not only does this principle rigorously articulate how to reason about disagreements in the measurements of speed, but it identifies the actual Truth of this matter. A Truth, which any of the observers involved would be able to agree on.

Galilean Relativity states that Newton’s Laws are the same for each of our observers (so long as they are not accelerating). It is Newton’s Laws, then, that are the Truth of this matter, not the measured speed of the car. In the language of Relativity, an Absolute Truth is called an Invariant. Galilean Relativity states that Newton’s Laws of motion are Invariant in every non-accelerated perspective.

Newton’s Laws: Truth.
Measurement of Speed: Observation

We can now describe the latent fallacy that has allowed Moral Relativism to viciously strip meaning and value from our society and institutions.

The fallacy is this: Observation is conflated with Truth.

Without making the proper distinction between Observation and Truth, an entirely reasonable statement such as “Observations necessarily depend on the perspective of the Observer” is mutated into the hideous “Truth depends on the perspective of the Observer”, which is on the steeply descending road to saying that Truth, itself, is just a social construct, and therefore, arbitrary.

Resolving Conflict

I keep talking about resolving the intrinsic Observational conflict, but how exactly is that to be done? Especially if the conflict really is intrinsic. Relativity really does provide the answer here. Let’s introduce one more example.

Two friends on diametrically opposite sides of planet earth walk out onto their respective front porches, look around, and take a deep breath. One friend calls the other on the phone.

“What a beautiful sunny summer day!”, says one friend.

“No, it’s actually a refreshingly cool winter night.”, the other friend says.

Now, how useful will it be for these two to try and convince the other that they were wrong? Will they share “facts” with each other, in an attempt to persuade? Will they start trying to gather consensus among the people who agree with them? Will they feel threatened by the lack of agreement? Will they start getting ugly, start defaming, discrediting, or silencing each other?

Will these friends ever agree? No. Their observations will always be exactly opposite, just like their placement on the planet is always exactly opposite.

So how does Relativity resolve this conflict?

Galilean Relativity prescribes a solution, at least in the case of disagreements over speed measurements. This is called the velocity addition law. It’s a mathematical statement about how, if you know the velocity of the alternate observer, can figure out what they will measure. So, the cop, knowing the speed of the robber, can predict that the robber will measure 120 mph.

Generalized, the solution to the conflict is always to account for the difference in the Observers, and then to employ that difference in order to transform one Observation into the same space as the other Observation. If both Observations were based on Truth, and if differences in Observations are entirely due to differences in Observers, then if they are transformed into the same Observation space, they should match each other.

The two friends on opposite sides of the earth can resolve their conflict, by imagining what they might observe if they were standing at the position of their fellow, and comparing that result to what was actually reported.

“Ah, right, you live in Perth, Australia. I guess it would be night for you.”

Conflict resolved.

The Language of Truth

Now, I previously made the weighty claim that Relativity is actually the language of Absolute Truth. That’s a very Absolute statement for me to have made about something so obviously Relative. So let’s talk a bit about this.

After almost 400 years of useful service, Relativity underwent a major upgrade when faced with the most powerful and quantifiable and immediately observable Absolute Truth mankind had yet dealt with: the Invariance of the Speed of Light.

The most shocking thing about the advent of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in 1905, was not that it predicted weird stuff, such as space contracting, or time dilating. Honestly, the scientific community had already been grappling with those weird features for about a decade by that point. The thing that truly shocked the world was a statement of Absolute Truth. It was the unambiguous and irrefutable claim that, by consequence of the Speed of Light being Invariant, Newton’s laws, the very foundations of physics for hundreds of years, were incorrect.

In some ways Einstein was faced with the opposite problem that Galileo faced. Rather than coming up with reasoning for why we disagree about speed in general, Einstein had to determine why it is that we always agree, (in fact we literally can’t disagree), about the Speed of Light. Somehow, our subjective determination of speed must be getting counterbalanced by some other aspect of our subjective experience. The only thing available was something that folks at the time were only just realizing might actually be subjective: our determination of space and time.

So, not only are our Measurements subjective, but our Measuring Sticks are also subjective.

Good grief! Taking this fact, all on its own, seems to crack open the door to meaninglessness even wider. This seems to be the exact kind of fuel you’d hope would not make it into the hands of Militant Postmodernists.

The thing that prevents this situation from devolving into the worst kind of Relativism is the existence of an immutable constraint: conflicts in our different Measurements must perfectly counterbalance conflicts in our different Measuring Sticks, so that the Truth remains Invariant. The door to meaninglessness slams shut.

Relativism can be characterized by the fact that subjective realization is often taken to have no constraints at all. Sometimes subjective experience is taken to be arbitrary, such that it can be neglected entirely. There really isn’t a whole lot that prevents the phrase “Social Construct” from being wholly replaced by the phrase “Completely Random”. Other times subjective experience is taken to be completely authoritative. Such is the case with the “Lived Experience” of the Intersectionalists.

Not so with Relativity. In a more generalized language, Relativity rigidly constrains differences in Observation so that they are perfectly counterbalanced with differences in the Observers. It does this by means of an Invariant – something that all parties can agree on.

As the mathematics of Relativity progressed, it became clear that there was a prescription, involving the counterbalancing of different kinds of quantities originally called contra-variant, and co-variant (or in the language of this article, Measurements and Measuring Sticks, or Observations and Observers). A mathematical expression where these quantities are perfectly balanced is called Covariant. The power of Covariant expressions, are that every Observer will agree with their validity. The expression itself is Invariant.

Covariance is the Language of Truth.

Newton’s laws can be shown to be incorrect, merely by fact that they are not Covariant. A correct version of Newton’s laws may be expressed by ensuring Covariance as a first principle.

The Cure

It is our job, then, to determine how to bring a touch of Covariance into our discussions about morality.

Now, I’m not going to claim that I know what the Moral Invariants are, or the exact mechanism that we might apply Covariance to the topic of Morality. I am going to claim, though, that the pattern is a good one. It has served me well, in guiding me through some difficult disagreements I’ve had with friends.

My general prescription is to do the following:

  1. Recognize that there is no such thing as ‘Unbiased‘. We tend to give authority to arguments or news organizations based on the fact that they are unbiased. This is in recognition to the fact that subjective bias colors the way we see Truth, and this coloring might not be something everyone can agree with. If someone is claiming to be observing Truth in some kind of un-colored way, don’t believe it. In the language of Relativity, “There are no preferred reference frames”.
  2. Own your bias. This may be difficult in a culture that prefers to villainize bias. Know that this cultural preference, even if well intentioned, is incorrect. If Meaning really is Relative, then it has to be relative to something in order to actually be meaningful. That something is your own perspective and experiences. The Truths that you can Observe are honestly best described by you with respect to your own reference frame, relative to your own point of view. Now, bias also means blindness. There are Truths you might not be observing well based solely on your perspective, just like the guy on one side of the earth can’t really see what’s happening on the other side. Owning your bias means that you can confidently know the things that you know, as well as knowing the things that you don’t know.
  3. Describe the alternate perspective from your perspective. Find something about the other perspective that you can legitimize. This becomes the starting point for determining how to describe your differences in perspective. Take a moment to faithfully understand what is driving their priorities, understand what they might find threatening, understand what allegiances they have. All of these things will end up coloring the Truth that is observed from their perspective. Note: this step is enormously difficult if the alternate perspective is dressed up as ‘unbiased’, or if the alternate party isn’t being as honest as is necessary about declaring their biases. Recognize that if you need them to be honest, then they need you to be honest as well. Do not fall trap to the idea that, just because that alternate experience has obvious differences from your own, you “just can’t know what it is like”. Just because your bias introduces some blindness does not mean it fully incapacitates you from empathizing.
  4. Seek to determine how differences in perspective account for differences in opinion. If the thing you are both talking about really is Truth, and you’ve faithfully determined what differences there are between your perspectives, then you hopefully have enough information to envision how the world might look from the alternate perspective. If, given this alternate view, you discover legitimacy in the alternate opinion, then Relativity has done its work. If there are still discrepancies, perhaps you aren’t being as honest about your biases, or as honest about your internal representation of the alternate perspective, as you thought. Of course, the dishonesty might come from the alternate party as well, but you actually have the best chance of detecting the dishonesty within yourself first, where you can actually see all the cards.
  5. Develop Covariant abstractions. I say ‘Abstractions’ here because this part is necessarily abstract. If you have successfully resolved one conflict of opinion, you stand a chance of developing a pattern or rule for resolving all such conflicts that fit in that class. This pattern or rule is developed by extracting, or “unplugging” each subjective perspective from the scenario, leaving something that allows other parties to “plug” their perspectives in. That “something” that is left over, once you’ve unplugged your perspective, is called a Symmetry. A Symmetry is like an Equivalence. If you can look at two things and they are exactly the same, they are Equivalent. If there are some things that are the same, while other things are different, and you’ve found a way to isolate the sameness, you call it a Symmetry. If you are successful in creating a Symmetry, then it should work regardless of the perspective that you plug into it. Because Symmetries are abstract, they necessarily require a bit more thought before being employed. You have to do the work to “plug yourself in” to a Symmetry in order to resolve what it actually means from your perspective. If you discover the Symmetry only works for some people, then call it a Relative Symmetry, figure out what distinguishes the group it works for from the group it doesn’t, and use it as a tool to dig deeper into finding a fully Covariant way to describe Truth.