We can discuss everything, also the discussion itself. Such discussion is called a metadiscussion. We can thus also discuss the metadiscussion, and so on… This raises the question whether there is an ultimate metadiscussion, ie, one that can’t be discussed. Confronted with this question, most people answer no, they don’t think there is an ultimate metadiscussion. This is, however, a belief. They can’t prove that there isn’t any.
However, when we discuss reality, we can also discuss the conclusions of the discussions. Such discussion is called deduction. We can thus deduce from the deduction, and so on… This raises the question whether there is an ultimate deduction, ie, a deduction from which no further deduction is possible, that is, an ultimate truth. Confronted with this question, most people answer yes, they think there is an ultimate truth. This is, however, a belief. They can’t prove there is any.
Most people thus believe that we can’t unambiguously explain how we explain reality AND that we can unambiguously explain reality. This is, however, a contradiction. If we can’t unambiguously explain how we explain reality, then we can’t unambiguously explain reality, because explanation of reality is nested in explanation of how we explain reality. Every possible explanation of reality is ambiguous in the light of different explanations of how we explain reality. Explanations of reality thus can’t be unambiguous if explanations of how we explain reality are ambiguous. This belief of most people are thus contradictory, ie, internally incompatible.
We can thus conclude that even if we can’t prove whether there isn’t any ultimate metadiscussion or whether there is any ultimate truth, we can prove that both can’t be true at the same time, ie, that there can’t be an ultimate truth if there isn’t any ultimate metadiscussion, and vice versa. This fact is called “Russell’s paradox”. The paradox shows that the beliefs of most people are contradictory. Most people think they can find an ultimate truth if they “zoom in” on matters, although they think they can’t find an ultimate truth if they “zoom out” of matters, when the two aspects actually are interdependent.
The main problem with the notion of an ultimate truth is thus that if it had existed, then ambiguity would not have existed (ie, there would have been an ultimate metadiscussion).