John Page

A truth is the result of comparing two entities and deeming them similar enough to be identical. Examples include A=A, (There are two A's of the same shape and time but separated in distance. Let's assume that they (or what they represent) are identical (even though they're not, see LOI). If so, A=A is a truth.) and "My uncle is my cousin's father" (Which is a statement of fact to be verified by testing the relationships). An intersubjective truth is one that two or more minds agree upon.

These comparisons and assumptions are performed by mental processes. Now in the case of a formal system, we "externalize" a definition of the truth telling process so that we can intersubjectively agree how to determine truth according to that truth telling process. My point here is that truth is not what is written on the paper (which is just material symbols), truth is still a mental event.

Do you think this expansion reasonable?

Cheers, john

Witt

John Page:
A truth is the result of comparing two entities and deeming them similar enough to be identical.


Hi John! (I forgot to say hello in my last post)

Do you mean that all truth is decided in this way?
I agree with, some truths are decided that way.

John:
Examples include A=A, (There are two A's of the same shape and time but separated in distance. Let's assume that they (or what they represent) are identical (even though they're not, see LOI).

Evidently we see '=' in different ways.

"Let's assume that they (or what they represent) are identical (even though they're not, see LOI)."

??

Surely A=A means, the object named by A is exactly identical with the object named by A.
There is no 'similar enough' to be identical here.
They are identical because there is no difference.

A=A, does not talk about the name "A".

John=John, talks about the person named john.
"John"="John", talks about the name of John.

What does LOI mean?


John:
These comparisons and assumptions are performed by mental processes. Now in the case of a formal system, we "externalize" a definition of the truth telling process so that we can intersubjectively agree how to determine truth according to that truth telling process. My point here is that truth is not what is written on the paper (which is just material symbols), truth is still a mental event.

I agree that the process of deciding truth is a mental activity.
Truth is a mental concept, ie. without minds there is no truth.

"A truth is relative to the mind that thinks it." is false, imo.

A truth is definitive only relative to the system that provides it.

Witt

Darth Dane

A truth is definitive only relative to the system that provides it.

So if a system that should provide an answer, it should include everything that Is. If we include everything, then is that truth the truth?

We know about the whole substructure(more or less), but the one unifying sentence that captures everything, is unspoken and unsaid, because any word used is part of the substructure, and thus not representative for the whole.





DD - Love Spliff

Witt

Witt:
A truth is definitive only relative to the system that provides it.

Darth:
So if a system that should provide an answer, it should include everything that Is. If we include everything, then is that truth the truth?

There is no system that can include everything that Is (true).

We proceed from good to better without ever arriving at the best system of truth.

Witt

Darth Dane

There is no system that can include everything that Is (true).

Why not? Does the system of Reality not include only what is true?

We proceed from good to better without ever arriving at the best system of truth.

Expanding forever eh?

Then no system is better than any other, for they all fall short of the Truth. All systems and humans different beliefs are all equal: They will never express the Truth, but they will be pointing towards it!




DD - Love Spliff

Witt

Witt:
There is no system that can include everything that Is (true).

Darth:
Why not?

Because of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
(There is no system of logic that can decide all truths.)

"Does the system of Reality not include only what is true?"

No, it also includes: those thoughts that result in stories, myths, music, dreams, interpretations, etc. None of which has the quality of truth. Reality includes subjectivity and opinions as well as objectivity and facts.

'The' system of reality, is a described system which may or may not exist within our limited understanding.

"We proceed from good to better without ever arriving at the best system of truth."

Darth: Expanding forever eh?

Perhaps, for example,
in physics: Aristotle-Newton-Einstein-...
in logic: Aristotle-Boole-Frege...
etc.

Darth: Then no system is better than any other, for they all fall short of the Truth.

The better systems are more useful.
Absolute truth does seem unattainable.

Witt

John Page

Hi Witt: Thanks for your post.
IMO this is where all truths stem from. Of course, you are free to invent any system of divining the truth that you wish.
Law of Identity. Two things cannot have the same identity.
Agreed, an object can have two names - but it is not the names we are comparing.
Yes, this is a tautology or truism, a self-defining statement.
??

I offer the following fro your consideration. The object is (literally) this "A". Note how this letter A travels through time, its form preserved through persistent pattern of electron on your screen (or some such). Let us call this letter the name a, now you can say a=a because the have the same meaning, i.e. both are a symbolic representation of the "A". Hence the Law of Identity a=a (which you are free to discard, and this is fun but most logicians will have an emotional reaction to because they're not logical ).

As I see it (which could well be mistaken) the "A" that we discuss in logic is not a thing at all, it is a set of characteristics that we can recognize as "the form of the letter A". Now forms can be assumed identical hence things can appear as if they are the same as other things due to commonality of form.

Have I made my position clearer or not?

Cheers, John

Darth Dane

Because of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
(There is no system of logic that can decide all truths.)

What if the system is inherently logic based?

"Does the system of Reality not include only what is true?"

No, it also includes: those thoughts that result in stories, myths, music, dreams, interpretations, etc. None of which has the quality of truth. Reality includes subjectivity and opinions as well as objectivity and facts.

You misunderstood me.

In Reality this is true: Thoughts, subjective perception, opinion, objectivity and fact.

The truth of Reality is everything it consists of, including local none truths.

I can say that the sun is up. But one in India would say it is down.

Both are true, locally.

This Reality also consist of.


'The' system of reality, is a described system which may or may not exist within our limited understanding.

Yes, it may exist.

Darth: Then no system is better than any other, for they all fall short of the Truth.

The better systems are more useful.

I would say that the most useful system is the better system.

Absolute truth does seem unattainable.

yes, it certainly seems so, but isn't






DD - Love Spliff

Witt

Witt: Absolute truth does seem unattainable.

Darth: yes, it certainly seems so, but isn't

It isn't?
Can you provide an example of absolute truth?

And, how do you test it?

Witt

Darth Dane

Witt: Absolute truth does seem unattainable.

Darth: yes, it certainly seems so, but isn't

It isn't?

no, afaik.

Can you provide an example of absolute truth?

The phrase and/or the meaning of "I Am", seems to fit the bill.

And, how do you test it?

Everything that exists, can if it had a mouth confirm to you that it Is

When you look at a stone is it not "saying" to you "I am"? Then you grab it, look at it, disect it and confirm that the stone in fact Is

Because it Is you can see it and the satement of "I Am" that follows it.




DD - Love Spliff