Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 04-05-2002, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:

If a thing is itself, then it cannot be both itself and something else.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:

"Let's use cows, as you did earlier. Substituting we get, "a cow is a cow". Notice that this does not refer to any particular cow, but to the concept of "cow".

Bill:

We're ending up back at the Third Man debate (Socrates & Parmenides)! Where, pray, does the your concept of cow come from? <a href="http://www.valdosta.edu/~jnewton/jan/plato/njtma0.html" target="_blank">Link to text of debate</a>

I have to ask how two different things can be deemed to be the same. The response seems to be that they are not the same, but they fit the same description. If you agree this point then I can ask you how truth can ever be determined if nothing is ever equal?

This brings us into Zeno territory as follows:

A = A
A = ~(~A)

So, what is the difference between the two ~'s? If none they are identical in violation of the Law of Identity. If they are not identical then we have a statement that is almost true. You can proceed with as many ~'s as you want but you never reach the absolute truth.

Ergo, while truth may be theoretically true and we can have the abstract notion of truth this absract value does not participate in external (phenomenal) reality. This conclusion is consistent with the Law of Identity. If you want to accurately represent external reality accodrding to the LOI then give each entity a separate symbol to indicate its separate identity. This being the case I have proved that truth functionality exists only in the mind because formal logic cannot be applied.

So, there is no way to connect propositional logic to the phenomenal world unless you make an assumption that two things should be considered equal.

I don't think it makes a dime of difference what layer of abstraction you're working with, real cows, attributes, descriptions, symbols, plastic models, ideas, concepts, thought or whatever - that we call tell two things apart means they must each be accorded a separate identity.

I propose that the mind lies to itself by presenting the logically false but practically useful impression (to our conscious minds) that things can be identical. My challenge: to defeat this proposition you must show me a perfect copy of something. However if you can show me this single identity with two things belonging to it (my definition of a perfect copy) we have a whole host of new problems..

Looking forward to your response.

Cheers.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Bill Snedden · 04-05-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kim o' the Concrete Jungle:
The trouble is, when you state something as "absolutely true" you are inviting argument. To say something is "true" implies that you have proved it. So I say, "okay then, show me the proof." That way, madness (and infinite regression) lies.

Not at all. I have already demonstrated that it is impossible to argue that the law of noncontradiction is false without assuming its truth. Obviously, this avoids both madness and infinite regress.

There's no way to "invite argument" here, because argument is impossible.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kim o' the Concrete Jungle:
You say, "the law of identity is necessarily and always true within the limits of cognition." To which I would say, what about a dynamic system, where A might transform into B? Let's say that A="a coffee cup", B="a pile of broken crockery", and condition C="a hammer applied with force." When is A not A? After condition C, that's when.

But your example doesn't support your argument; it supports mine!

In order for any A to transform into B through any process C, one must first be able to recognize that A and B are not the same. In order for this to be occur, the law of identity must be true! In order for A to no longer be A, but now B after process C, both the laws of identity and noncontradiction must be true.

A can only become not A if the law of identity is true. Otherwise, we would never be able to distinguish A from not A in the first place.

When you look at a coffee cup and a broken pile of crockery, how are you able to determine that they are not the same thing? Your perceptions indicate that they are different, but how do you know that they are? As I mentioned before, all that your perceptions demonstrate to you is that you exist. If you want to start making meaningful statements about reality, you must make some assumptions about how it behaves as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kim o' the Concrete Jungle:
In my system, I accept logic because it agrees with the perception of continuity. And I do it that way around, because I know that I perceived continuities long before I knew what logic was. Perception of sensory data is more basic to human being than abstraction. I don't understand why you all think I'm supposed to be arguing against logic.

IMNSHO, you are. If there is any possible context (within human cognitive limits) in which the laws of noncontradiction and identity are not true, then logic and all of human knowledge are right out the window.

What I don't understand is why you seem to be arguing that something that can't possibly be false might not be true.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kim o' the Concrete Jungle:
As to solipsism, we avoid it, not by assuming absolute truth, but by agreeing on terms, which involves making arbitrary assumptions.

As I've already demonstrated, the laws of noncontradiction and identity are not "arbitrary". They cannot be other than they are. Solipsism is the only alternative. Therefore, they can't be labeled arbitrary.

At any rate, is it my definition of absolute truth with which you disagree or is it that you don't believe that the laws of noncontradiction and identity meet that definition?

How about that thought experiment I proposed? Granting that "perceptual continuity" is an acceptable foundation for epistemology, would it be true that you do not "absolutely" exist? Can you construct an argument to demonstrate the possibility of your non-existence under your proposed epistemology?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

John Page · 04-05-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:

Not at all. I have already demonstrated that it is impossible to argue that the law of noncontradiction is false without assuming its truth. Obviously, this avoids both madness and infinite regress.

Bill, with all due respect I don't think you demonstrated any such impossibility. If fact, assuming you subscribe to propositional logic's definition definition of "true", the contradiction produced by the Liar Paradox proves you wrong.

(Note: I think prop logic's definition of true is "One of two possible truth-functional values that a proposition may have, the other being false.") Is this accurate?

Cheers!

Bill Snedden · 04-05-2002, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:
Bill, with all due respect I don't think you demonstrated any such impossibility. If fact, assuming you subscribe to propositional logic's definition definition of "true", the contradiction produced by the Liar Paradox proves you wrong.

(Note: I think prop logic's definition of true is "One of two possible truth-functional values that a proposition may have, the other being false.") Is this accurate?

I don't know whether or not that's accurate, but let's assume so (Note also that this definition assumes the law of noncontradiction).

Here's a cleaned-up version of my earlier argument. Assuming this definition of "true" doesn't change it at all.

P1. If the law of noncontradiction is valid, statements of the type "X is true" are either true or false.

P2. If the law of noncontradiction is invalid, statements of the type "X is true" may be both true AND false simultaneously.

C1. If the law of noncontradiction is invalid, it is impossible to demonstrate the truth of any statement of the type "X is true" (from P2, modus tollens).

C2. Therefore, it is impossible to demonstrate the invalidity of the law of noncontradiction because any attempt to do so must necessarily assume its validity.

Now, the so-called "Liar paradox" is an interesting semantic puzzle, but there are a few ways out of it that don't involve denying the law of noncontradiction (See Russell or Quine). To me that seems a good deal more reasonable.

I'll respond to your other post tomorrow.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]

WideEyed · 04-05-2002, 10:31 PM

Kim,

For what it's worth, I agree entirely with your concept of truth.

On the subject of Plato's ideal forms, would you say that they are merely the recurring patterns that the mind/memory produces of "objects" in the physical world? These abstractions would be in accord with mathematical sets, the law of identity, words, and truth itself.

John Page · 04-06-2002, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
P2. If the law of noncontradiction is invalid, statements of the type "X is true" may be both true AND false simultaneously.

Bill:

Thanks, again we're like ships passing in the night. I'm not stating that the LoNC is invalid! I'm arguing that the popular definition of what the truth "is" is misleading so that the process of determining truth under propositional logic is flawed.

For example, in the "proof" you provided, your conclusion as to the results if LoNC is assumed invalid is wrong. I'm frankly puzzled how a system of two valued logic can reach your conclusion that a proposition can be simultaneously true and false. This is obviously a cheat solution, a logical hypocrisy if you will.

Here's an example, if two valued logic we're accurate there is either a god or there isn't. This being the case, agnostics could not logically exist. The fact that agnostics of various sorts exist proves that in reality it is possible to have "degrees" of truth. I suggest logic should have a high degree of correspondence with existential fact

.

Apply the rules of propositional logic while assuming the LoNC is false and you end up with a contradiction - we're back to the liar situation for which (I think but don't have a formal proof of) Russell's and Quines solutions are similarly botched.

My proposed definition of "true" keeps the LoI and LoNC intact. Furthermore, it eliminates paradoxes that arise by executing logical operations that assume a truth-functional result is at the same level of abstraction as its proposition.

Cheers!

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Romza Dza Bza · 04-06-2002, 07:28 AM

This is my first post on this website. I don't mean to get too contentious early on, but I do want to jump right in...

Quote:

Originally posted by Kim o' the Concrete Jungle:
LinuxPup,

[on the absolute truth issue and the "flat earth" example]...

Let's say you have the following definition: a flat surface is any surface which, when you lay a spirit level against it, causes the air bubble in the spirit level to move to the center. The whole of our context is this definition, a spirit level, and the correct procedure for taking a reading from a spirit level. If you measured the earth with a spirit level, making the necessary adjustments to account for the irregularities (i.e. hills and valleys), then you would have to conclude that, in this context, the earth is flat.

It is true. I defy you to say otherwise. The conclusion follows necessarily and logically from this particular functional definition of "flat". Of course, you can change the context by including gravity as a point of reference. Gravity would give a different explanation of the behavior of a spirit level, which would logically point to a spherical earth. So you see, by changing the context, you changed the truth.

There is something in play here that you haven’t accounted for: the notion of fallacy. There are many flat surfaces which, if you place a level against it, the bubble won’t move to the center. If the flat surface is lying at a 45 degree angle, the level won’t move to the center. Your definition is therefore false to begin with; not "the truth" at all, no matter how fervently you may have believed it. A spirit level doesn’t gauge flatness; it gauges whether it’s horizontal. Therefore, your definition has no bearing on flatness or sphericality. Your definition of flatness was just plain wrong, which opens a whole new angle to this discussion that I’ll avoid.

Kim, as you can tell, I disagree with your original assertion that truth depends on context. The problem with your assertions begins with your definitions.

First, you define a point of reference as "any subset of reality that has a baring upon the question we are studying," and then you define context as the set of all of those reference points. But the set of all subsets of a thing is the thing, right? That means that the set of all subsets of reality equals reality. So your definition of context is, "those aspects of reality that have a baring on the question." By your definitions, the only difference between reality and context is the extent to which an aspect of reality is relevant to the question at hand. These definitions (even if they weren’t clearly fallacious) needlessly permit inherent bias to substitute for reality.

I’m not comfortable with your definition of reality, either. As another poster points out, there are galaxies that no one knows about, and that doesn’t make them any less "real" to me. But also, there are things you and I both have experienced to different degrees, in different ways. Does that mean it has different realities? By your definition, that’s what it means.

My definition of reality: That which is real is that which either is known or known about, or has (or had) the potential to be known or known about, provided the existence of consciousness. Truth is simply the set of knowable qualities of that which is real. A fact is an individual knowable quality of that which is real. A person can "believe" false data about a thing, or have no idea it even exists; regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that the thing is real, and that there are truths and facts about it. By your definition, we can create our own realities if we’re either uncomfortable with absolute truth or too lazy (or ignorant) to try to uncover it. By my definition, truth exists, whether we know what it is or not. It's there for the knowing. We strive to know it, not to create it.

Comments? Hate mail? (I’m new!! Be nice!!)

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Romza Dza Bza ]

tempest · 04-06-2002, 07:47 PM

I like the old "Is it true that there is no truth?"

If you say yes, then you get the problem of the the law of non-contradiction, and if you say no, then there is truth. Either way we can't get out of objective absolutes.

Place a ball in the center of a room, paint one side red, and the other side yellow.
Now put three people in the room, one facing the red side, and two facing the yellow side. They can only see one side of the ball. When asked, Person A will say the ball is red, Person B says its yellow, and Person C is colorblind and calls it light grey.

This is a simple example, but I think perfectly analagous to every conscious experience. It shows how we can organize facts as true. The word "truth" is simply used to verify the reality of a point of view. But further, this point of view, although only experienced by an individual subject is only true because every individual subject would be compelled to agree given that point of view. In other words, something can only be said to be true from a certain point of view, but something can only be verified as a "truth" where many take that point of view and experience the same reality. So "truth" represents reality which is always contextual.

Back to the example, person A would say the ball is red, and person B would say yellow, until they switched sides. Then they would have to say, "from where I stand, the ball is red, and from where I stand the ball is yellow." And further, person C would say "given my eyes, from where I stand the ball is light grey, until I switch sides, then the ball is dark grey."

So the statement of a fact, and it's verification as true, is tied to a point of reference or context.

BUT, we can take context for granted now, and assume every statement is made from a certain type of perception having only one point of view, and so when person A first said "the ball is red" he was indeed speaking the full truth given that truth is always from context.

AND FURTHER, if we could place ourselves in every position, and use every type of sense, and do this over time to gain all contexts, we would have Absolute Truth.

In our example, if the situation I created was the breadth of all reality, we could say that "the absolute truth is, the ball is half dark and half light, each taking on the colors red and yellow respectively given this light..."

So absolute truth is the possibility of all points of view. This would seem like a joke, but however we do it, practically speaking, we do know absolute truth. Once we are lied to, and we find out we've been wronged, not one of us would deny the absolute truth that a certain empirical statement is false.

The problem of however we do this is epistemological, biological, etc, but denying absolute truth because of logical possibility is like denying I have a body. It is absolutely true that I have a body, it's just that any statements I make to show this may only be true from a certain point of view.

SO, although all we have to work with is the many truths that are tied to contexts, in the end it is absolute truth that we act on, which means the answer to the question "Is it true that there is no truth" truly is, yes and no. It is true that there is no absolute truth as we are buried in context upon context, and now that we know this, it is not true that there is no truth at all.

I'm not sure that I said anything at all here.

John Page · 04-06-2002, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tempest:
I like the old "Is it true that there is no truth?"

Tempest:

Hi! To clarify, could you provide your defintions of the words "true" and "truth"?

Cheers!

99Percent · 04-06-2002, 09:06 PM

tempest: SO, although all we have to work with is the many truths that are tied to contexts, in the end it is absolute truth that we act on,

No. We act on reasonable truth within reasonable contexts.

For example, I act on the the reasonable truth that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, although absolutely speaking I might not know this fact for sure. Reasonableness comes from persistent logical reality, ie, the sun has been rising persistantly and logically through all my life, so I can be reasonably certain the sun will rise tomorrow.

which means the answer to the question "Is it true that there is no truth" truly is, yes and no.

Your mind is desperately trying to grasp absolute mathematical-like truthness from reality when common sense dictates to you that reality cannot be absolute. For example there cannot be absolute zero or absolute blueness. You have to realize this also within your human capacity of understanding reality or else you will go insane or go religiously bezerk with the absolute notion of a perfect being.

It is true that there is no absolute truth as we are buried in context upon context, and now that we know this, it is not true that there is no truth at all.

No. There is definitely a reasonable truthness. This can be achieved by reasonable certainty. See my sun will rise tomorrow example to understand.

Its all a matter of reason, and this must be attained philosophically with common sense.

Cheers

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2002, 10:31 PM	#55
WideEyed Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 15	Kim, For what it's worth, I agree entirely with your concept of truth. On the subject of Plato's ideal forms, would you say that they are merely the recurring patterns that the mind/memory produces of "objects" in the physical world? These abstractions would be in accord with mathematical sets, the law of identity, words, and truth itself.

04-06-2002, 07:47 PM	#58
tempest Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: United States Posts: 11	I like the old "Is it true that there is no truth?" If you say yes, then you get the problem of the the law of non-contradiction, and if you say no, then there is truth. Either way we can't get out of objective absolutes. Place a ball in the center of a room, paint one side red, and the other side yellow. Now put three people in the room, one facing the red side, and two facing the yellow side. They can only see one side of the ball. When asked, Person A will say the ball is red, Person B says its yellow, and Person C is colorblind and calls it light grey. This is a simple example, but I think perfectly analagous to every conscious experience. It shows how we can organize facts as true. The word "truth" is simply used to verify the reality of a point of view. But further, this point of view, although only experienced by an individual subject is only true because every individual subject would be compelled to agree given that point of view. In other words, something can only be said to be true from a certain point of view, but something can only be verified as a "truth" where many take that point of view and experience the same reality. So "truth" represents reality which is always contextual. Back to the example, person A would say the ball is red, and person B would say yellow, until they switched sides. Then they would have to say, "from where I stand, the ball is red, and from where I stand the ball is yellow." And further, person C would say "given my eyes, from where I stand the ball is light grey, until I switch sides, then the ball is dark grey." So the statement of a fact, and it's verification as true, is tied to a point of reference or context. BUT, we can take context for granted now, and assume every statement is made from a certain type of perception having only one point of view, and so when person A first said "the ball is red" he was indeed speaking the full truth given that truth is always from context. AND FURTHER, if we could place ourselves in every position, and use every type of sense, and do this over time to gain all contexts, we would have Absolute Truth. In our example, if the situation I created was the breadth of all reality, we could say that "the absolute truth is, the ball is half dark and half light, each taking on the colors red and yellow respectively given this light..." So absolute truth is the possibility of all points of view. This would seem like a joke, but however we do it, practically speaking, we do know absolute truth. Once we are lied to, and we find out we've been wronged, not one of us would deny the absolute truth that a certain empirical statement is false. The problem of however we do this is epistemological, biological, etc, but denying absolute truth because of logical possibility is like denying I have a body. It is absolutely true that I have a body, it's just that any statements I make to show this may only be true from a certain point of view. SO, although all we have to work with is the many truths that are tied to contexts, in the end it is absolute truth that we act on, which means the answer to the question "Is it true that there is no truth" truly is, yes and no. It is true that there is no absolute truth as we are buried in context upon context, and now that we know this, it is not true that there is no truth at all. I'm not sure that I said anything at all here.

04-06-2002, 09:06 PM	#60
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	tempest: SO, although all we have to work with is the many truths that are tied to contexts, in the end it is absolute truth that we act on, No. We act on reasonable truth within reasonable contexts. For example, I act on the the reasonable truth that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, although absolutely speaking I might not know this fact for sure. Reasonableness comes from persistent logical reality, ie, the sun has been rising persistantly and logically through all my life, so I can be reasonably certain the sun will rise tomorrow. which means the answer to the question "Is it true that there is no truth" truly is, yes and no. Your mind is desperately trying to grasp absolute mathematical-like truthness from reality when common sense dictates to you that reality cannot be absolute. For example there cannot be absolute zero or absolute blueness. You have to realize this also within your human capacity of understanding reality or else you will go insane or go religiously bezerk with the absolute notion of a perfect being. It is true that there is no absolute truth as we are buried in context upon context, and now that we know this, it is not true that there is no truth at all. No. There is definitely a reasonable truthness. This can be achieved by reasonable certainty. See my sun will rise tomorrow example to understand. Its all a matter of reason, and this must be attained philosophically with common sense. Cheers

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.