Submitted by Vico1730 t3_z0s4dw in philosophy
Comments
[deleted] t1_ix7gl9p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ix7jrit wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ix7ulqd wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ix8cb5g wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
E_V_Smith t1_ix7zaxr wrote
I’d have thought if it’s true that ‘nothing is true’ then it’s also false that ‘nothing is true’. It seems like a self-defeating position to me.
eliyah23rd t1_ix7z1r0 wrote
I liked the speculative genealogy at the end of the article.
I wonder why, instead of phrasing it as a genealogy the author does not make that account the definition of truth.
"truth" is an expression of assent to a partner's verbally expressed position.
Of course, it robs most of the authority out of the word, but given that the context is an argument that denies truth altogether, I think that's excusable.
AConcernedCoder t1_ix8yk8d wrote
>"truth" is an expression of assent to a partner's verbally expressed position.
This is giving me flashbacks to a time in my life when magical sequences of assent or dissent were seen as an adequate basis for reward and punishment... especially punishemnt.
eliyah23rd t1_ix97ve4 wrote
Yes. According to this paradigm we program each other.
If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".
Also socially constructed is not meant in the sense of constructed by society but in the sense of constructed in an interactive multi-person context.
Personally, I think a subjective model can do most of the work by itself, with other agents being a feature of the landscape of the evolving subject. However, the two alternatives might succeed in mapping to each other.
iiioiia t1_ixd4xdj wrote
> If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".
Do you think it would be useful for humanity to have a separate term for the oh so common (I'd estimate 75%++ of all discussions/beliefs) scenario where there is a distinction between ~"cultural/social truth" and actual truth?
Followup question: hard whorfism - are you a believer? (Arguing with linguists on that topic is....recursively interesting).
eliyah23rd t1_ixdd4cl wrote
I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.
In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO
Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.
iiioiia t1_ixdf31n wrote
> I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.
Hmmmm....maybe I misunderstood....want to run it by me again?
> In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO
Exactly my point (I think).....and worse: based on my observations, many people seem to think that Science is The answer to all our problems (presumably because of its genuinely amazing track record of success, but only in the limited domain within which it practices), but don't realize that science doesn't really take into consideration the complex layers of metaphysical reality that do indeed exist, whether or not we have a means of measuring them. As long as we continue to ignore metaphysics, it will continue to fuck up our shit, and we will continue to blame it on literal fantasies.
> Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.
Ok, that makes two of us. I think we need better marketing for this potentially transformational movement.
eliyah23rd t1_ixdmlo5 wrote
>but only in the limited domain within which it practices
I agree. I'm not much into metaphysics but complex social constructs with multiple meanings don't do well. Billiard balls and components that are engineered to replicate exactly to the tested prototype do great. However, the power of these replicants is getting ever larger.
iiioiia t1_ixdqwdt wrote
> I'm not much into metaphysics but complex social constructs with multiple meanings don't do well.
Agree, but pretending this dimension of reality does not exist, or references to it are "woo woo" doesn't seem like a good approach.
> Billiard balls and components that are engineered to replicate exactly to the tested prototype do great.
Physical reality and metaphysical reality run very differently, especially when it comes to causality. Physical reality is extremely simple, and scientism0oriented folks tend to assume the same is true of metaphysical causality, if the notion is even on their radar.
bumharmony t1_ix7ms8m wrote
It only begs the question what truth is, since that can only be pointed out with a true sentence. Truth is a contract that something is true. Surely we can say that x is the longest river of y but we can disagree about the limits of that state y which would shake that assertation. Nothing is true means just that there is no obligating contract about the subject matter at hand. Observations would still be there but their metaphysical implications and the affective power would (if x tgen i need to think/do y) not be agreed upon.
eliyah23rd t1_ix7yhpo wrote
>Truth is a contract that something is true
I really like that phrase. It suggests an objective social understanding to an alternative subjective emotivist understanding of truth. Can you give me any references or is it your own?
iiioiia t1_ixd55x1 wrote
It also suggests that reality itself takes on the form that humans believe it to be, does it not?
Michamus t1_ix8iqb1 wrote
>It only begs the question what truth is
Postulating that truth doesn't exist can't possibly beg the question of "what truth is?" It's addressing it head-on. Not only is Truth not some universal law, it doesn't exist independent of a human mind. It's a construct from which we derive comfort. Even if we decide to assume it exists, we'd have to also conclude it's unattainable.
bumharmony t1_ix8pn6w wrote
I think the idea of truth has to regard the possibility of a black swan, thus the idea of probability. So the question should be more like: does the idea of truth exist if basically everything is fallible rather than speculating whether some thing deserves the name tag ”true” on it. So it begs the question; is there even such a concept if we can’t use it in any way.
Michamus t1_ix9tc1x wrote
What do you think ‘begs the question’ means?
bumharmony t1_ix9wuxc wrote
It simply means going ahead of things. 99% of reddit is this kind or turdy turd.
BugsRucker t1_ixakey4 wrote
If I interpret what you've meant correctly then you can't have truth unless you have more than a single party that to agrees to it?
bumharmony t1_ixc1x0a wrote
Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.
Because this is never the case, we got different schools of thought, religions and churches, languages, political parties.
But it does not mean that we would not have common raw observations or basic logic even though we disagree about the further, for example metaphysical implications of them.
BugsRucker t1_ixcht9u wrote
>Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.
>Because this is never the case...
So, the op article is true.... nothing is true!
It bothers me that mental constructs are so ambiguous and yet so ubiquitous.
bumharmony t1_ixdvodu wrote
If we are searching for something that does cannot be evidenced to exist, then it is not possible to say that x.....y are not true.
If I pull a concept out of my ass and say that nothing is this x, it is different thing to say as we should that the whole concept does not exist rather than trying to catch that false question setting like dogs. Because of course saying that nothing is x is not innocent but a way of doing something, implying obligation etc. For example the justification of capitalism is that no morals can be measured so we should welcome laissez faire.
iiioiia t1_ixd5f8q wrote
> Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.
Let's say someone asserts that there is a ticking time bomb planted at some location, and there is a dispute between people on the matter. As long as the dispute remains, does that prevent the bomb from exploding?
bumharmony t1_ixduun8 wrote
Idk what you want to say with that. There is no bomb or if there is may be you should call the police. Im only saying that there may be a procedure for something but outcomes are no longer possible. One could possibly know how to catch butterflies but he/she could actually catch them any longer if they had become extinct.
iiioiia t1_ixdwgib wrote
I'm not saying so much as I am demonstrating how a person behaves when a point is raised that conflicts with their presentation of reality. In this case, you dodged the question - in my experience there are < 10 standard behaviors, and this is one of them.
bumharmony t1_ixe9x1p wrote
Sounds like opportunism rather than serious search for truth.
iiioiia t1_ixeajr3 wrote
Speaking of truth: it may sound like opportunism, but is it actually?
[deleted] t1_ix7j9kt wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ix8ce4t wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
chromeVidrio t1_ix8y6u1 wrote
Logically, how does that make sense?
Something is either true or false, no?
For example:
> I have a dog.
That has to be true or false. There is no third option. Now, knowing the right answer, that’s up in the air, but not that it has to be either true or false. We know it’s one of those.
Enlighten me as to why I am wrong.
iiioiia t1_ix94hhx wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
A third option is unknown, though it is often not reachable by humans.
chromeVidrio t1_ix95o08 wrote
Interesting. I’m trying to think of a situation where something is neither true nor false, and I am completely drawing a blank.
Are we sure this even exists in nature?
What is not true and not false?
iiioiia t1_ix98oo1 wrote
It depends on whether you are talking about base reality itself or our perception/beliefs about base reality....it can be quite tricky to pull the two apart.
Take "There is a God(s)" - how can humans assign a conclusive value to that proposition in an epistemically flawless manner?
chromeVidrio t1_ix995gq wrote
As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right? No, we cannot conclude which is right because it is unobservable, presumably, but we know it has to be either true or false. That is, God either exists or it does not.
If not, what’s the third option?
iiioiia t1_ix9e01j wrote
> As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right?
That is a metaphysical question, the answer to which we also do not have access (in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality").
> but we know it has to be either true or false
Can you prove that?
> If not, what’s the third option?
No idea...that I am unable to present a third option does not cause reality itself to not support a third option.
chromeVidrio t1_ix9w3px wrote
I’ve been thinking about this, and I think what you’ve essentially done is changed the definition of true and false. That is, equivocation. Under your definition, true ≠ not false and false ≠ not true, leaving room for a third option, which isn’t possible if true = not false and false = not true.
iiioiia t1_ix9xokv wrote
Did you note this part: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality""?
chromeVidrio t1_ix9xu8d wrote
Yeah, but I am not even sure what you mean by that lol.
iiioiia t1_ixa11ka wrote
Ah ok....well, I haven't changed the definition of true and false....set theory as implemented in databases is probably the easiest way to understand it:
https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic
> Comparisons to null
>
> The SQL null value basically means “could be anything”. It is therefore impossible to tell whether a comparison to null is true or false. That’s where the third logical value, unknown, comes in. Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.
>
> The result of each of the following comparisons is therefore unknown
>
> NULL = 1
> NULL <> 1
> NULL > 1
> NULL = NULL
>
> Nothing equals null. Not even null equals null because each null could be different.
chromeVidrio t1_ixa2n78 wrote
Yeah, I’m not a programmer, but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false. That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.
Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.
> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.
iiioiia t1_ixa42vr wrote
> but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false
The text explicitly states the opposite of that.
"NULL = 1" --> Unknown
> That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.
Incorrect.
> Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.
Question: have you ever written any tests in school?
chromeVidrio t1_ixa5e9h wrote
It literally says:
> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.
iiioiia t1_ixa5tzs wrote
If the state of nullness can be rectified (replaced with an actual value), then it would be possible to resolve the proposition to a non-unknown value - but not until then.
chromeVidrio t1_ixa65iw wrote
Right, then we would know whether it is true or false—not that it must be among those two options, that it is true or it is false. We already know the latter. Only which of the two options is unknown.
iiioiia t1_ixa77k4 wrote
> We already know the latter.
Actually you don't - that's what I meant by: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality"".
If the data in question is streaming values of a variable that toggles between True/False (or, something else entirely, like the name of a person), the value varies over time, and, sometimes there is no value even at base level reality. For example, take something like: Race Leader - if two people are tied for first place, there is no singular leader - in this case, reality itself is NULL.
chromeVidrio t1_ixag01g wrote
So, no, even in your example we know the answer must be true or false.
I will use RL for Race Leader.
From context, we know you’re defining RL as
> singular leader.
A will be Person 1.
B will be Person 2.
> If A = singular leader, then A = RL
> If B = singular leader, then B = RL
> If A ≠ singular leader, then A ≠ RL
> If B ≠ singular leader, then B ≠ RL
A is either the singular leader or he is not, right?
Same goes for B.
(We know neither are singular leader because they are tied, but put that aside for now. Let’s pretend we don’t know they’re tied.)
I’ll use SL for singular leader now.
In other words:
> A = SL or not SL
> B = SL or not SL
And we know our definition of RL that RL is SL.
> RL = SL
If
> RL = SL
> A = SL or not SL
> B = SL or not SL
Then
> A = RL or not RL
> B = RL or not RL
We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.
And for fun, we can go ahead solve the problem here, since you told us they are tied and that tied ≠ SL.
A ≠ SL
B ≠ SL
RL = SL
A ≠ RL
B ≠ RL
Therefore,
A = RL is False
A ≠ RL is True
B = RL is False
B ≠ RL is True
RL = not A or B
(aka RL = not A and not B)
iiioiia t1_ixahvdf wrote
> We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.
What if they're tied?
chromeVidrio t1_ixai1ha wrote
Keep reading. I solve for that scenario.
Both are then false, i.e., not RL.
A ≠ RL
B ≠ RL
RL = not A or B
iiioiia t1_ixaitlr wrote
Who decides on the categorization algorithm implementation? Can there be only one?
chromeVidrio t1_ixaj8jw wrote
I am not sure what you mean by that.
The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.
It could change the result but it will never change:
A = RL or not RL
B = RL or not RL
Give me another definition. I’ll solve it.
iiioiia t1_ixak6ks wrote
> The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.
Ok then:
RL = both A and B.
You are thus incorrect.
chromeVidrio t1_ixakh2g wrote
RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL
All you’ve done is change the definition of RL.
RL is no longer “singular leader.”
It now allows for ties.
RL = SL or tied racers
Therefore, RL = both A and B
A is still RL or not RL
B is still RL or not RL
It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”
iiioiia t1_ixaml6p wrote
> RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL
Nope, regardless of whether RL == SL, due to the difference in my implementation.
> It now allows for ties.
For now....I might change it again!
> It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”
I don't think "just" is appropriate here, as the truth value is a function of the implementation. Barring a singular, conclusive/deterministic definition, it is subjective.
Regardless: ternary (and other kinds) of logic exists, it does not require your agreement or approval.
chromeVidrio t1_ixao733 wrote
Lol, again, it does not matter what is the definition of RL. It doesn’t even matter if RL changes.
A is always RL or not RL
B is always RL or not RL
To prove me wrong you need to show me a scenario where
A = not RL and RL
B = not RL and RL
It’s an impossibility. You cannot be not Race Leader and be Race Leader at the same time. You cannot be and not be at the same time. Ternary logic might exist but it’s wrong to the extent it might suggest that things need not always be true or false.
iiioiia t1_ixcz0xg wrote
What if there is no data feed for portions of the race? What value would one store for those timestamps?
chromeVidrio t1_ixcz31h wrote
RL or not RL
iiioiia t1_ixczzw1 wrote
Aka: unknown or null.
chromeVidrio t1_ixaqwse wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Here is the Wikipedia on this issue. Like you, others have challenged the law, but I don’t buy it for a second. I think Aristotle hit the nail on the head.
BugsRucker t1_ixaweko wrote
this has been fascinating to read both of you, just thought i'd throw that in instead of being a silent observer
chromeVidrio t1_ixawr1s wrote
cheers, it’s been a fun debate
/u/iiioiia has not convinced me but respect to him nonetheless
iiioiia t1_ixcz9t2 wrote
It was fun, I think we were kinda arguing two related but distinct points simultaneously though.....Reddit sucks for serious arguments.
iiioiia t1_ixczn8y wrote
I don't think this necessarily applies though as definitions (implementations) can do an end run around it, like a tie having zero race leader or two race leaders....there is the objective physical state of reality, and the subjective perceptual/narrative state, but humans tend to conflate the two (the subjective state often appears to be objective).
Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixadz4l wrote
Quantum physics has to deal with this problem because of the issue of observation of basic particles. To observe an event you have to use a constant stream of colliding particles. To see a cup of tea on the table, the photons have to hit the cup and reflect into your eye. But what if the cup was so small or the photon is so big, that when they collide the position and velocity of the cup has already changed way before the photon comes back to the retina? This is a fundamental problem in quantum interactions as the particles used to observe are at a comparable size to the particles observed. In other words, it's hard to say if there is a way to firmly determine positions of small particles (at least for me, as I'm not a physicist), so that is your prime candidate in nature for the third option.
chromeVidrio t1_ixajxt4 wrote
Nah, this doesn’t create a third option. It’s actually a good example of my point.
The particle is here or it is not.
We don’t know where the particle is located, but it is here or not here.
P = Particle
X = Location
P = X or Not X
aiquoc t1_ixb3orj wrote
Before the particle being observed, however, it exists in a superposition of states, meaning it is at both X and Not X. But as soon as you detect it at X, then it is at X and X only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
Bleusilences t1_ixbuwuz wrote
The value of n/0?
edit: corrected a small mistake
chromeVidrio t1_ixcb5nu wrote
Is that a true or false question? Are you asking if it is true or false the value exists? What is n, a number? If so, no the value does not exist. The answer is false. You can’t divide by zero. Next question.
iiioiia t1_ixd60md wrote
> The answer is false.
Excel disagrees.
Bleusilences t1_ixdxcy9 wrote
It's neither, you can't divide by zero because the quotient is unknown.
The value exist but cannot be determined.
"The value does not exist" is more an hand waive to make the issue easier to understand.
Which is making my point that truth can be more granular than anything else because what you said is not incorrect but incomplete.
You can read about it here:
chromeVidrio t1_ixdxhwh wrote
No it’s false. There is no such thing as something that is neither true nor false.
captainsalmonpants t1_ix9eew5 wrote
What does it mean to have a dog? Are you referring to the legal construct? Does it mean the dog obeys you? (Always?) If in this moment I'm temporarily caring for my friend's dog, do I have a dog? Do my friends have the dog or not? Can we both have the same dog simultaneously? Can having a dog mean different things to people of various cultures, or even to members of the same culture?
chromeVidrio t1_ix9eo5e wrote
Define “have” however you want. The answer still has to be either true or false. Your definition might change the answer, however.
captainsalmonpants t1_ix9qi7v wrote
But what do we call an unclear statement that produces contradictory results?
chromeVidrio t1_ix9rcp2 wrote
It doesn’t matter. We still know the right answer can only be one or the other, true or false, albeit we may not know which.
captainsalmonpants t1_ix9syz6 wrote
And the state of not knowing which is called "indeterminate" which is the result of a vague predicate. How does your logical system handle indeterminacy?
chromeVidrio t1_ix9tuve wrote
It just means whether it’s true or false is not known, but we still know it has to be one or the other.
captainsalmonpants t1_ix9yf94 wrote
False, WE do not know that.
Your dog statement cannot be evaluated without context. We can infer that context from a stated purpose, knowledge, or assumptions about one or both, but absent that it's just a set of meaningless symbols or sounds.
chromeVidrio t1_ix9z31r wrote
Lol, no. We do know that. I either have a dog or I do not have a dog. What other answer could there possibly be?
Think about it:
(1) I have a dog;
(2) I do not have a dog; or
(3) ???.
What possibly could be your third option?
Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixac2u3 wrote
I would argue that your third option looks like a set of statements that could be interpreted as "having a dog" and further sets of interpretations for those statements... and further sets for those and so on ad infinitum. In the end you'd have sets within sets containing the whole universe to which you are now asked the question "is the universe true or not?" To which I would say, does a creature inside of the whole of existence have the capacity to define if such things are even applicable at that level of magnitude? What is the difference between a true and a false universe that would make the term relevant?
chromeVidrio t1_ixav17d wrote
Your ideas about 3 et seq. are likely mere definitions that will allow us to determine the answer to whether I have a dog.
That is, of 1 and 2, one must be true and one must be false. That is, I cannot have a dog and not have a dog at the same time. It’s an impossibility.
If 3 is a cat, then 2 is true. If 3 is anything other than a dog, then 2 is true, but if 3 is a dog then 1 is true.
You see what I’m saying?
And as to whether the universe is true or not, I don’t know the answer, but I know it’s either true or false, and it is cannot be both true and false.
Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixb5gnv wrote
The problem of strict binary truth lies in the language and the principles of decision making. What I think you are saying is that at a fundamental level we reach a statement which is either true or false. And I agree. But our language and our brains do not operate in that paradigm. We operate in a paradigm of weighted probabilities that allow us to decide on how to solve real scenarios. Traditionally, computers work in strict binary logic, but they can not approach human operating capacity without emulating human neural networks. Human brains operate on connection strength, not binary predictions. They can infinitely approach truth, but can never achieve it. The third option between truth and falsehood is uncertainty. But you can not reject truth as the article suggests, because you will break the mechanisms that lead to computational function. In other words, uncertainty is a function of those two options. If we take a statement outside the context of possible thought or observable reality, there is no saying if you do have a dog or not. Because truth changes based on a subset of observable reality. What if our reality exists in a multiverse and/or consists of multiverses itself? Now you have to infinitely define which particular you has or has not a dog, which in essence makes the statement "I have a dog" infinitely verbose to exclude all other possibilities. As such, yeah, technically it can only be true or false, but determining the absolute truth is impossible.
A state of absolute truth is theoretical. Uncertainty is practical. If you remove uncertainty from thought, it will imply vast philosophical consequences such as absence of freedom of thought. Option 3 being between 1 and 2 excludes truth and untruth. You can either have 1, 2 or 3... in theory. In practice we only operate in option 3. If 0 is false and if 1 is true, uncertainty is between 0 and 1, it is quite literally a real number ;)
BugsRucker t1_ixavkpl wrote
>Something is either true or false, no?
Genuine question:
What is the difference between saying what I quoted and saying:
'Something either is or not is?'
What does the addition of the true and false qualifiers add to the context?
chromeVidrio t1_ixavytc wrote
Nothing, assuming I understand you and “is” = true and “not is” = false.
That is a dog.
That is not a dog.
Only one of those statements can be correct about any one thing at a particular time.
Something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.
BugsRucker t1_ixb1d1d wrote
Interesting. I think we agree but something isn't right. My own use of language, internal and external, use the phrase "X is true" quite often, which suddenly feels redundant. Why does it not feel complete to just say "X is"? I guess I'm looking for insight into what the addition of 'true' and 'false' signify. Is it just common language usage or is it more than that?
Bleusilences t1_ixbunf5 wrote
I could argue that, in fact, there is no such thing as dog and you own a wolf.
A domesticated wolf yes, but a wolf none the less.
Truth is a multifaceted thing and not just a flat yes/no.
You can say, in this case, that I am a bit pedantic and it is also true.
I have a better question for you: What is the square root of -4?
chromeVidrio t1_ixcawfp wrote
Then I would not have a dog. The statement would be false.
[deleted] t1_ixagxc1 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ixdg9jn wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BugsRucker t1_ixausfk wrote
I'm a layman by every definition of the word. My thoughts about this are very difficult to get out here. I write this as if I'm arguing with myself, not you all. Be easy on me if I'm an idiot.
Truth is an assumption outside of present-time first hand experience, I'm not even sure if there is truth in first hand experience but I'm willing to assume so for now. Something either 'is' or 'is not' and saying something 'is true' is a bit redundant except for the fact that it clarifies that the stance taken is an assumption. Stating a truth is stating a belief of durable accuracy.
Truth is also an idea created by consciousness, a mental construct, maybe specific to human consciousness and maybe not. Truth does not exist outside of consciousness. Even so, conditions must be met in order for something to be true. In order for something to be eternally true, or even just continue to be true after the first hand experience has ended, one must assume that those conditions will never change or haven't already changed. Those conditions must also be true, and have true conditional requirements themselves, and so on until we get to something that just 'is'. Being that it is a mental construct, truth's legitimacy is only valuable to entities that see what 'is' through the rose colored glasses of consciousness. If all consciousness were to cease to exist so would all truths. The things about which we speculate the truth of would either 'be' or 'not be'. "Yes, or not yes", if you like.
Truth is useful in society, no doubt, but only as a shortcut, so that one can assume something to 'be' without firsthand experience of it, almost representative of a single human consciousness. If we all communicate the truths of our first hand experiences to each other it helps fill in the blanks of our assumed knowledge by utilizing second hand experiences much like our brain does when interpreting the inputs from our senses that make up our first hand experiences. Even more, if I find by first hand experience that river X is the longest river in country Y then I can only assume that the conditions that were met to make this true continue on after my first hand experience has finished. I will continue to believe it to be true until I have first hand experience of new conditions that disprove it or if I receive enough information of convincing second hand experiences that override my belief of it.
An earthquake may've drastically changed the landscape and river X is no longer the longest river, but that will not factor into the truth of the matter until some consciousness believes those new conditions to be true.
Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixay7yr wrote
The problem with the authors argument lies in its over-simplified concept of truth. According to the article's own logic, instead of dismissing the concept of truth, we should instead build it into a more robust statement that deals with paradoxes and inconsistencies. And in rejecting traditional truth, the article conveniently reinvents it in different terms to stop it collapsing on itself.
Escaping the reality-to-truth link in our paradigm is only possible if you assume that our reality is a part of bigger reality we cannot observe, because the truth as we can observe it has a hierarchical nature. If we say that gravity is a force that pulls objects together, then we encounter lots of smaller branches of truth that occur when gravity itself is proven to be true. We established the truth of gravity beforehand by observing these smaller branches to conclude that there is a certain bigger branch these lead to. If we do not see the branches, we cannot establish anything.
Naturally, this tree of reality does not contain truth only. It contains a set of all possible statements regarding reality. Say apples fall from trees on Earth. But outside Earth, it is not what happens. Away from major gravity wells, the apple slowly approaches the tree instead. Same with observable reality, it is not necessary that statements keep their truth on higher levels which we can not observe.
Observation is not just a function of perception, but information including anything a human or machine computer can think of. You can not imagine a fourth fundamental color. It can exist on the EM spectrum, but knowing how it looks to a different organism is impossible. Take that analogy to the function of thought and see what happens. We do not know how to think of things we can not think. We can not imagine realities impossible to imagine. There is a limit to how far we can climb the tree of reality.
We use the concept of truth to predict future in our subset of reality. Say you know it to be true that it is cold in winter. Naturally, you have warm clothes, heating and food to prepare. Remove the notion of truth from that, and you operate as if that didn't matter. Cutting the link between truth and reality. Now how are you going to make any decision? You have no way to predict reality now and as a result you can not function.
There are lots of way to define and understand truth that are efficient concepts for operating in the universe. But to function without that concept in a meaningful way is impossible. You can't make machine or biological computers work without prediction, and the concept of truth is an inseparable part of that function.
The article does not explore any of these problems in enough detail. It dances around with terminology and the idea of radical philosophical thoughts being "more defensible". Perhaps there is merit in that, but this article is extremely unconvincing.
[deleted] t1_ix7ebjz wrote
[deleted]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ix8ce7w wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_ix9howg wrote
[deleted]
Andurilthoughts t1_ixacfer wrote
Nothing is true. I assert that this is a sound and well-reasoned article.
[deleted] t1_ixl4dj9 wrote
The assertion that nothing is true seems useful in the sense that it creates a crack in generally accepted norms. The idea creates a way to re-examine that which we have long ago accepted, but may no longer be true in new contexts.
Jupiter20 t1_ix7zkug wrote
Truth is extremely overrated. Nobody can explain or define it, people use it mostly as a projection surface for their interests or ideologies. When you see "The truth about ..." then it's most likely bullshit. If you have to use it, then use it as a property of statements. For example: "This statement is not true because...". But "the truth"? That's some meta-level bs. And even with statements it often is not applicable. Statements are often too vague, they have circular logic, paradoxes and so on. Then truth as a concept just completely fails. It's just not very useful*.
*edit: except in mathematics, logic and so on of course
[deleted] t1_ixad2uc wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ixdg6e4 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
koloquial t1_ixbbnk3 wrote
It’s a self refuting argument. If the statement “nothing is true” is a true statement, then it is self refuting.
This sub truly is a dumpster fire. Does anyone know if there’s a better forum to discuss actual philosophy?
[deleted] t1_ix7bs0k wrote
[removed]