Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixac2u3 wrote on November 21, 2022 at 11:16 PM

Reply to comment by chromeVidrio in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730

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 on November 22, 2022 at 1:42 AM

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 on November 22, 2022 at 3:01 AM

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 ;)