Ok boys and girls...give me an absolute truth.

[TheERK]

Of course Superman exists and wonderwoman. But in no way does my definition advocate that their existence translates them into being actual living beings like humans and birds. If they didn't exist then we wouldn't be typing about them now would we? About Bush... that's another thread.

On the contrary! To say that 'Superman and Wonderwoman exist' is saying that they exist, physically, like actual living beings. What you're claiming is true is that the idea of those two superheroes exist, which, of course, is true--like you said, we wouldn't be talking about them if they the ideas did not exist.

However, to claim something exists is not the same as claiming the idea of that thing exists. Once again, we're talking about the content of the idea, not the idea itself. See my previous post.

 

[MarcAC]

Forgive me, but, I just like to go to the limits of my thinking... and beyond now and then.

You're right about it being false by correlation. However, this is always what we're referring to when we're talking about the truth value of a statement.

Sure.

For example: "The moon is made of green cheese."

When we describe the truth value of this statement, we are not talking about this statement, which you seem to be confusing it with:

"There exists the idea that the moon is made of green cheese."

Actually, I'm exploring an idea that - with regards to us, humans, and according to the dictionary definition - encompasses them all. Everybody wins. I like when everybody wins. Just bear with me and take my idea below apart... and tell me what's wrong with it... you'll have to kind of allow for some traversement outside your bounds.

Yes, that statement happens to be true, and the modifier "There exists the idea that..." is probably going to make any statement true. However, we aren't talking about the modified statement; we're talking about the content of the original statement. And I don't think you would argue that the content of the original statement is false!

I try to look at it this way: There are at least three "types" of truths (or maybe subtruths) with regards to humans:

1. The actual reality
2. Our interpretation (idea in a sense)
3. The correlation

For the interpretation to be true then all these three must exist in a "set".
If the interpretation is false, then less than three exist. It could be that the correlation doesn't exist. Maybe the actual reality isn't there. But the interpretation (or idea in a sense) always exists.

So with "The Moon is made of Green Cheese".
I'd say it's false with regards to my idea. The Moon exists sure. But with regards to Green Cheese... I don't know if that exists. So at least one truth exists in this set but less than three exist, because the correlation isn't there. So it's false.

On the contrary! To say that 'Superman and Wonderwoman exist' is saying that they exist, physically, like actual living beings. What you're claiming is true is that the idea of those two superheroes exist, which, of course, is true--like you said, we wouldn't be talking about them if they the ideas did not exist.

Well with regards to my idea above, again. Damn, I'm really carefree today. To say Supeman exists as a cartoon character is true (which is what I meant when I said he and Wonder Woman exist). To say that Superman exists as a living being (with all the qualities the cartoon character possesses) is false. But yeah, saying Superman exists(full stop) is conveying the the idea of him existing as a living being according to everyday language standards, but maybe we need to be more precise in our communication.

However, to claim something exists is not the same as claiming the idea of that thing exists. Once again, we're talking about the content of the idea, not the idea itself. See my previous post.

I want to agree, and in a sense I do, but in a sense I don't. Even my agnostic g.f. seems to agree with you, crap. But she agreed with me when I said that the problem lies within the definitions of reality and existence. We honestly don't know what the limits on them are. For example that statement; I exist. Doesn't divulge much info does it (existence is pretty obvious)? The question is in what context do I exist? Am I some sophisticated computer programme (yeah... matrix again... great movie) or am I the conventional human? So, in my opinion, just saying "'Something' exists" isnt' a very proper or precise statement. I do it anyway. It's like eating a whole lot of fatty chocolate (bad for your health) cause it tastes so damned good.

 

[Godless]

So, in my opinion, just saying "'Something' exists" isnt' a very proper or precise statement. I do it anyway. It's like eating a whole lot of fatty chocolate (bad for your health) cause it tastes so damned good.

Not True! because "something" is a word with many identities, hense soemthing! can be any number of things, to be specific. However; (Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists and that one possessing cosnsciousness, cosnsciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.) Ayn Rand.

In order to refute the above, you would have to claim that nothing exists, and that one does not possess consciousness to perceive existence. Me.

So truth is: I exists, existence exists, and that I possess a consciousness that perceives that which exists.

Wether I'd be plugged into a mainframe Matrix (movie) fact is that I exist even in a virtual reality that one can't possibly prove that it exists or not. However by having perception I exist somewhere.

Weird movie, I just got through watching the whole saga again..

Godless.

 

[MarcAC]

(Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists and that one possessing cosnsciousness, cosnsciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.) Ayn Rand.

Saying; "Existence exists" is like saying; "The ball kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a ball". Does not compute. Saying; "I exist" makes a lot more sense (contains more info). It also implies all the corollaries indicated by Rand. There's nothing wrong with it. It's like saying; "The ball was kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a spherical object." Hopefully not all her/his writing is reminiscent of such informational voids. That's basically bad English.

 

[TheERK]

Saying; "Existence exists" is like saying; "The ball kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a ball". Does not compute. Saying; "I exist" makes a lot more sense (contains more info). It also implies all the corollaries indicated by Rand. There's nothing wrong with it. It's like saying; "The ball was kicked"... or better yet... "A ball is a spherical object." Hopefully not all her/his writing is reminiscent of such informational voids. That's basically bad English.

Actually, 'existence exists' is widely regarded as a fundamental axiom of science.

 

[MarcAC]

Actually, 'existence exists' is widely regarded as a fundamental axio of science.

So I see. I stick to my post though.
-
And I'd replace science with philosophy.