Ok boys and girls...give me an absolute truth.
- Thread starter OliverJ
- Start date
Actually, TheERK, Bebelina isn't really that far off base. Truth value is most often accorded to propositions and ideas, and whether or not those propositions and ideas align with reality. Therefore, it may be proper to say that reality is truth. If all things make up reality (including propositions and ideas) then all things may be said to be true, though this doesn't say anything about the truth-value of propositions and ideas.
beyondtimeandspace said:
The problem is you're confusing an actual proposition with the content of said proposition. For example, I present you with a false proposition:
P ^ ~P (this proposition means a proposition P is both true and false.)
This proposition can be said to be part of reality because it is a real idea, so it is 'true' in that sense. But the content of the proposition is false, and that's obviously what we mean when we say something is true or false. We're talking about the content of a proposition, not the fact that said proposition exists.
I would guess that Bebelina is simply trying to be mystical by saying that everything is true, and not really thinking the same way you are here. Her statement is probably one of the most fundamentally false statements possible, if you think about it.
Everything is true, I said, and meant it.
The effort of trying to grasp an idea that is not immediately comprehendable is a very valuable effort that I’m hesitant to spoil for you, so that is why my reply is seemingly late.
I wanted to give you time to think and discuss, before I offered MY readymade solution.
True and false, right and wrong are concept that are created by the human mind to apply to the experienced reality, so that it may be easier to understand and interact with.
Outside of the human mind concepts like these do not apply, there one can say that everything is true or that everything is false, and both are true, so therefore…everything IS true.
Even the lie is true in its falseness.
Perhaps a simpler truth is that ” everything is”, since there is nothing that is not.
So denial of a presented concept is simply a negative perspective and not an elimination of the presented concept.
Since one can have a viewpoint at all then the subject being viewed definitely exists and is true in its existance, and how different viewpoints affect this, is by adding persona to the subject, by claiming it to be false, true, right or wrong etc.
This only validates the subject at hand and confirms its existance, it is being discussed, it is being viewed by many.
Everything is and everything is true.
The effort of trying to grasp an idea that is not immediately comprehendable is a very valuable effort that I’m hesitant to spoil for you, so that is why my reply is seemingly late.
I wanted to give you time to think and discuss, before I offered MY readymade solution.
True and false, right and wrong are concept that are created by the human mind to apply to the experienced reality, so that it may be easier to understand and interact with.
Outside of the human mind concepts like these do not apply, there one can say that everything is true or that everything is false, and both are true, so therefore…everything IS true.
Even the lie is true in its falseness.
Perhaps a simpler truth is that ” everything is”, since there is nothing that is not.
So denial of a presented concept is simply a negative perspective and not an elimination of the presented concept.
Since one can have a viewpoint at all then the subject being viewed definitely exists and is true in its existance, and how different viewpoints affect this, is by adding persona to the subject, by claiming it to be false, true, right or wrong etc.
This only validates the subject at hand and confirms its existance, it is being discussed, it is being viewed by many.
Everything is and everything is true.
Bebelina said:
It's almost funny how directly you contradict yourself here.
First you say that true and false are human concepts that apply to experienced reality. Fine, let's assume that that's true.
Then you say that outside of the mind, these concepts do not apply. You then go on to state that (outside of the mind), everything is true. That's funny, I thought those concepts did not apply.
Face the facts: to say that everything is true renders the words 'true' and 'false' totally meaningless.
I increasingly realise that when one gets down to arguments about truth and what exists outside of our experience everyone wins. It's just like 0/0 = [1, infinity] - all numbers. Beb, I suppose, refers to truth = something. We experience something so something exists and everything we experience is something so everthing is truth and truth is true. Of course there is the other concept of truth within our experiences themselves. This refers to our interpretation of what we experience. Is our interpretation of the something (truth, which is true) true? Is our interpretation of the something = the something? So once we get the definitions clear I guess there is no contradiction... we just need to refine our definitions... and reconcile them.
Truth is a noun. True is an adjective. Truth (any) is true. So everything (truth = something) is true (to itself). Our interpretations of truth aren't always 'true to truth'. Mind you, if our interpretations are 'things then they are truths and they are true (to themselves). So here you have some truths which are true to the truth and some which aren't true to the truth. Wow.
A truth which is 'true to the truth' is true (naturally). A truth which is not is 'false'. Thus there are true truths and false truths but all truths are true (to themselves). If we weren't around to create the 'false truths' then all truths would be true. And that's the clincher isn't it? When Beb goes outside our interpretations everything becomes true... and so if we weren't here to make the false interpretations everything would be true and so the term false would have no meaning. Truth would still have a meaning (something). True would still have a meaning. You could still say truth is true... meaning something (truth) exists (is true). Everybody wins.
The corollary is that everything is true and whatever is false is really non-existent. Cause if everything is something and something is true then the links we make between our truths (interpretations) [and by this I mean false truths] and truths (the actual things) are really non-existent. If the links existed they'd be true, but they don't so they aren't true. In essence saying something is false is saying it doens't exist i.e. the link between the 'interpretation truth' and the actual truth is not there. Everybody wins.
Any objections?
Truth is a noun. True is an adjective. Truth (any) is true. So everything (truth = something) is true (to itself). Our interpretations of truth aren't always 'true to truth'. Mind you, if our interpretations are 'things then they are truths and they are true (to themselves). So here you have some truths which are true to the truth and some which aren't true to the truth. Wow.
A truth which is 'true to the truth' is true (naturally). A truth which is not is 'false'. Thus there are true truths and false truths but all truths are true (to themselves). If we weren't around to create the 'false truths' then all truths would be true. And that's the clincher isn't it? When Beb goes outside our interpretations everything becomes true... and so if we weren't here to make the false interpretations everything would be true and so the term false would have no meaning. Truth would still have a meaning (something). True would still have a meaning. You could still say truth is true... meaning something (truth) exists (is true). Everybody wins.The corollary is that everything is true and whatever is false is really non-existent. Cause if everything is something and something is true then the links we make between our truths (interpretations) [and by this I mean false truths] and truths (the actual things) are really non-existent. If the links existed they'd be true, but they don't so they aren't true. In essence saying something is false is saying it doens't exist i.e. the link between the 'interpretation truth' and the actual truth is not there. Everybody wins.
Any objections?
Last edited:
MarcAC said:
Yes. I really hate to say this, because it doesn't really add to the debate, but that is 100% complete nonsense.
Truth does not equal something. By making that assumption, the rest of your post is hardly worth reading (I read it anyway, though.)
There is no such thing as a 'false truth'. This is one of the fundamental rules of logic and reasoning.
There's no truth, only what you have percieved to be true.
Perception is not always accurate. Illusions exist.
Truth can be twisted, to bring confort to your own notions.
Existence exists.*Ayn Rand Aor-A Saw this one, wont go into it again, however the orignator of this was Aristotle. expanded by Ayn R.
I awoke looked in the mirror and saw god, God is I.
the implication of the above, is that I know who I am, I have identity, that I have a consciousness, that indetifies my identity. That existence exists, and I have a consciousness that percieves it. Existence exists independent of my consciousness, I can only come to observe by looking outward, and introspecting inward.
Godless.
Perception is not always accurate. Illusions exist.
Truth can be twisted, to bring confort to your own notions.
Existence exists.*Ayn Rand Aor-A Saw this one, wont go into it again, however the orignator of this was Aristotle. expanded by Ayn R.
I awoke looked in the mirror and saw god, God is I.
the implication of the above, is that I know who I am, I have identity, that I have a consciousness, that indetifies my identity. That existence exists, and I have a consciousness that percieves it. Existence exists independent of my consciousness, I can only come to observe by looking outward, and introspecting inward.
Godless.
Wow MarkAC, that was wild ride.
It was a bit confusing to read though, perhaps you could simplify the idea and structure it down, because I think not many understood it.
But I think we are somewhat on the same track..lol.
Rational logic as it is now being "officaly" presented by scholars in the subject of logic, is perhaps offering a too narrow perspective to use as a tool to grasp some of the above presented ideas, and would need vast widening to apply.
I want to put emphasis however on the importance of the definitions of truth and false, they are not meaningless at all, they help us define our reality and what actions we perceive as proper in the interaction with the outer world and also help us to define an innner morality and much more.
We build our worldview very much on those definitions.
Godless, you are right, God is, not only you but everything else too.
It was a bit confusing to read though, perhaps you could simplify the idea and structure it down, because I think not many understood it.
But I think we are somewhat on the same track..lol.
Rational logic as it is now being "officaly" presented by scholars in the subject of logic, is perhaps offering a too narrow perspective to use as a tool to grasp some of the above presented ideas, and would need vast widening to apply.
I want to put emphasis however on the importance of the definitions of truth and false, they are not meaningless at all, they help us define our reality and what actions we perceive as proper in the interaction with the outer world and also help us to define an innner morality and much more.
We build our worldview very much on those definitions.
Godless, you are right, God is, not only you but everything else too.
TheERK said:
"truth
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence."
So if reality is something and truth is reality then all reality is truth. Everything is reality. Everything is truth. Everything is true.
MarcAC said:So if reality is something and truth is reality then all reality is truth. Everything is reality. Everything is truth. Everything is true.
No, wrong again.
First of all, that syllogism makes no sense whatsoever. I imagine what you were trying to say is "...then all truth is something." Even so, there are flaws in the argument. Reality is not truth; reality just means that something exists. If the actual content of a statement does not correspond to reality or is logically impossible, it is false, by definition.
Instead of trying to be 'mystical' about this argument, please stop and think about it for just one minute. You are trying to argue that nothing is false. At the very least, a consequence of this is that the following statement:
"Your argument is false"
Is true. What do you make of that?
Yeah... but false relates to the correlation. The interpretation exists. It is a part of reality. So it is Truth by definition. But the correlation is non-existent.TheERK said:
Sorry. I know I'm being a bastard. But the statement exists. So it is a Truth according to the dictionary.
But it is false according to the correlation - if my argument were true. But all truths are true right? The prob is in the definitions. So you say the dictionary is wrong in one definition then? The definitions are contradictory? Everybody wins(?)
Last edited:
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.Godless said:
MarcAC said:Sorry. I know I'm being a bastard. But the statement exists. So it is a Truth according to the dictionary.
(I'm not quoting the first part, because I am basically replying to both statements by replying to this one.)
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.
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."
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!