Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:05 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:07 pm If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.
I think your own view is already, "too convoluted and circular."

You are like the ancients who denied 'zero' as meaningful and opted to vote for the authorities to officially ignore those who suggested it. Or,...like the first grammarians who defined 'nouns' as the naming of real things while 'verbs' were artificial because you can't hold it.

I'm not concerned about your own ignorance. All of reality that we perceive is itself just 'symbols' and 'patterns' of them. If you have some magical means to express reality otherwise outside of literally BEING anything beyond yourself, suggest it. All we have here are symbols here to deal with and denying the referents themselves as something 'more than' symbols is begging. Anything else is just politics given it requires agreement between people. And your vote against the simple defintion I gave suffices to just tell me that you disagree and why you deem what I say is 'untrue' by your perspective.

From here:

Truth

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If an authority, scientist, or logician claims the liquid is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, feelings or authority. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.
There is no other kind of truth!

In the example you gave, the 'agreement' is to the particular perceived reality at two distinct times within our particular universe. If one gets poisoned, that reality IS the second event percieved and any prior guess as to its outcome being FIT to that is what is 'true'. If you antipate X and not-X occurs, the (X and not-X) means that your initial assumption of X is untrue. But while this is 'untrue' relative to the participants and this universe, there is some place outside or beyond this universe where it is. That such a reality is potentially 'not true' of our universe anywhere just means the same thing as 'true' beyond it.

Now you can DENY that other universes exist. But this then lacks the capacity to prove nor disprove and so any option to ignore is just about your own 'practical' concern and is 'political' if you impose that no one should propose such possibilities. All you can assert is an agnostic position of certainty. However, logically, the only thing we CAN know is based upon subjective experiences and yet these too cannot be UNDERSTOOD without using more symbols to investigate. Every sensation is an input and every motion (even thoughts without literal muscle signals), are 'symbols'.

I expressed an example using set theory. If you add Venn diagrams, think of the background as our "universe" and the specific factor in question as 'true' if it is inside that universe without concerning yourself whether it exists beyond it. If you find something contradictory in a literal sense, then such 'reality' would mean that you need to either expand your 'universe' (as it may be mistaken by your perspective) or look inside to see if you made some other error apriori to your conclusion of it being 'contradictory'.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:40 am**

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:07 pm If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.

I agree with you on the above point.

I had stated, a statement of truth is relative as justified within a specific framework of knowledge or thought. This can be represented on a Venn Diagram where the framework is the grounding circle.
Truth cannot be absolutely absolute.

There is a degree to truth which is based on the degree of soundly justified beliefs i.e. the degree of objectivity*, where scientific truths has the highest degree of truth or confidence level for the person of knowledge.
* objectivity = intersubjectivity with consensus, independent of the individual subject or group, testable, repeatable results, falsifiable,

"God exists as real" is 100% true to theists, but such a truth is not based on soundly justified beliefs. Theological truths are at the other extreme of the continuum of truth which is more to falsehood.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:31 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:07 pm If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.
I think your own view is already, "too convoluted and circular." From here:

Truth

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If an authority, scientist, or logician claims the liquid is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, feelings or authority. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.
There is no other kind of truth!

Unfortunately your views are those of the old schools and are obsolete.

You presented your argument based on very selective examples within reality to suit your confirmation bias.
Btw, it is possible the person who found the bottle and drink the liquid could die, even if that liquid is proven to be water, where the bottle in this case is a large one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pmReality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is.
Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid.

The statement above is reasonable but insufficient.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pmIt [truth] is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows.

Note the term "determine" in your sentence.
Whatever and whoever determines and describes that liquid precisely is dependent on a specific framework of knowledge established by humans.

Who then determines what is truth of reality?

In this case, the most reliable framework to determine and describes the liquid in the bottle is to rely on the Scientific Framework. There is no more reliable.
The reality - what is the truth of the liquid - is conditioned upon the findings grounded on the Scientific Framework.
However the Scientific Framework is a man-made [i.e. subjects] system relying ultimately upon intersubjective consensus.
Therefore the truth of the reality of the liquid is based on beliefs, intersubjective consensus, and the authority of the Scientific Framework.

Even when the most reliable framework confirmed the liquid is 'water,' the question would be, it is really water as per reality-as-it-is?
What about the truer statement, that "bottle of liquid" is a bundle of H20 molecules within a bundle of silica molecules.
A more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" is merely a cluster of atoms, protons and electrons.
A higher more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" ultimately end up with
"it depends on the observer" where it could be a sea of particles or waves depending on the observer.
So what is reality-as-it-is re "the bottle of liquid" perhaps it is likely to be nothing, i.e. emptiness.

Thus what you think reality-as-it-is of "that" which is perceived, felt and drank "the bottle of liquid" could be view as an illusion relative to what is really real.

Do you get this point?
What is your counter to it?

It is claimed scientific truths are grounded initially on falsehoods then polished by humans to be more truthful.

If truth is only a statement, it has no element of independence, but always qualified to a Framework of knowledge or thoughts, e.g. scientific statements of scientific truths.

If the most reliable truth of reality-as-it-is is from Science and Science is polished conjectures, then where else can humans get to the precise truths?
Surely you are not suggesting, it is GOD the independent objective entity that determines the truth of reality?

Humans are part and parcel of Reality-as-it-is, there is no way, humans can extricate themselves out from reality-as-it-is [they are a part of] and stand apart to determine independently [supposedly objectively] what is the truth of reality.

The phrase 'truth of the reality' apparently indicate there is a 'reality' in parallel to 'truth' i.e. the Correspondence Theory of Truth [ of independent reality].
The truth is there is no reality independent of the truth.
What is truth is actually interchangeable with "reality as it is" where both are realizations upon the conditions of the human self and its environment.
Note Enactivation and Reality as an Emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

What is most reliable of the truth of reality-as-it-is is to acknowledge it is part and parcel of the what is experienced [an emergence] as it is reinforced with philosophical critical thinking.

The point is, the independent reality [in this case water or poison in the bottle] is non-existent.
There is no way one can even speak about an independent reality-as-it-is without the fundamental interaction of the human self.

As Wittgenstein had demonstrated,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
which meant one must just SHUT-UP re an independent reality-as-it-is.
Don't made a fool of yourself by talking and insisting on an independent reality within a philosophy forum.

You are driven to speculate there is an independent reality due to some desperate internal psychology that is driving you to infer an independent reality-as-it-is when there is no such thing.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:50 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:07 pm If any X is in some U, and some Y is not in U, then X is said to be true of or to U; Y is said to be not-true of or to U.

Truth is just an 'agreement' of comparison between at least two classes where one class is properly inside of another. Set theory uses the word, 'comparable' to describe this where general colloquial use is implying agreement between people in some common universe of discourse. In the latter, both people agree to some X as being in U.

I think too much further thought on this gets too convoluted and circular.
I think your own view is already, "too convoluted and circular." From here:

Truth

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If an authority, scientist, or logician claims the liquid is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, feelings or authority. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.
There is no other kind of truth!
Unfortunately your views are those of the old schools and are obsolete.

You presented your argument based on very selective examples within reality to suit your confirmation bias.
Btw, it is possible the person who found the bottle and drink the liquid could die, even if that liquid is proven to be water, where the bottle in this case is a large one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pmReality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is.
Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid.
The statement above is reasonable but insufficient.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pmIt [truth] is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows.
Note the term "determine" in your sentence.
Whatever and whoever determines and describes that liquid precisely is dependent on a specific framework of knowledge established by humans.

Who then determines what is truth of reality?

In this case, the most reliable framework to determine and describes the liquid in the bottle is to rely on the Scientific Framework. There is no more reliable.
The reality - what is the truth of the liquid - is conditioned upon the findings grounded on the Scientific Framework.
However the Scientific Framework is a man-made [i.e. subjects] system relying ultimately upon intersubjective consensus.
Therefore the truth of the reality of the liquid is based on beliefs, intersubjective consensus, and the authority of the Scientific Framework.

Even when the most reliable framework confirmed the liquid is 'water,' the question would be, it is really water as per reality-as-it-is?
What about the truer statement, that "bottle of liquid" is a bundle of H20 molecules within a bundle of silica molecules.
A more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" is merely a cluster of atoms, protons and electrons.
A higher more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" ultimately end up with
"it depends on the observer" where it could be a sea of particles or waves depending on the observer.
So what is reality-as-it-is re "the bottle of liquid" perhaps it is likely to be nothing, i.e. emptiness.

Thus what you think reality-as-it-is of "that" which is perceived, felt and drank "the bottle of liquid" could be view as an illusion relative to what is really real.

Do you get this point?
What is your counter to it?

It is claimed scientific truths are grounded initially on falsehoods then polished by humans to be more truthful.

If truth is only a statement, it has no element of independence, but always qualified to a Framework of knowledge or thoughts, e.g. scientific statements of scientific truths.

If the most reliable truth of reality-as-it-is is from Science and Science is polished conjectures, then where else can humans get to the precise truths?
Surely you are not suggesting, it is GOD the independent objective entity that determines the truth of reality?

Humans are part and parcel of Reality-as-it-is, there is no way, humans can extricate themselves out from reality-as-it-is [they are a part of] and stand apart to determine independently [supposedly objectively] what is the truth of reality.

The phrase 'truth of the reality' apparently indicate there is a 'reality' in parallel to 'truth' i.e. the Correspondence Theory of Truth [ of independent reality].
The truth is there is no reality independent of the truth.
What is truth is actually interchangeable with "reality as it is" where both are realizations upon the conditions of the human self and its environment.
Note Enactivation and Reality as an Emergence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

What is most reliable of the truth of reality-as-it-is is to acknowledge it is part and parcel of the what is experienced [an emergence] as it is reinforced with philosophical critical thinking.

The point is, the independent reality [in this case water or poison in the bottle] is non-existent.
There is no way one can even speak about an independent reality-as-it-is without the fundamental interaction of the human self.

As Wittgenstein had demonstrated,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
which meant one must just SHUT-UP re an independent reality-as-it-is.
Don't made a fool of yourself by talking and insisting on an independent reality within a philosophy forum.

You are driven to speculate there is an independent reality due to some desperate internal psychology that is driving you to infer an independent reality-as-it-is when there is no such thing.

Well I'm glad you cleared that all up. I mistakenly thought you existed and had a mind, independent of my thought of you. I see now, I was wrong.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:18 pm**

truth is what takes place in the absence of interpretations

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:58 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:31 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:58 pmIt [truth] is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows.
Note the term "determine" in your sentence.
Whatever and whoever determines and describes that liquid precisely is dependent on a specific framework of knowledge established by humans.

Who then determines what is truth of reality?

In this case, the most reliable framework to determine and describes the liquid in the bottle is to rely on the Scientific Framework. There is no more reliable.
The reality - what is the truth of the liquid - is conditioned upon the findings grounded on the Scientific Framework.
However the Scientific Framework is a man-made [i.e. subjects] system relying ultimately upon intersubjective consensus.
Therefore the truth of the reality of the liquid is based on beliefs, intersubjective consensus, and the authority of the Scientific Framework.

Even when the most reliable framework confirmed the liquid is 'water,' the question would be, it is really water as per reality-as-it-is?
What about the truer statement, that "bottle of liquid" is a bundle of H20 molecules within a bundle of silica molecules.
A more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" is merely a cluster of atoms, protons and electrons.
A higher more refined truth of that "bottle of liquid" ultimately end up with
"it depends on the observer" where it could be a sea of particles or waves depending on the observer.
So what is reality-as-it-is re "the bottle of liquid" perhaps it is likely to be nothing, i.e. emptiness.

Thus what you think reality-as-it-is of "that" which is perceived, felt and drank "the bottle of liquid" could be view as an illusion relative to what is really real.

Do you get this point?
What is your counter to it?

I presumably you understand [not necessary agree with] my point above. If not, I will explain further.

If yes, I will appreciate if you could counter my point above,

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:09 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:18 pm truth is what takes place in the absence of interpretations

Nah.. show me who has ever agreed to your above definition of truth.

Truthis most often used to mean
1. being in accord with
2. fact or reality, or fidelity
3. to an original or standard.

However note realistically;

Truth [realization by humans] is most often used to mean
1. being in accord - by humans collectively
with
2. fact or reality, or fidelity [interdependent with humans collectively]
to
3.an original or standard - establish by humans collectively

Truth therefore is grounded to human activities collectively.

Can any one counter the above and explain if otherwise?

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:48 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:09 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:18 pm truth is what takes place in the absence of interpretations
Nah.. show me who has ever agreed to your above definition of truth.

I agree with Nick. Truth is all about what is true, what is real. By definition, what is true, what is real, is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation (for example, one can can have all manner of opinions on fire, but no one can say it isn't hot).

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:37 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:09 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:18 pm truth is what takes place in the absence of interpretations
Nah.. show me who has ever agreed to your above definition of truth.
I agree with Nick. Truth is all about what is true, what is real. By definition, what is true, what is real, is unambiguous and not subject to interpretation (for example, one can can have all manner of opinions on fire, but no one can say it isn't hot).

No one??
Unfortunately your intuitive sense on this point is wrong.

Have you heard of Congenital insensitivity to pain;

Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is one or more rare conditions in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1] The conditions described here are separate from the HSAN group of disorders, which have more specific signs and cause. Because feeling physical pain is vital for survival, CIP is an extremely dangerous condition.[1] It is common for people with the condition to die in childhood due to injuries or illnesses going unnoticed.[1][2]
Burn injuries are among the more common injuries.

Burn injuries - that is related to heat or hotness from fire or other sources.

Therefore the truth that fire is hot is not absolute [independent of others] but rather subject to the human conditions of the majority of humans.
Bacteria that can stand heat will not feel fire of certain temperature is not hot.

What is the problem with the definition I presented from Wiki;

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.

The above imply truth and reality are not exactly the same at all.

Reality-as-it-is is based on what in intersubjectively agreed by humans collectively.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:28 pm**

Unfortunately your intuitive sense on this point is wrong.

Have you heard of Congenital insensitivity to pain;

Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is one or more rare conditions in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1] The conditions described here are separate from the HSAN group of disorders, which have more specific signs and cause. Because feeling physical pain is vital for survival, CIP is an extremely dangerous condition.[1] It is common for people with the condition to die in childhood due to injuries or illnesses going unnoticed.[1][2]
Burn injuries are among the more common injuries.

Failing to feel the heat doesn't mean the heat ain't there, as you quote Burn injuries are among the more common injuries.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:46 pm**

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:05 am Now you can DENY that other universes exist.

I do not deny. There are many things which I know do not exist, things others make up in their own heads or believe that other's have made up in theirs, but I do not waste my time denying them. [Gods, angels, supernatural beings, other universes, come to mind.]

When someone suggests, "other universes," it is one of those things that defies definition. What is a universe? If, "universe," does not mean all there is, then another word is needed to mean that. What I mean by universe is all there is, whether I or anyone else is conscious of that universe or knows what its entire nature is, it is all there is. There cannot be another, "all there is." Now if you mean something else by the word, "universe," other than, "all there is," what do you call all there is. If there were more than one of whatever you call, "universe," what I mean by universe would include all your "universes." What would you call, "all the universes." This idea of other universes propagated by Leibniz and Kant is just absurd. Forget the word universe. When I refer to, "reality," I mean, "all there is," so let's just call it, "everything." There is only one, "everything."

If you are thinking that, "other universes," only means, "possible other universes," that is even worse. Only that which actually exists is possible. That which does not exist simply is not. Only that which exists has any properties, including the property of possibility.

You have to begin to think for yourself. If you believe these things, you have been hoodwinked by your teachers.

The word, "truth," identifies a quality of propositions. If what a proposition states is the actual case, it is "true." If what a proposition states is not the case, it is false. "Truth," is the quality of all propositions that are true. Everything else that philosophers say about truth, all the psychological hand waving, the appeals to symbolic logic, and abuses of epistemology (a word means its definition, nonsense) is sophistry and an attempt to discredit knowledge.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:18 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:46 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:05 am Now you can DENY that other universes exist.
I do not deny. There are many things which I know do not exist, things others make up in their own heads or believe that other's have made up in theirs, but I do not waste my time denying them. [Gods, angels, supernatural beings, other universes, come to mind.]

When someone suggests, "other universes," it is one of those things that defies definition. What is a universe? If, "universe," does not mean all there is, then another word is needed to mean that. What I mean by universe is all there is, whether I or anyone else is conscious of that universe or knows what its entire nature is, it is all there is. There cannot be another, "all there is." Now if you mean something else by the word, "universe," other than, "all there is," what do you call all there is. If there were more than one of whatever you call, "universe," what I mean by universe would include all your "universes." What would you call, "all the universes." This idea of other universes propagated by Leibniz and Kant is just absurd. Forget the word universe. When I refer to, "reality," I mean, "all there is," so let's just call it, "everything." There is only one, "everything."

The word is "Totality" and is what I use to represent, "absolutely all", but includes all that is relatively or absolutely non-existent and nothing itself.

The way I explained 'truth' is that it is a mere agreement or "fitness" between two things which at least requires one class to be in another. This agreement, is not merely some handshake but includes any part of Totality to some other part where one is contained in another. It reduces to an implication, such as

X → U ....at the very least. [This is to mean that X may also be identical to U.]

If X implies U, where X is anything proposed and U is any universe of discourse, then IF X exists, it is "fit" if U is assured by this condition. So U can exist where some X may not. But where X is not the case, it is still the case in Totality but outside of this particular Universe.

This explanation evades using 'true' circularly and also doesn't bias the possibility that absolutely everything is 'possible' relative to Totality. Note that "possibility" is the ability to 'pose' or 'posit' existence to something. If you already agree that you cannot presume us as uniquely what defines reality, then anything "possible" by Totality doesn't require it to be possible by our particular Universe as a physical one.

If Absolutely Everything is possible in Totality, this includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible. This CAN occur if there is exclusive Universes that cannot be linked or compared to our perception. And what perceives such things "posed" as Totality itself doesn't require having senses like us humans. Just treat the classes that are non-living essences as "containing" instead of "perceiving".

When you are dealing with a significant concept of "truth" where differences exist between peoples views (including those who are potentially 'flawed' in their thinking or religious ideas), my definition doesn't BIAS anyone nor any thing! The statement of X → U suffices to express this concept without bias. Then what is 'false' would indeterminately lie outside of U, however you define it. If you believe there is no other, then what is false to you is non-existent and you may dismiss such concepts. But to dismiss this expression of "truth" by you is risky because you require knowing all parts of reality in order to assert that only what YOU think is 'possible' is "pose-able". There are an infinite things that are not "pose-able" that are true or false. Thus the domain where what is relatively impossible here properly FITS in a class outside of our Universe.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:07 pm**

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:18 pm If Absolutely Everything is possible in Totality, this includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible.

If what you intend by the word, "Totality," is that which, "includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible," it is what everyone else means by the word, "nonsense." Your philosophy sounds like it was written by Lewis Carroll, (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), "I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
[Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen]

You and the queen have a lot in common.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:07 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:18 pm If Absolutely Everything is possible in Totality, this includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible.
If what you intend by the word, "Totality," is that which, "includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible," it is what everyone else means by the word, "nonsense." Your philosophy sounds like it was written by Lewis Carroll, (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), "I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
[Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen]

You and the queen have a lot in common.

I thought of this myself. Did you know that he was also into logic? And while I cannot comment on his own intention of writing, there is rationality to this and why I proposed it. Hegel tried to introduce this as well as Lewis' contempory in expanding on what would become the roots in 'multivalued' logic.

Reality HAS to be understood this way to be unbiased. While it doesn't mean dismissing science and logic for our particular universe, when it comes to the THEORETICAL considerations, you have to assume both nothing and everything to be possible. The "third" class of possibilities are the 'finite' ones of which our own particular Universe is one such world. But to assume our place in Totality is itself 'special' and appropriately representative (by having only a finite set of 'truths' in Totality), biases one to the anthropic ideals which to me is not science given it speculates beyond its limits to know.

What is non-sensible is implying that reality needs a human-like 'observer' for our Universe to operate should you also presume this means one is literally being crazy or insane. This is what I believe Carroll was using his story for. I was not a fan of Lewis Carroll until I recognized that the material had some relation to logic and his own interest in the subject. I still cannot speak on what he as an author thought for not investing the time needed to undertand his material better.

For me, I don't believe that our Universe nor Totality as a greater whole could exist without a mindless non-conscious state of nothing. How can reality come from some special mind for order and laws? Thus, to me it is rational to presume a most strict agnostic position with respect to Totality by presuming Absolutely Everything 'possible' or, should there be an 'origin', Absolutely Nothing. These have to mean that reality is just a manifestation of the very 'logic' of nothing, of no mind, of no concern for order nor laws at its foundation. That order and laws CAN be a part of a reality without bias, but that a particular order with particular laws ARE biased, it is more reasonable to assume absolutely everything which implies absolutely nothing as the UNDERLYING truth of everything.

Note that the characters are still all Lewis' creation. So while comparing me to the Queen may seem fitting, all the characters are as 'irrational' if you assume Alice as somehow MORE 'real' for having such a dream at all. The story is ironically logic-laden but may need a bit of LSD to relate? I have yet to experience anything more than magic mushrooms and welcome anyone to send me some of this acid to test this out for myself. In the meantime, I cannot speak for Lewis' actual insight about what he thought or intended on writing Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass.

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:07 pm**

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:07 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:18 pm If Absolutely Everything is possible in Totality, this includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible.
If what you intend by the word, "Totality," is that which, "includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible," it is what everyone else means by the word, "nonsense." Your philosophy sounds like it was written by Lewis Carroll, (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), "I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
[Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen]

You and the queen have a lot in common.
I thought of this myself. Did you know that he was also into logic? And while I cannot comment on his own intention of writing, there is rationality to this and why I proposed it. Hegel tried to introduce this as well as Lewis' contempory in expanding on what would become the roots in 'multivalued' logic.

Dogson was a polymath: religious, mathematician, writer, poet, politician, photographer, and more. I would not consult him on any philosophical questions, but do recognize his keen intellect. He dabbled in cryptography and symbolic logic, which was, in his day, still innocent.

It [symbolic logic] has not been innocent since the logical positivists perverted it, having interpreted it in terms of the terrible epistemology of Hume and Kant.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am Reality HAS to be understood this way to be unbiased. While it doesn't mean dismissing science and logic for our particular universe, when it comes to the THEORETICAL considerations, you have to assume both nothing and everything to be possible.

This does not even begin to have meaning to me if the words, "everything," "nothing," and, "possible," mean what I understand them to mean. The word, "nothing," means, "NO thing." "Possible," means, within the limits of ontological and psychological existence a thing can be or an event can happen. "Nothing cannot be or happen, else it would not be nothing, and therefore it is impossible for nothing to be or happen.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am The "third" class of possibilities are the 'finite' ones of which our own particular Universe is one such world. But to assume our place in Totality is itself 'special' and appropriately representative (by having only a finite set of 'truths' in Totality), biases one to the anthropic ideals which to me is not science given it speculates beyond its limits to know.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. What do you mean by possibilities. "Truths," are not existents, the word only identifies propositions which have the quality, "true," and I have no idea what you think is being speculated.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am What is non-sensible is implying that reality needs a human-like 'observer' for our Universe to operate should you also presume this means one is literally being crazy or insane.

What do you mean by "non-sensible?" Do you mean nonsense as in silly or absurd, or something else. There is nothing wrong with imagining nonsense as long as one does not confuse it with the world we directly perceive and the fact we perceive it.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am For me, I don't believe that our Universe nor Totality as a greater whole could exist without a mindless non-conscious state of nothing.

Nothing is certainly mindless and non-conscious, because nothing has no attributes at all. If it did, it would be something. But the physical universe is mindless and non-conscious, and not alive either. Life, consciousness, and minds only exist as attributes of physical organisms, not to rest of physical existence.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am How can reality come from some special mind for order and laws?

It can't, but who said it did, and why did you think such a question even needed to be asked?

There is only what is and there cannot be anything else. What is not cannot be. The physical universe we directly perceive, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, is all that exists physically, and together with living, consciousness, mental organisms, make up the entire material universe, which is all there is and is rightly call reality or existence.

If you don't agree with that Scott, that's fine, but I would be curious how you think you could know any other kind of reality or existence.

Philosophy Now Forum

What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?

Re: What is Truth?