Philosophy Now Forum

So - I have come to the conclusion that the word “ truth” could be better understood by calling it a “reference that is the same as itself”.

If we dissect reference itself we find that it has two components, the referenced, and the referencing. The relationship between those two is only the same if both are true, different if what is said or done is false (one but not both)

What is the nature of reference? How does it function? It’s questions like these that make for, what I consider, good rationalism.

Truth is freedom ‘the ability to do otherwise’. It can be subjective or objective truth. Truth is indubitable.

Reference is extension or denotation. Looking, for words to objects in any give possible world. Intension is different and leads from possible worlds to objects. Look for meaning.

I see that the reference and the referenced share the same Boolean value…

Is Ollie.ha a new account from Advocate?

Advocate doesn’t believe in god…

The whole point of learning the truth for me is to know god…

No i am not Advocate

* In terms of thoughts whose truth value is undefined mentally: can you apply a truth value without creating it (assuming the thought has an existential true or false value)?

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 1:24 am
The whole point of learning the truth for me is to know god…

If 'you' really do want to 'know God', then you just have to 'know thy Self', first.

Total taboo with the “not such that” but I think you get the picture.

(x ¬ | ∃x) = ∅ ⊕ {∅}) ⊕ ∅

Translates: ((the reference x, is not, the reason for, the existence, of x) that being, false, or, true) or all that being false

Is this unsolvable?

I mean what happens if you prove x ¬ | ∃x?

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:43 pm Total taboo with the “not such that” but I think you get the picture.

(x ¬ | ∃x) = ∅ ⊕ {∅}) ⊕ ∅

Translates: ((the reference x, is not, the reason for, the existence, of x) that being, false, or, true) or all that being false

Is this unsolvable?

I mean what happens if you prove x ¬ | ∃x?

Then you have proved 'it', obviously.

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 1:24 am Advocate doesn’t believe in god…

The whole point of learning the truth for me is to know god…

No i am not Advocate

god cannot be known. Is not known. Can only be lesserly believed. This truth I have learned.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 11:26 pm

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 1:24 am Advocate doesn’t believe in god…

The whole point of learning the truth for me is to know god…

No i am not Advocate

god cannot be known. Is not known. Can only be lesserly believed. This truth I have learned.

God is the devil…
I’m looking for the part of it that’s supreme

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 11:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 11:26 pm

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Fri May 23, 2025 1:24 am Advocate doesn’t believe in god…

The whole point of learning the truth for me is to know god…

No i am not Advocate

god cannot be known. Is not known. Can only be lesserly believed. This truth I have learned.

God is the devil…
I’m looking for the part of it that’s supreme

As in complex? In His, Its substance's simplicity? It has no parts. Other than Persons. They are all supreme. Surely? All of the God substance is supreme. I mean, the second is utterly superfluous admittedly. The Son part.

Ed. I should have involved details somehow shouldn't I? As in 'As in complex, in the details?'. As in the devil is in them. I thought of it, but it was late, I was tired, still am, an indulgent night of Mexican beer, peanuts roast in their shell, Argentine Malbec, steak, broccoli, two Ripper Streets, a small minty dessert, tea, a toasted tea cake with marmalade and half a Baby Bel, Laphroaig and a cheroot; I'd turned the screen off and all the downstairs lights. And I hadn't formulated it until just now. You know how it goes. And Adrian Tchaikovsky's Cage of Souls was waiting.

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:43 pm Total taboo with the “not such that” but I think you get the picture.

(x ¬ | ∃x) = ∅ ⊕ {∅}) ⊕ ∅

Translates: ((the reference x, is not, the reason for, the existence, of x) that being, false, or, true) or all that being false

Is this unsolvable?

I mean what happens if you prove x ¬ | ∃x?

Not even contingent then?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:09 am

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:43 pm Total taboo with the “not such that” but I think you get the picture.

(x ¬ | ∃x) = ∅ ⊕ {∅}) ⊕ ∅

Translates: ((the reference x, is not, the reason for, the existence, of x) that being, false, or, true) or all that being false

Is this unsolvable?

I mean what happens if you prove x ¬ | ∃x?

Not even contingent then?

That helps a lot!!!!