The Real Tautology
"Anything only exists because we think why it doesn't exist"
"All theorems are true until proven wrong"
You need the ability of reason to question something. The earth till date would have been considered flat if someone wouldn't have thought otherwise. We are finding more and more bizarre things in our search and yearn to understand this universe. Even though the discoveries are afresh, but the subject of discovery has been in existence since time. The universe will allow us to observe itself until we keep looking, the day we stop, it will freeze its own existence and state.
Language came into existence because we needed ways to communicate. Take up any random word and think why somebody would have felt the need to coin it?
As we keep imagining and exploring, the universe unravels itself. In your day to day life, I don't think the black hole sitting in the center of our galaxy has any direct impact. you will be indifferent to its existence.
But its there now since somebody has observed it. If nobody would have, it might or might not have existed?
All of these thoughts intrigue me a lot. What do you think?
"All theorems are true until proven wrong"
You need the ability of reason to question something. The earth till date would have been considered flat if someone wouldn't have thought otherwise. We are finding more and more bizarre things in our search and yearn to understand this universe. Even though the discoveries are afresh, but the subject of discovery has been in existence since time. The universe will allow us to observe itself until we keep looking, the day we stop, it will freeze its own existence and state.
Language came into existence because we needed ways to communicate. Take up any random word and think why somebody would have felt the need to coin it?
As we keep imagining and exploring, the universe unravels itself. In your day to day life, I don't think the black hole sitting in the center of our galaxy has any direct impact. you will be indifferent to its existence.
But its there now since somebody has observed it. If nobody would have, it might or might not have existed?
All of these thoughts intrigue me a lot. What do you think?
Comments (43)
It is common in mathematics to prove P because NOT P contains a contradiction. Likewise, you can prove NOT P if P is contradictory. So, there is truth to the statement that we don't understand something unless we understand the opposite to be false.
Can something be reality if you don't know what that something is about? Can something be claimed as existence if no one knows what the something is about?
I think there were trees in the forest before anyone saw them.
I believe that reality does not exist independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense.
:up:
Maybe it does or doesn't, but it is meaningless to say it does, when there is no knowledge available about the reality.
exactly
I have no real commitments either way here but it might also be said that the universe doesn't so much unravel itself as we co-create or even invent it. Everything we see and experience is subject to our cognitive apparatus, our arbitrary language and our frames of reference which may not (and in my view are unlikely to) map directly onto reality. 'Reality' itself is a human construct, the ultimately real, the foundation, the prime mover, whatever conceptual frame you wish to insert.
There's a whole thread on this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14685/the-mind-created-world
I like to think from the direction of nothingness. How can you arrive at the universe (or reality) as we know it today, from the state of nothingness. Everything makes a lot of sense with this POV.
We are not saying reality only exists when we observe it. But we are saying we have the parts of the universe we can observe and know them as existing. But there are also the parts we cannot see or observe, which we don't know if existing or not.
To say, everything exists, and everything is consistent and the world works perfectly sounds misleading. Because it doesn't. Some parts seems it does, but some parts are in chaos and uncertain.
We need to say that there are parts of the universe which we don't know for certain, and there are parts we do know because we can observe and experience. This is the truth.
Suddenly knowing that black holes exist doesn't mean that it wasn't true that they existed before. Suddenly knowing you're sick when you cough doesn't mean you weren't sick prior to your coughing. We do not determine reality, we interpret reality in an attempt to understand it in a meaningful way.
Isn't truth property of our judgement on the world? We cannot call what was unknown as truth when it is hidden. Truth reveals itself aftermath of knowing. There is no meaning in truth unknown.
Truth reveals in the dialectical manner. First it is unknown, then it is observed and verified. And lastly it becomes Truth with the verification. Existence without this dialectical process of Epistemology is not truth.
No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. Again, you're confusing truth with knowledge. Knowledge is a tool; a logical process by which we encapsulate what is into something meaningful and useable. We do not determine truth, we determine knowledge. And what can hold as knowledge is that which is logically determined to not contradicted by the truth.
Throw a ball in the air, and it returns to the Earth. Knowing gravity is irrelevant. Knowing some languages call it 'a ball' is irrelevant. Believing it won't come back to Earth is irrelevant. Reality, or truth, is that the ball comes back to Earth. It doesn't matter if you're there to witness it or not. Truth is what is, and it is what is regardless of what you know or believe.
What is the point of saying something is truth, when you don't know anything about it? Isn't it a senseless absurdity?
You seemed to be confusing some mundane unobserved events with truth. Unobserved events or existence are not in the category of truth. They are just unobserved events or entities. Some folks happened to see the events or entities would take them as truths, but the other folks who have not been in the vicinity to see the events or existence would have no idea what they are about.
Truth means statements or propositions which corresponds to the existence or events in reality.
No, its simply noting that things exist apart from what we know or believe.
Quoting Corvus
Truth is what is whether its observed or not. Whether its mundane or not.
Quoting Corvus
Unobserved events or existence is not in the category of what is known, or knowledge. Unobserved events are true existences despite our knowledge of them.
Quoting Corvus
We can ascribe statements as being true, but truth is not only ascribed to the realm of statements. Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements.
It sounds like a real tautology here. Saying truth is what is, doesn't say anything meaningful at all.
Imagine when someone says to you, I am going to tell you a truth, but I have no idea what it is about.
Or truth is truth. Truth is what it is. They are just empty words.
Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to the reality, which all intelligent folks can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.
Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality. Let me fix this for you:
"A true statement is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality." But that is not the definition of the word 'truth'. Truth is, 'what is'. "A statement about something concrete and corresponds with reality is true, or accruately captures 'what is'.
Truth applied to statements is not the full meaning of truth. Truth does not require statements. Truth does not require your observation. Truth is what is.
(True Statements) are those which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.
Let me refine this as well. What is true may not necessarily be intelligible. Generally we call these statements "Knowledge". What is known is that which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share, and agree in their minds. Even then, there are some things such as subjective experience which can only be known to the individual.
It seems to be getting more unclear. One thing clear with truth is, if one doesn't know what he is talking about, then he cannot be telling truth.
What specifically is unclear? Let us say that I tell a young kid, "1+1=2". The kid doesn't know what any of it means. They go up to an adult and say, "1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue?
You shouldn't expect kids with no education and no development in the intelligence to the adult level to be able to tell the analytic truth.
That didn't answer my question. Which means you know the answer, but were unwilling to admit it. Of course what the kid states is true, even if they don't know what they're talking about. But if you're starting to avoid direct answers and coming up with odd asides, we've probably reached the end of a decent conversation. Have a good day.
I don't agree. My point is that you seem to be confusing, claiming that facts and existence are identical to truths. They are not truths themselves. Truth is our judgement from reasoning on the facts, existence and events, and also statements and propositions regarding those entities.
You are saying Eiffel tower is truth, because it is what is. No. Eiffel tower is an object. It is not a truth. Eiffel tower is in Paris. This statement is truth.
Quoting Philosophim
Thanks. You too.
I think wed all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words true or truth they have one of two different meanings.
Quoting Philosophim
That is one of the meanings I use. When a person in a USA court swears to tell the truth they are saying that their sentences will correspond to reality. An important corollary to this is that the words true and truth require the words false and falsehood (or similar). We need some semantic way to express that a statement about something concrete is not true.
Quoting Philosophim
At the risk of going on a tangent, this statement is true - but the context is different. If I have one apple in my left hand and one in my right I have two apples. If I have an apple in one hand and an orange in the other I have two pieces of fruit. Etc. But once we say 1+1=2 we are no longer talking about something concrete - we are doing math - we are manipulating symbols. 1+1=2 is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. And - as previously - we need some method to state that a particular mathematical statement is not true.
So far, so good.
Quoting Philosophim
Ii could be mistaken but I dont think youre saying that what simply is is simply another definition/synonym for the word truth" (or visa-versa). I dont think youre saying that we can use the word truth in place of using the phrase what simply is. If that were the case then there are much better words - reality, the universe, existence, etc - which do not have any additional implication.
So from my perspective it seems that you are trying to create a third context in which the words truth and false have specific meanings - but how this works is not clear to me. Just e.g., how does falsehood work in your context? Would you say Falsehood is what simply is not?
Im guessing (and again I could be wrong) that you are trying to express a more encompassing philosophical concept. You may be onto something here (not me to judge). But your usage strikes me more as poetry. Here Ill compose a short poem:
What Is - by EricH
[i]Truth is the sky is blue
Truth is my love for you
Truth is not a miss
Truth is what simply is.[/i]
Not a particularly good poem - pretty pathetic actually.
Pathetic your poem? No way. It is actually good if we interpret truth through a poetic context. I see the point you raised there; philosophy is very important, but we can gaze at the world with different perspectives. I know I could look a bit intrusive here, but since you felt you did something flat in your poem, I just wanted to let you know that you showed creative and artistic vibes in your post. Don't ever say again your poems are pathetic! :up:
Correct. Its both a blessing a curse that we use the same words for different contexts, and in each context they have a different meaning. Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" and "True despite my knowledge or beliefs"
Quoting EricH
Agreed. Kant come up with two terms that attempted to capture these differences. Analytic knowledge is true by virtue of being, and synthetic knowledge is true by experiencing the world and finding what fits.
Quoting EricH
No, I actually was using it as another synonym. :) You do bring a good point though. Perhaps the word 'truth' has becomes such a broadly applied word in culture that it is difficult to use it in a distinct and clear context. The problem is that if we don't lock it in to clear and distinct contexts, then it becomes what I like to call a 'wiggle word'.
Wiggle words are often sore spots in communication. In honest usage with clear communication of context, they're fine. But often times a person will use the term in context A when it is convenient for them, then switch, often unintentionally, to context B use of the term when a weakness of context A appears. Its not that context B has suddenly appeared in the conversation, its that the usage of the word for context A has become context B for this brief period of discussion, and will go right back to context A when convenient.
In my experience, the source of most philosophical issues are poorly defined or misused definitions. So yes, falsehood would be the expression of 'what isn't'. I do think these definitions help clarify the usage better, its just that we get lazy with the terms truth and false. For example, "I know X". It is true that you know X, but it can be equally true that what you know is wrong. The biggest mistake most people make is mistaking 'knowledge' for truth.
Belief is a claim that "X is true" through intent, emotion, and limited rationality. Knowledge is a tool, a process of logic and application that results in what can most reasonably be asserted at the time by anybody in the shoes of that person. In either case, what one believes might be true, and what one knows might be false. Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Belief and knowledge are assessments of truth, and as such often poorly get equated with truth or falsehood themselves. As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
If you like thinking about concepts like these, I've written a more in depth look at what knowledge is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Following my immediate posts there is a wonderful summary from another poster as well.
Finally your poem made me laugh, so its a success in my book. :D
Another very delayed response here . . .
Were taking past one another. I will try to clarify. I suspect that I will fail in communicating, but Ill try again.
To recap what I said, I am attempting to make a very narrow point about the semantics of the words true, truth false, and falsehood (and any synonyms).
As I use them, the words true and false are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words truth and falsehood are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. My position is that there are two uses of these words that work - i.e. that make semantic sense. Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word truth.
1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another.
With that in mind . . .
Quoting Philosophim
I read this and am reminded of the old joke about The Lone Ranger and Tonto (its considered a bit racist these days).
Anyway, maybe this is how you use the word true, but I suspect that the majority of folks out here would disagree with this.
Quoting Philosophim
For purposes of this discussion I will take it that this is analogous to The Correspondence Theory of Truth (my first definition/usage of the word truth). So we agree on this usage.
Quoting Philosophim
Aargh! No! I am not qualified (and have no interest) in discussing Kant, but I am confident in saying that Peano Arithmetic (in fact all mathematics) is a human invention in which we manipulate symbols within specific rules. Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words true and false do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false.
Quoting Philosophim
If you are using the word truth as a synonym for existence then the following sentence is semantically correct:
According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago
This is patently absurd (at least it looks that way to me). I am humbly requesting that you refrain from using the word "truth" in this fashion.. It serves no syntactical or semantic purpose and only makes communication massively confusing.
Quoting Philosophim
Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word truth an additional context that converts it into a wiggle word. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word truth, theres no compelling need to give it this third definition.
Quoting Philosophim
I would consider knowledge and belief to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree.
Quoting Philosophim
Im not sure what youre saying here. Youve capitalized Truth. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? If so, then youve introduced yet a 4th usage of the word truth and I strenuously disagree. There aint no such thing as Truth itself. Or perhaps you are opposed to using the word Truth in this way? In which case I agree.
Anyway, just to re-iterate. There are two semantically consistent ways of using the word truth. The words knowledge and belief do not factor into these definitions/usages.
Quoting EricH
I agree with this.
Quoting EricH
This is a common mistake among newer philosophers. Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion. Its because there are a few questions that always pop up? "Do you believe it is true, or do you know it is true?" "What is truth apart from our beliefs and knowledge?" Often times when speaking about 'truth' people mistakenly blend in belief or knowledge and conflate the two. So the division is actually pretty important.
Quoting EricH
No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know.
Quoting EricH
Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. 1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. So true and false do apply to mathematics, its just when we have correct math its 'true' and incorrect math is 'false'. Is it a truth apart from knowledge and belief, or is it true in virtue of the knowledge that created math?
Quoting EricH
Close! If there was no existence, then that would be the truth of 'what is'. In this case, 'what isn't'. If it helps, think of the state of A vs not A. A if false if it doesn't exist, and A is true if it does. But if A does not exist I can also say, "It is true that A does not exist". So the same if there was no existence all those years ago.
Quoting EricH
I don't think it is wiggly though. Truth is, "What is". In the first two cases it is 'what is' apart from belief and knowledge. In the second case it can also be 'What is" despite belief and knowledge. I'm noting that some people also use truth to say, "Its true that I believe X" and "Its true that I know y." In the case of these statements however, it doesn't mean that what one knows or believes is true itself, its that its true that you know or believe it.
Its false that a pink elephant exists (True that it does not exist)
Its true that I believe there is a pink elephant.
Its true that I know there is a pink elephant.
In every case the term true as 'What is" is the same, its just that belief and knowledge introduce a context in which we have to be careful. Is true targeting the state of the person's outlook on A, or whether the underlying outlook A is true or not?
Quoting EricH
Fair enough.
Quoting EricH
Hopefully the above clarified the issue. Its basically the difference between the state of our outlooks on A, versus whether A is true or false apart from our outlooks.
Causality is why it is what it is. If we have captured causality that is real, then it is true.
I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it?
I think we're having a semantic disagreement. Let me be more specific and you can describe it in whatever terms you would like.
Lets say that science claims that ten tons of force in X direction will result in it traveling Y kilometers in Z direction. We apply the force, and the result happens without the introduction of new variables. Looks like the causal prediction was true.
Lets say that science does the same, no new variables are introduced, but the distance falls short one meter every time. Our causal claim does not match to reality, therefore is not true.
You can think whatever you want.
Quoting Philosophim
Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that.
Obviously you're not interested in this discussion. Another day and another post then.
Quoting Philosophim
I'll never understand the level of invective out here. I mean let's face it - we're all a bunch of eccentric cranks out here. Let's have some fun, but don't take it too seriously.
Quoting Philosophim
But you're gonna disagree in a moment.
Quoting Philosophim
Suffering succotash! You seemingly just agreed with me above that the word "truth" identifies statements that are true. So I most definitely am not talking about "truth as a state of reality". To repeat, I am talking about the word "truth" as a property of sentences/propositions.
You appear to be using the word "truth" in a completely different way here. Now there's nothing wrong with this - but if so then you need to give that definition and show how it works semantically in specific contexts.
================
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know what you mean by 'an identity'.
Quoting Philosophim
I can only repeat myself here. If you have one apple in your right hand and one in your left, you have two apples. etc, etc. But "1+1=2" is only true within certain mathematical frameworks (e..g. Peano Arithmetic) and it is only true because it can be derived using the axioms and rules of the framework. There are other mathematical frameworks in which it may not be the case.
Quoting Philosophim
Aargh again. It is neither..
Quoting Philosophim
Sigh - we know no such thing.
Quoting Philosophim
Again we know no such thing. What we do know is that by applying the axioms of Peano Arithmetic we can prove that "1+1=3" is false - but again this is only the case within Peano Arithmetic.
================
Quoting Philosophim
You spend a lot of time on belief/knowledge, but this is [metaphor alert!] a side show. Of course belief and knowledge are legitimate and important topics of conversation, but they do not affect the semantics of the words "true" and "false". If we say
[i]I believe P.
I know P.[/i]
where P is a sentence/proposition about reality/existence/what is/the universe/etc? It is P which is true or false. The words "belief" and "know" are used to indicate the speaker's attitude/assessment/evaluation/judgement/confidence in/etc of the accuracy of P.
==================
Quoting Philosophim
As I said in my first response, this is not a definition, it is a poetic metaphor. The universe/existence/what is/everything that is the case/reality/etc is neither true not false - it simply "is". it is our statements about the universe/existence/what is/everything that is the case/reality/etc that are true or false.
Interestingly enough, @Arcane Sandwich seems to agree with you on this point.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
==================
Summary - I'm doubting that this conversation will be productive moving forward. I'm pretty much repeating the previous points I made - and you seem to be mostly repeating your points. But who knows. I've presented a pretty sound case that there are two working definitions/usages of the adjectives "true" and "false" - and their noun equivalents. You seem to be suggesting that there is a third definition/usage, but so far I'm not seeing anything I can sink my [metaphor alert!] philosophical teeth into. But if you can present a clear and explicit definition and the context(s) under which your definition functions, I'll definitely check it out and try to respond.
Exactly! And if we don't agree, who cares as long as it was a fun conversation right?
Quoting EricH
Yes, truth is used slightly differently depending on the context, but at its base, is what I noted 'true'? If true refers to the property of sentences and propositions, isn't a true sentence "what is" while a false sentence is "what is not"?
For example,
a. A bachelor is an unmarried man.
b. Mark is unmarried.
c. Mark is a man
Therefore Mark is a bachelor.
In each case we say the premises are true, so the conclusion is true. In the context of this true at its base still means, "What is". The premises are what is, and the conclusion is 'what is'. If B were false, so if "Mark is unmarried = false = 'what is not' then the conclusion would also be false or 'what is not'
Context is always considered, but at its core, there's an underlying base to words that we should find. My challenge for you is to see if you can come up with a context of truth that doesn't contain 'what is' at its base, and a context of falsity that doesn't contain at its base 'what is not'.
Per your request, I've removed any reference to knowledge and belief from this point. What do you think?
We're just repeating ourselves here. I've given you 2 clear definitions and use cases of the words "true" & "false". You seemingly acknowledge what I'm saying then you go back and repeat your previous talking points.
So to repeat myself: "What is" is not true. "What is" is not truth. "What is" is not "the Truth". Etc. "What is" simply is. It is our sentences describing "what is" that are true or false.
Quoting Philosophim
Again - no! You keep equating our sentences with "what is". True sentences describe "what is" - they are not equivalent to "what is".
Quoting Philosophim
Notice that you used the word "contain" - this is yet another poetic metaphor. A true sentence does not contain "what is" - it describes "what is".
Anyway, I'll give you the last word.
And I don't think we disagree on this, I'm just trying to add the wrinkle of context in here. If I say, "Mark is an unmarried man" then say, "Its true", its true for that logical preposition. There may be no Mark I'm referencing at all besides the abstract concept.
Quoting EricH
I agree with this depending on the context. In some contexts we are equating our sentence as 'what is' like in the logic preposition I mentioned above. But this is really out of my major point which is that truth in any context still contains 'what is' at its base. The subject of what is, be the sentence itself or what the sentence is describing, is based on context.
I really don't think we're all that off from one another. No need to agree or disagree if you feel the discussion has reached its end, those are just my thoughts on the subject.