Truth Defined
Truth is an emergent property of the dynamism of identity.
Identity is a core element of truth visualized through the interrelations of numbers.
7=7 is an identity.
The dynamism of identity is exemplified by the myriad faces of transformation without change.
3+4=7, 5+2=7, 6+1=7, 8-1=7, 9-2=7, 10-3=7
You see there are unlimited instances of the faces of transformation without change.
Identity has a reflective surface that mirrors itself. Symmetry, born of identity, conserves identity and supports the logical structure of the dynamism of truth.
Truth is an emergent property of these unlimited instances of the faces of transformation without change.
The essential attribute of truth is the convergence of the myriad faces of transformation without change due to their conformity to the core identity which is the source of their dynamism: of one many.
Material, motion, force, momentum, time and space are the faces of truth that science measures and art experiences.
Logic is the time-zero expansion-convergence, or dynamism, of the faces of transformation without change.
The (logical) map is the terrain, except for pi. The line and the circle are not completely commensurable.
The calculus is an incompletable negotiation with unspecifiable infinity.
Logic can be herded but never corralled.
Science and art are experiences grand but incompletable.
The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art.
Identity is a core element of truth visualized through the interrelations of numbers.
7=7 is an identity.
The dynamism of identity is exemplified by the myriad faces of transformation without change.
3+4=7, 5+2=7, 6+1=7, 8-1=7, 9-2=7, 10-3=7
You see there are unlimited instances of the faces of transformation without change.
Identity has a reflective surface that mirrors itself. Symmetry, born of identity, conserves identity and supports the logical structure of the dynamism of truth.
Truth is an emergent property of these unlimited instances of the faces of transformation without change.
The essential attribute of truth is the convergence of the myriad faces of transformation without change due to their conformity to the core identity which is the source of their dynamism: of one many.
Material, motion, force, momentum, time and space are the faces of truth that science measures and art experiences.
Logic is the time-zero expansion-convergence, or dynamism, of the faces of transformation without change.
The (logical) map is the terrain, except for pi. The line and the circle are not completely commensurable.
The calculus is an incompletable negotiation with unspecifiable infinity.
Logic can be herded but never corralled.
Science and art are experiences grand but incompletable.
The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art.
Comments (72)
I agree with this. But what about something not observed yet, but is, beyond doubt, projected to happen? Will it be considered truth, or not because of the lack of patterned observations?
Quoting ucarr
Is logic truth or argument based on observation (projection)?
Quoting ucarr
Are you sure, you have access to the axiomatic science?
Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259
Good one. There are more areas to attack, though. The problem with his proposition is that it's entirely mathematical.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Copernicus
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Copernicus
Quoting ucarr
I said it from the mathematical standpoint. Nonetheless, are you sure your science is absolute?
Quoting Hanover
Let's suppose the cat's position on the mat lies within the range-domain of an objectively established Cartesian Coordinate system; it is a defined neighborhood within the borough of Brooklyn in New York. If an investigator can write an equation that plots an ordered pair valid with respect to the existential cat_mat, such that it maps to them, then by this means the truth of the statement can be established.
If I suppose the cat is in a specific place in New York, then why does an investigator have to appear and write down his coordinates for the cat to exist? Does the potential cat await patiently on the mat for the final equation to be written down by the investigator before the cat actually exists?
I feel like what we're getting at is that "the cat is on the mat" is true if it correlates with reality.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Copernicus
As for the math component of an axiom, if the math is internally consistent, then it is true to the interrelations of numbers as they apply to observable phenomena. This supports the mind's truth assessment of the math per the axiomatic system grounding the math.
Beyond the scope of the axiomatic system, refutation of the interrelations of the numbers of said system might occur, but the local truth within the system remains unperturbed. This is exampled by the comparison of Newtonian physics with Einstein physics. The older physics, being internally consistent within its limited scope, remains valid and true, as evidenced by its continuing use by today's physicists.
Unrestricted absolutism should not be the sine qua non standard for truth. The relativity of elapsing time across different inertial systems does not lead us to say their respective time measurements are not true.
My question is, are you certain that observers' (humankind, per se) subjective observations are credible?
Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259
Quoting Hanover
Quoting ucarr
My self quote above is how I've addressed the profound issue of the impossibility of reasoning to the naked fact of existence. Our existence must be assumed axiomatically. Part of the puzzle consists in the fact we cannot reason without assuming unexamined our sentient existence as a necessary precursor to all reasoning.
Quoting Hanover
Schrödinger's Paradox teases toward examining your question seriously. More to the point, no examination of truth, including the possibility of truth's existence, can proceed without the unexamined assumption of a rational examiner. Some suggestion here, therefore, pictures the absolutist pursuit of truth as an infinite echo chamber. Be content with the local truths the intelligibility of your life depends upon.
I'm not suggesting we challenge our own existence. We're talking about the cat. We don't just assume the cat exists. We have to see him first. Quoting ucarr
So you withdraw your previous response that said an examiner was required for the statement about the cat to be true?
Philosophy aside, do I now need to hire detectives or observers to know if my boiled egg is real or not?
Quoting Copernicus
Observation, as Sherlock Holmes establishes, might be a priori. As for uniform patterns establishing truth, one must ask, "Do they extend from and converge to an identity, such as 7=7?" Truth is symmetry and transformation rooted in identity.
Quoting Alam T.B.
The Infinite Symmetry revisits a persuasive argument rooted in anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, we have to be cautious to avoid the solipsism gutter. I choose to believe that now, as I'm dialoguing with you, I'm not really dialoguing with myself. In your dialoguing with me, don't you assume likewise? Well, if we can establish within the human realm that distinct individuals exist, might we not also assume distinct individuals elsewhere? Moreover, the argument we can't get beyond our own biology supports the supposition our incapacity to know beyond ourselves makes moot the question, "Are we alone?" If the question can't be resolved, there's no reason to assume we're wrong to assume human distinction, on the basis of an existentialist fiction, isn't a worthy empiricism.
Humans and their inventions will forever be limited. And even if they were infallible beings with unquestionable conclusions, the information paradox poses an important question: are you sure that the universe, in its entirety, has presented itself to you for proper inspection?
Quoting Hanover
And math does a good job of measuring and systematizing our seeing of cats. Truth, being an emergent property of the mind, is more abstract cognition than empirical experience, except that when a map leads you to your presupposed destination, your sense of reality and well being are gratified. So, the measuring and systematizing ride atop the assumption of our shared existence. We both know that when a brutal beast comes charging towards us, we don't assume our senses are projecting a mirage really a part of ourselves.
Even if our cognition is a closed system unreal beyond itself, its local reality is worthy of "as if" engagement.
And so I'll translate this line by line:
[i]We can measure cats mathematically. Truth is a creation of the mind and it's a concept, not a direct experience. You are happy when a map takes you to the right place. The measuring of something helps us understand it to make us believe we both live in the same reality. If an animal attacks us, we don't take a moment to decide if it's real.
Even if I am the only person in existence, I still act like other people exist.[/i]
Ok, now that I've translated it, tell me which of these things must necessarily exist for there to be a cat on the mat:
1. A mind, 2. a cat, 3. a mat.
My next questions:
If there is no mind, can there still be a cat?
What has to happen for a mind to perceive a cat? Does there have to be a cat to make the mind see the cat, or do just sometimes minds see cats and then we pretend there are cats, even though there aren't?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Hanover
No need to withdraw my statement of conditions for determining truth via math. As I've implied with...
Quoting ucarr
...science can't get started without assumptions as self-evident truths beyond the reach of reasoning. This being so, conditions for the practice of science toward establishing true relationships must be specified. The important word here is relationships. Truth, as I'm spinning it out, is rooted in relationships. Logic, being continuity governed by inference, checks and verifies the continuity linking the symmetrical handshake of truth across transformation without change.
Quoting Copernicus
Can you give reasons why infrared couldn't be measured in 1000 BC, or 1,000,000 BC?
Quoting Copernicus
Does the question of the loss of info due to black hole evaporation raise a question about the complete accessibility of info, or does it raise a question about the completeness of existence, a larger set containing info?
Let's suppose the loss of access to info is non-equal to the loss of info itself. If existence is a necessary precursor to info, and yet existence itself is incomplete, then the info paradox is merely more info about incomplete existence. Instead of focusing on lost info due to inaccessibility (and the supposed resultant unreliability of cognition), perhaps we should focus on the info suggested by the paradox as a revelation of the incompleteness of existence, and thus a gain of info about what cannot be known existentially.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
As I read your narrative, it hovers at the cusp of undecidability. If so, with your narrative you militate against necessity. Undecidability vacates the binary foundation of necessity. "To be or not to be," is arguably our greatest binary. Undecidability elides the authority of the binary whilst shaking hands with QM.
Incompleteness of existence might be another fundamental term in our ontology here: being/non-being, undecidability; existential incompleteness.
So, truth is rooted in relationships; relationships ride atop a binary-ist foundation. If you can stop relating to the natural world around you as a distinct and interrelated self, then perhaps you can live true to a principled skepticism about utilitarian truth local.
Your interpretation in bold at top indirectly invokes a useful definition of reality: the mirroring of cognition and its objects. Living in the same reality is a shout out to identity in the sense of 7=7. As we navigate what we call reality, we see things and strive to understand them as a mirroring of ourselves, albeit disguised as the other.
Does this say more than that a=a is true? That doesn't tell us what truth is.
Clever words can trick one into thinking that what one is saying is profound, when it is actually superficial.
Sorry. You asked.
Quoting Banno
a=a examples a true relationship in the context of symmetry. The self can't express itself outside of symmetry. You only see the mirror image of yourself. The mirror image of you is simultaneously you and not you, but mirror-image you.
From this beginning, thinking mind spins out from a=a to a=c because a equals b and b equals c. Logic guards against false continuities that break interrelations that would, according to the grandest scheme, spin out the universe from an immeasurable singularity.
Identity expresses the conservation laws in a nutshell of symmetry. You have a personal history. In the identity supported by your personal you are conserved. If someone, say, an online troll, posts to social media a fake news report linking you to a murder you didn't commit, you might mount a defense that demonstrates the absence of any symmetry between the fake report and you. Your argument would reside in logic demonstrating there's no mirror-imaging between your personal history and the report.
If the universe spins out from a point immeasurable in a history governed by symmetry and conservation laws, then Werthers travels, and his sorrows are but one personal history among countless, and yet the artifice of art tricks us into identification with what, at first glance, appears foreign to us.
We love to escape from the tyranny of our mundane selfhood, piqueishly scorning core facts like a=a as pettifogging fuss until someone or something threatens it, then we're at pains to show a=a, not a=¬a.
Yeah, you see I re-wrote what he wrote into what I thought it was saying.
For example, this statement:
Quoting ucarr
I interpret it this way: "When I walk around my house, I try to understand the things I see as being like me but dressed up like my wife."
I think that's a fair reading, making the abstract descriptions concrete.
I'm sure you didn't mean that though. A common rule of thumb for writers is that you can never blame your reader for misunderstanding, but you have to blame yourself for not being clear.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Hanover
Do you argue that your translation expresses trivial facts?
Less than I argue, I just seek clarity from you. You started a thread about truth, and such threads tend to be interesting, so I was trying to figure out what you were saying.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Hanover
All three must exist. The identity of each of the three is complicated by the interrelations numbers describe in measuring them. The truth content of the numerical narrative involves positioning of each in a calculable ecology that entails degrees of codependence and emergence.
Quoting Hanover
The first question begs the question, "How can there be a question about the existence of a cat in the absence of a questioning mind?" Ditto for the second question; since you must have a mind to ask the question, you can't stipulate the mind's exclusion in the answering of it. The third question, which operates in the shadow of the question-begging of the first two questions, asks for the type of complicated narratives appropriate for consciousness researchers; they're neuroscientists, not philosophers; suffice it to say, for now, that the mind can recombine received data into cognitions separate from their natural world correlates; I doubt it can conjure cognitions from nothing.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Hanover
I mean to say that epistemology gives quarter to skepticism, even to solipsism because the reasonings against universal truths find their durability by making a close approach to undecidability. The price paid for this defense is the weakening of the binary mindset of non-contradiction. This weakening, in turn, supports QM.
Maybe my post below provides you with some clarity.
Ok, but again, the relationship is true - but does it define truth?
I asked ChatGPT to pull out the argument in your post, and it offered:
Condensed Argument Form
- The law of identity (a=a) expresses a symmetry fundamental to logic and to being/selfhood.
- Logical reasoning (relations among terms) expands this symmetry outward into the relational world.
- Logic preserves genuine symmetries falsehood is a broken symmetry.
- Personal identity mirrors physical conservation: the self is what persists through transformations.
- When false identifications occur, reason (logic) restores symmetry by distinguishing self from non-self.
- Art and imagination temporarily play with symmetry by allowing false identifications.
- Thus, our intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic lives are structured by a tension between the conservation of identity (a=a) and the imaginative violation of it (a=¬a)
.Now it seems to me that a=a can function as a definition of "=", but not of "...is true".
So instead, perhaps consider the T-sentence. It has a longer pedigree but remains pretty tautologous.
As definitions of truth go, this is The One.
This seems to me a definition of essence but not truth
Quoting ucarr
Yeah, it's basically like saying that to human is to need creativity, even if it seems "pointless". However, as far as science an art are concerned, to a high degree, they result from material accumulation to sound like a Marxist for a second.
We didn't have the technology. And no matter how many more billions of years you spend next, there will be things beyond your technical capabilities, and give you a false image of the universe. Our technologies would have to invent technologies to make themselves see things like we see through our invented technology. And this chain goes on.
Quoting ucarr
It implies that you've only discovered black holes and that particular paradox. There could be zillions of issues that are both forever beyond our reach and forever lost (affecting the state of the currently available entities). All of your constants and equations will always be based on a false reality.
Quoting ucarr
You should focus on the unreliability of physics and live your life with an skeptical worldview towards everything. That leaves you with two choices: give up everything and live like a Taoist because there's no point (nothing is truly knowable), or keep seeking the truth out of humanity's greatest gift that we call curiosity and never rest.
Quoting ucarr
So you've determined the truth. Great. Now what do you do with all this?
It's like an exercise in the aesthetics of symmetry and transformation that remains at the level of abstract contemplation. You wrap basic arithmetic in a poetic veneer, calling it the "dynamism of identity" and the "emergent property of truth," but what's next?
Mathematics already provides us with tools for describing such patterns, and they don't require such a flowery rethinking. In other words, you take a simple mathematical truth (a + b = c means c - b = a) and inflate it into a metaphysical concept without explaining how this expands our understanding of the world. The approach resembles an attempt to reinvent the wheel, but in a decorative form. Where is the breakthrough beyond what is already known?
Quoting Astorre
You want to see practical applications flowing out of my bullet list, and you want to see that they evoke fresh insights into the functions of our natural world.
Consider this: the dynamism of identity maps to the statement, "Homosexuality is the substrate of heterosexuality." In our early years we're all homosexual-adjacent because you must love your own gender before you can begin to love the other one (reaching across the aisle assumes high self esteem in confrontation with profound difference), if that ever happens. This is AI fluidity lite.
If we can suppose AI will soon become humanoid indistinguishable, the dynamism of identity will support fluidity across all races, genders, cultures and languages within each individual AI. Pivoting between global identities will for each AI individual be easy and natural.
This change at the level of the sentient individual will stimulate exponential changes in the collective global culture of AI sentients. The transformation to a new AI driven earth culture will feature attributes unimaginable to humans, but symmetry and conservation will keep us connected to it. Are you fastening your seatbelt?
Sorry, but I haven't seen a single non-speculative statement here. So far, it looks like a collection of idealistic assertions adorned with the purple of modernity.
"We are homosexual at an early age" why is that suddenly true?
"AI, becoming humanoid, will soon support the fluidity of all races and genders" why is that?
"Do I wear my seatbelt?" when I'm sleeping, no; when I'm driving, yes; when I'm driving and sleeping, I wear my seatbelt.
Quoting Banno
As I read T-sentence, it invokes the bi-conditional; the two terms support each other in identity.
A=A pictures the bi-conditional in all of its beautiful simplicity.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Pointless activity flings open the shutters of the mind to worlds of possibilities. Pragmatists preach nose-to-the-grindstone productivity, but a world of grunts without dreamers piles up grain that rots in the sun.
Quoting JuanZu
I don't know if you're addressing Aristotle, Israëli, Aquinas or me, but the correspondence theory nowadays lacks adequation with QM's entanglement of intellect and ecology.
Being_Identity_Truth How do we disentangle this trio? I say each implies the others. Can you narrate a world of beings without identities? Can you narrate a world of truth without identities and beings?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Copernicus
Things and their yardsticks are entangled. Since one implies the other, we see that conjecturing existence of things unmeasured is in fact a measurement of sorts of those unmeasured things. This is a convoluted way of saying that seeing a thing - whether literally or within the mind's eye - equals measuring a thing. Were this not so, how could a conjectured thing have any likeness to the thing? With no such corresponding likeness, the conjecture would be unintelligible.
Quoting Copernicus
Technology is not entirely invented. If I wish to measure something in nature, my instrument of
measurement must bear some resemblance to the object measured. The agreement of tool to object is instructed by the object.
It's true that the sentient arises from the ecology of its environment. If the ecology of the sentient is a closed system, and yet the sentient dreams of things lying beyond the system, then there exists a suggestion closed systems are incomplete, and thus the closure of the system is incomplete.
Our lack of final knowledge of what we know doesn't compel us to conclude what we know incompletely is false.
Quoting Sam26
Adequation of intellect and reality, and don't forget the entanglement of the two.
Quoting Astorre
The prudence of the pragmatist can sometimes make him appear far more astute than the theoretician. Reality pairs them together as a set never divided. Dreaming through immaterial possibilities seems the work of the addled fool. In our hardscrabble world of business savvy affirming courtship with expedience, speculation becomes a magnet for contempt.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were theoreticians. We respect their successes. We respect the practitioner more easily because his work begins with the success already won by the theoretician.
While it's true that theorizing should be constrained by conjecture, we don't know where the next correct idea in abstraction might arise. Without it, we might still be doing calculus on an abacus.
Quoting Astorre
Homosexuality supporting later heterosexuality is one of my conjectures that is subject to refutation.
AI identity fluidity, another possibly refutable conjecture, seems to follow from ease of transformation. Human gender fluidity is fraught with violence because gender boundaries are regarded as being unbreakable. If AI can do it easily and endlessly, why not? Being smart in life means being adaptable. Why wouldn't they flow through the spectrum of identities as adaptations to existential and social realities more complex than their human counterparts?
I'd like you to grasp the difference. This wasn't an attack on your theoretical ideas, but rather an attempt to highlight the lack of content (in my opinion) in them.
That is, look, X can be expressed in an infinite number of ways in mathematics. This constitutes a certain aesthetics of equality. Many topics, including my own, are about this. I, too, am guilty of re-expressing X, and I consider this special (after all, I made it up).
However, this is called iteration for the sake of iteration. It has no content, and it certainly doesn't compare to Hegel or Einstein. Transcending limits begins when you postulate X = X + 1! And then you write three hundred pages of justification for it. If these truths of yours contained even something like that, I would think twice. If they also contained justification, I would think even more. But these truths contain nothing. And it's not that I'm perfect myself and am teaching here the right way. It's just that when you keep throwing the same judgments around in circles (like water with a spoon in a bathtub), there's no real breakthrough. Throw in some food coloring, salt, or potatoesnow that's some kind of soup. Justify why you can eat it for breakfastnow that's an idea.
Again, please forgive my bluntness. I don't mean to offend your feelings, but I want substance!
And I expect the same criticism directed at me, and I would be very happy to receive it.
And here's another thing. Of course, I don't like all the themes here on the forum. "Too simple," "Too dreary," "Too idealized." And I'm certainly not the only one. My themes may also be disliked or oversimplified. What do we do in that case? We simply pass them by, because they don't concern us. But here's the thing: in this passing by, there's no act of "genuine encounter." The theme flies by like a surfer on a wave. There's no contact, no interaction. It feels as if someone held a fish: all that's left is slime on the hand.
And this is already an idea, and I postulate it: something is born only in the act of encounter. If there's no roughness that leaves a trace, then there's no act itself and nothing at all. Non-existence. Nothing. No immersion, no participation. There's nothing further.
It's like a meteor flying past the earth: it burns out beautifully and vanishes just like that, compared to some meteor that hit the earth, which left a mark, forced development, forced the rebuilding of what had been destroyed. The meteor may have brought misfortune, but it "was." And here's my assertion: Being is born in the act of encounter. I call this characteristic "involvement."
And please, break this.
Quoting Banno
You can do me a favor by specifying how each of the seven bullet points above is an empty banality that can give no instruction to a child in primary school. No scattershot generalities such as saying, "They're clichés garnished with five-dollar words." No, I want you to use specific details in your arguments. For example, regarding:
In response to this, you could attack its central premise: Identity_POV_World are a triad of interwoven ecology that's animated with life indivisible. If you can show they are divisible, then you might've killed the triad.
This is garbled to me. The word "invokes" is confusing. Does it mean entail, imply, reminds me of, or what? I don't know what it means for two terms to offer support for one another in identity. Are you saying (p <-> p) = (p=p)?
Is your use of the word "picture" an allusion to Wittgenstein and you're suggesting it's his position that the two bi-conditionals are identical?
And what you have here doesn't.
Logic is not based on identity, as your first dot point implies. Nor is it a symmetrical expansion of identity, as your second dot point says. Identity is an add-on for certain forms of predicate calculus, and so well away from the foundation of logic.
Falsehood is not broken symmetry, as you suggest in your third dot, so much as a logical constant, ?.
And so on.
I know that's no fun, but there it is.
Quoting Banno
Quoting ucarr
I use invoke to say that, "T-sentence cites the bi-conditional operator as its authority for its definition of truth."
Quoting Hanover
I think they each say something very similar. You have your identity. Your possession of same is conditioned upon the individuality of that state. You're mentally unsound if you're fundamentally uncertain about who you are.
Quoting Hanover
A=A is a graphic image you can see. As such, it pictures the symmetry and conservation and mirror-imaging of self clearly and succinctly.
In your personal lexicon "poetic" denotes what?
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Logical operators (?, ?, ??, ¬) are not logical identities?
How do you write a sequence of logic without logical operators?
Quoting Banno
The symmetries of quadratic functions don't example symmetrical expansion of quadratic equation graphs?
The symmetrical quadratic functions identities are not identities?
Quoting Banno
If you looked into a full length mirror and saw your mother looking back at you, would you affirm the truth of the symmetry?
No. They are, as you say, operators.
If you think "^" a symmetrical expansion of identity, "=", show how. You can't, because they are very different things. That equations us "=" does not make any difference here.
But we are not playing the same game, and perhaps hot even on the same field.
Dont be so quick to walk off the battlefield. I know orthodoxy is your sword in this particular battle, but improv offers you another rewarding role to play.
You cant assemble a logical expression without the operators. Each operator has its identity, so operator identities are fundamental to logic.
The orthodoxy dictating proper use of a=a was originally improvised and subsequently propounded into establishmentarian practice. Okay, so now youre a mouse running around in someone elses clever maze. Dont kid yourself youre not looking for your own playing field, if you can discover it.
Dont scurry back to establishment correspondents wholl semaphore more of the same rote patterns enshrined in textbooks. Thats not doing the real work before us now. If youre content to rehash the history of your predecessors then youll probably blow me off. Thats okay, but the fun I seek, for which you denigrate me as a woo- woo chaser after undisciplined whimsy, is supported by the imperative to live now fully while you can.
I need you to stay on the battlefield and work the trenches in close combat with me. Your job is to tear the guts out of my theoretical sallies, if you can.
We will both have a chance to win because you might reaffirm the foundation of your orthodoxy, or I might see clear to a new foundation.
I need your reasoned response to my question, If you cant write a logical expression without use of operators, how can they not be sine qua non identities?
New morphological expansions in math and logic is our work in our generation.
Quoting ucarr
What am I to make of this? What is the "identity" of "^" or of "?"? Am i to write "^=^"? In what logic would such a string be well-formed? How do I assemble such an expression?
Quoting ucarr
I'm happy to go with what's already been decided, since it's coherence is verified by multiple folk. That is, the accepted logic is rigourous. I remain unconvinced that there is much coherence in your proposal. But I happily admit I don't understand your proposal.
Logic is going through a strong growth phase at present, inspired by various formal developments, by computation and especially by the advent of AI. Thinking of it as hackneyed or frozen would be quite incorrect.
Quoting ucarr
To my eye, I have.
Next?
Tis but a scratch.
The latter.
A scratch? Your arm's off!
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Banno
Go one day with your understanding stripped of [math]?[/math] and then make something of that day's coherence.
Write any logical symbol as an identity. When you find one absurd, inform us.
Regarding [math]?[/math], attempt to place a small object so that it becomes uncontainable. Inform us when you succeed.
Quoting Banno
Consider: [math]?^2[/math]. This is the higher order of conjunction. So, the conjunction of conjunction
might be written as [math]a+b^{a+b}[/math]. What's an example application of [math]?^2[/math]? Suppose you're tracking the rate of acceleration of a giant comet moving on a collision course with earth. Knowing that the movement of the solar system's motion accelerates the acceleration of the comet, you must also know the acceleration of the comet's acceleration in the context of the moving solar system. So, the higher-order conjunctive acceleration of the comet is its momentum identity.
Conjunction, like every other thing, has an identity. Logic, therefore, unfolds and contracts as the valid continuity of identities. There are no laws prohibiting the multiplexing of a=a.
Truth is an emergent property of the dynamism of identity.
Identity is a core element of the interrelations of numbers.
7=7 is an identity.
The dynamism of identity is exemplified by the myriad faces of transformation without change.
3+4=7, 6+1=7, 5+2=7
Can you know the truth without knowing yourself?
Is there any knowing divorced from a sentient self? For example, does an insentient computer know whats in its database and whats in its memory circuits?
The conjunction of insentience and knowing sounds like an oxymoron.
Can you participate in the act of knowing without knowing that youre knowing?
The knowing of an insentient computer is a simulation of knowing borrowed from the programmer.
The essence of my structure of truth consists in two seemingly disparate things converging to a common point. In this phenomenon, the two things are true to each other at the point of identity.
Knowing yourself is the foundation of all your knowing.
Am I saying that all that you know becomes yourself? Yes, I am. This is tantamount to saying all that you know is known with a point of view, your point of view. Eliminate your point of view and there is no view; youre back to the insentient computer.
Sentience resides in the personal point of view.
Rationalism says, Dont take things personally. This an impossible task for the sentient. Strip the sentient of his POV and his memory collapses. Too long a stint in a sensory deprivation tank will cause this collapse because the subject forgets who he is. We only maintain a sense of self through contact with the world of other things. This tells us that we are the world.
QM tells us the same thing. We are entangled with the world around us.
Regarding causation, if a implies b, then we understand each term always converges to a common link binding it to the other term. Initially, before discovery of the causal link, a and b might appear to be unrelated. Through observation we discover that one event, the cause, always leads to another particular type of event, the effect.
As a clarifying example, consider the springtime onset of high volume, high density airborne pollen. When this occurs, the immunization doctor gets an upsurge in patients suffering with effects of allergies. Pollen density and allergies are true to each other as cause and effect.
Math is particularly good at modeling convergence of seemingly different things to a common point.
Two equations look different yet they share an ordered pair of coordinates that defines their intersection at a common point. Together they comprise a system of equations. The systemization of the two equations pairs them to a common point. Apparent difference, through independent truth to one position, converts the disparate equations into a unifying system.
Can someone write a counter-narrative describing a relationship of truth that doesnt reduce to an identity, or reduce different-seeming things that converge to one identity?
Essence and truth converge at the point of identity. What is the essence of something? Its identity. The essential truth of something is defined by its identity. How can it be otherwise? We do not know what a thing is until we know its identity. We therefore cannot know the truth about a thing until we know its identity.
"A scratch and my arm's off, but the other impels a sword."
Your cognitive sword is skepticism, propelling you forward thrusting and parrying at the devious world of deception?
I figured I could count on you to carry on.
Non of this is well-formed. Might as well write "§??±".
Quoting ucarr
Yes, there is. Substitution is extensional. Indeed, that's the very definition of "=".
I think I'm done here.
Quoting ucarr
You quote me incorrectly. Here's the undistorted quote.
Quoting ucarr
Higher order conjunction (across symmetry) suggests itself as a central component of mind emergent from brain. If there's truth in this conjecture, then it might be the type of symmetric extension that empowers your mind to understand the logical rules you cite as your refutations of my conjectures.
I respect your decision to walk away from our engagement here. Your input has motivated me towards a degree of logical clarity I couldn't've achieved without you. Thank-you for your time and energy.
I don't think your work here is done. For that to be the case, you need to write a logical proof establishing that the two quotes below confirm extension by substitution is disjoint from identity.
Quoting Banno
Your proof must counter-narrate:
Quoting Spectroscopy Online
I never got an answer to any of my questions.
Formal definitions of truth, though indispensable in logic, leave this fuller picture out. Tarskian or semantic schemas (p is true if and only if p) capture the structure of truth but not its life. They specify conditions of equivalence but remain silent about how truth functions within inquiry, how it guides belief, sustains correction, and grounds public justification. Formal accounts strip truth of human context: they can model consistency but not meaning, accuracy but not understanding. What they describe is the form of truths operation, not its practice. Truth, as lived and recognized, is not a symbol in a metalanguage but whats embodied in our forms of life (our language games), the point where the worlds order and our conceptual order momentarily coincide.
Quoting Astorre
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Astorre
You've gotten a response to each and every post you've addressed to me. As I say above, my conjecture about sexual identity ideation is subject to refutation. Possible refutation confers legitimacy upon conjecture.
My post is about a=a, or identity. Sexual identity ideation spins out from this center as one of the core identities of the human individual: gender identity. The young child learns basic attributes of his identity. As he comes to awareness of sexual difference, he seeks esteem for his own group first. This seems natural to me because, as I've said, you must learn to love yourself before you are equipped with the self-esteem to begin to love the very different other. Whether or not the individual advances beyond the island of his own gender and, crossing over to the other side, discovers and consummates the nirvana embedded in love beyond selfhood is an open question.
Statistically, it's supposed to be the case that nine out of ten do, with one out of ten, or ten percent of the population, being homosexual.
All of this is possibly refutable. I expect you, now, to bring on the counter-narrative, if you have one. This instead of you continuing to attack such trivia as my diction, or the other inflated, reputation-building rhetorical device, attacking the opponent's methodology while abstaining from entering the trench war. The authentic battle is down in the trenches where the fighting rages over the logic of the premises and the viability of the propositions arising from them. My post is filled with possibly refutable propositions. Do you attack their logical details, as Banno does? No. You attack the diction of my sentences instead of their logic and conformity to reality, as evidenced below:
Quoting Astorre
What do you have to say about the logic of symmetry and transformation presented as the dynamism of identity? Have you read about this, or heard it being discussed? You imply it's cliché, but you cite no standard references. You ask, "Where is the breakthrough beyond what is already known?" Might the blossoming of human identity into symmetry and transformation from the extensional substitution of a=a nevertheless unitary be the breakthrough fusion of QM uncertainty you're looking at but not seeing?
My Identity Manifesto is filled with attack points. Have you read it? If you have, why are you attacking me instead of attacking my propositions?
My general impression of your narrative says, "You want to pair the metaphysics of knowledge relationships (p ?q), as dynamically governed by an emergent and energetic inter-relation, viz., truth, with empirical experience. Dynamical, energetic identity transformations across space and time forming symmetries that conserve identity and support an enduring POV embody the living experience of truth.
We gaze into the looking glass and learn to live with our mirror-image devilish playmate.
In other words, truth isnt some hidden essence, its what happens when our justified beliefs line up with the facts of the world, or the way the world is. We test truth through shared practices (Wittgenstein's language games, which are governed by implicit rules), our forms of life, where we check, correct, and agree on what counts as evidence. In some cases, like science or mapping, truth can be pictured or measured, but even there it works only because we understand what the picture means and how it connects to reality. Understanding (JTB+U) isnt optional; its what lets us tell genuine truth from lucky coincidence.
Formal theories of truth, like those used in logic, capture a structure but not its lived reality. They can show when a statement fits certain conditions but cant explain how truth operates in lived reality, how it shapes belief, correction, and meaning. Truth, as we actually experience it, isnt a Tarski formula (p is true iff p.) but a practice. There's a philosophical bridge between ontology and epistemology: the world has its own structure (what obtains), and we have our structures of reason, language, and justification. Truth is the point where those two orders (the world and epistemology) align.
And what is your proposed better alternative to that?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Copernicus
I have no better alternative to propose. I'm not judging your outlook. Skepticism is a worthy attitude given our world so fraught with deceptions. Like other useful things, it needs to be carefully controlled, lest good turn to bad. Life tricks us at both ends. Too trusting and we get duped; too skeptical and we get deprived.
No, in posting my previous communication, I was attempting to better understand you. When I have some idea how the other person tends to see the world, that helps me understand individual statements which I can then put into context.
Holism