Originally posted by: TuxDave
You say they cannot be equal in the ultimate sense.
Yes because the statement hasn't been defined, in your example of "3=5", if someone says they think that, that doesn't mean
they actually do. For instance we've all made statements we didn't really mean right? Same principle.
So if a person thinks 3=5 and his definition of 3, 5 and = are identical to your definitions, yet he still thinks it, what then?
Think it out logically using geometry, all you need to do is imagine it as it would be in reality
i.e. 3 apples, vs 5 apples, if someone tried to tell you "5 bucks equals 3 bucks in my money therefore I'm not giving you your 2 dollars change" you know he's merely lying.
Always transport your example to the world, just because someone has the image of something, doesn't mean they are referring to meaning, when you say "think" you really mean think of a symbol, but more importantly, until symbols have been defined, you wouldn't know what "the person" in your example was saying. Therefore you'd have to ask him: What do you mean 3 = 5? because in actuality he is merely referring to representational symbols, he has not yet stated their meaning.
So the answer is simply: when a person says "I think 3 = 5" that person is merely referring to representations, not meaning (content),.
The thought exists. Yet if all of the definitions are the same, then he's clearly wrong right?
Explained above he is merely referring to symbols, not the meaning. We do this all the time when we say we "think this" or "think that", we refer to symbols but not content.
You' havent' sorted out your own thoughts yet, the subject exists in what way, is the subject seperate from the universe, or merely a distinct part of the same surface of the universe?
To clarify, the subject is not separate from the universe.
Ok but do you understand this? This is exactly what I've been saying but I'm not sure we're referring to the same meaning.
It is a distinct part of the same surface of the universe.
No problems here.
Your thought about the subject is another distinct prat of the same surface of the universe. The thought exists, but the thought is false.
And?? a falsehood is just an incorrect truth, i.e. if I have two shapes I am comparing (are these two shapes equal), and one shape is not the same (circle vs triangle), the falsehood still exists, i.e. when doing certain truth comparisons we can use only representation, i.e. red is not blue, etc in a picture when we look at shapes, we don't have to define their meaning, there meanings are already pre-defined.
It is possible for things that exist to be incorrect about other things that exist in the same surface of the universe.
Yes, when you realize, an incorrect thing, is merely representation, i.e. I make an impression (stamp) of a circle in the sand then I make a nother impression (a triangle)
Then do the comparison, are these shapes the same? yes/no. There's your example
I guess I wonder if you believe in the concept of things being false or is everything true in your opinion.
You're starting to understand, a falsehood is a mis-shapen truth , i.e. the concept of "falseness" can be reinterpreted as merely incorrect truth, that is, a mismatched pattern, two circles both exist, one circle is a half circle, they have partial congruence in geometry, or simply partial equality depending on what the comparison operators are.
Otherwise stories would be "false", something is only "false" when you do comparisons, but we are only comparing representations, not meaning got it? i.e. we use substitution.
You're starting to understand.