Well since we don't have a philosophical forum this will have to do...

[Cerpin Taxt]

This...

...is a statement about objective reality.

No, it is not, as I just explained.

To say that there is no truth, is to assume a truth. It's a logical contradiction. I don't see how that can be arguable.

I did not say there is no truth. I simply said that truth isn't a feature of reality. "Truth" is just a word, and like all words, its definition is an invention of human minds.

I begin to see what you're saying. That truth can never be used as a noun. Only an adjective.

That's a good way to think about it, even if still not entirely accurate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A=A is simply logic.

I did not suggest otherwise.

If you don't admit logic, then there is nothing to discuss. This is perhaps what you're attempting to demonstrate, but without allowing for logic, you can demonstrate nothing.

Predicate calculus is useful in clarifying our ideas about reality, but it should not be confused with reality itself.

What fun is that? There is no purpose to a "debate" in which all parties agree.

I'm not suggesting that logic is wrong or false. I'm simply involved in a metalogical discussion about the ontology of logic.

 

[CycloWizard]

I did not suggest otherwise.

Predicate calculus is useful in clarifying our ideas about reality, but it should not be confused with reality itself.

I'm not suggesting that logic is wrong or false. I'm simply involved in a metalogical discussion about the ontology of logic.

Words convey ideas. The rules of language map the ideas to words. By using words in an effort to convey your ideas, it seems that you have already subscribed to these rules. We have to start somewhere.

 

[dmcowen674]

Is there a question you've heard asked that struck you as being uncommonly profound?

The one that I consider most is from everyone's favorite book, the Bible 😛

When Jesus was on trial he said to Pilate ""To this end was I born, and for this came I into the world, to bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice."

To which Pontius Pilate responded:

"What is Truth?"

To me that is as profound a question as can be asked. It touches on the nature of reality and our ability to reconcile it with our world views. Is there an objective truth in an non trival sense? Why is it that we equate truth with beauty when at times the truth is a very ugly bastard indeed.

That's mine.

Yours?

Either you contribute to society or you don't, the answer is blowing in the wind.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

2.) Lots of truths are subjective. Basically any and every opinion is a subjective truth. "Lilacs are the prettiest flowers" is true to me, but may be false to others, for example.

lol. No, no, no...

The truth here is, "you think lilacs are the prettiest flowers". "Lilacs are the prettiest flowers" is not a truth. It is an opinion.

1.) "Relative" is not the same thing as "subjective."

No, but it's pretty close. What is the truth relative to? If it's wrt an immutable concept, then truth is objective. If, however, it's wrt a series of variable concepts or if the concept is not immutable, then it is subjective.

Science verifies the age of the universe at I forget how old. About 13 billion years.

What's faulty about the premises?

The faulty bit is the assumption that before the big bang the matter did not exist.

Even if it isn't, it seems to make sense that it can't be infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, we would've already been here an infinite amount of time, leaving infinite time for all possibilities to be actualized, so why aren't we all dead?

No, it doesn't. We base everything we know off what we can observe. And what we can observe is the period of time pretty much from the big bang to the present. We cannot observe any time, if there was time, before the big bang. Therefore, it could be that our current bit of space-time is simply a finite line segment of time in the total line of the universe's existence.

In any case, there is such thing as a finite portion of an infinite quantity. Even if your premises were sound, it still doesn't negate the fact that we could easily be living our lives finitely in an infinite universe.

 

[Atreus21]

lol. No, no, no...

The truth here is, "you think lilacs are the prettiest flowers". "Lilacs are the prettiest flowers" is not a truth. It is an opinion.


No, but it's pretty close. What is the truth relative to? If it's wrt an immutable concept, then truth is objective. If, however, it's wrt a series of variable concepts or if the concept is not immutable, then it is subjective.


The faulty bit is the assumption that before the big bang the matter did not exist.


No, it doesn't. We base everything we know off what we can observe. And what we can observe is the period of time pretty much from the big bang to the present. We cannot observe any time, if there was time, before the big bang. Therefore, it could be that our current bit of space-time is simply a finite line segment of time in the total line of the universe's existence.

In any case, there is such thing as a finite portion of an infinite quantity. Even if your premises were sound, it still doesn't negate the fact that we could easily be living our lives finitely in an infinite universe.

I admit that part about "all possibilities being actualized" is shaky. I'm not sure whether it's valid or not, but it's at least thought-provoking.

I'm not sure I agree that there can be a finite portion of an infinite quantity. I wonder what a mathematician would say.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

By using words in an effort to convey your ideas, it seems that you have already subscribed to these rules. We have to start somewhere.

Yes, certain rules are assumed to communicate with language. Again, I'm not rejecting the rules outright, just discussing the significance of the rules with someone who appears to think that the rules are more than simple agreements among communicators.

 

[Moonbeam]

Day after day,
Alone on a hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he's just a fool,
And he never gives an answer,

But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.

Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
or the sound he appears to make,
and he never seems to notice,

But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.

And nobody seems to like him,
they can tell what he wants to do,
and he never shows his feelings,

But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.

Ooh, ooh,
Round and round and round.

And he never listens to them,
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him,

The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.

Ooh,
Round and round and round

 

[Moonbeam]

The centipede was happy quite,

Until a toad in fun

Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?"

This raised his mind to such a pitch,

He lay distracted in the ditch

Considering how to run.

 

[spittledip]

It is ridiculous to say that there is no truth b/c the statement contradicts itself. As soon as you make the statement that there is no truth, you have attempted to establish a truth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes, certain rules are assumed to communicate with language. Again, I'm not rejecting the rules outright, just discussing the significance of the rules with someone who appears to think that the rules are more than simple agreements among communicators.

These rules are a simple agreement between communicators. Having just spent time in a foreign country where I could barely speak the language well enough to feed myself, I am acutely aware of how flexible these rules can be. But if you want to have any sort of discussion on any subject, you must accept the rules of language at the very least. The question of the OP essentially asks each of us to define truth based on the accepted definitions of every other word in the English language. If you reject my definition, then we are essentially speaking in different languages and cannot understand each other. I already gave my definition for truth in my first post in this thread. Maybe you'd care to address it.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

True. But then we're talking about my faith versus yours. Since we don't know what happened prior to the big bang, it's a question of what we believe, not what we know.

Except scientists say hey lets try to find out maybe if we discover more about how forces interact at those levels with colliders we can see even farther back in time, and you say I'm going to say it's this and hope for the best. I infinitely perfer one over the other.

 

[CycloWizard]

Except scientists say hey lets try to find out maybe if we discover more about how forces interact at those levels with colliders we can see even farther back in time, and you say I'm going to say it's this and hope for the best. I infinitely perfer one over the other.

Except it can be shown that an infinite number of initial conditions can lead to the current conditions using the same field equations. Thus, unless we have actual observations at a given time and position, it is impossible to scientifically distinguish between these solutions and the question becomes purely philosophical in nature.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except it can be shown that an infinite number of initial conditions can lead to the current conditions using the same field equations. Thus, unless we have actual observations at a given time and position, it is impossible to scientifically distinguish between these solutions and the question becomes purely philosophical in nature.

Not only that, but there is no theory which unifies gravity with the other forces. What happens near the Planck Length? Is time continuous, and if not where does it "break down"?

Indeed at the moment of expansion did time have any meaning at all, and how would we comprehend something where it didn't?

That leads me to another question. Given that we are finite beings, what is the limit of our understanding, and are we fundamentally capable of grasping these questions? How would it be possible to know the answers to those questions even in principle?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Except it can be shown that an infinite number of initial conditions can lead to the current conditions using the same field equations. Thus, unless we have actual observations at a given time and position, it is impossible to scientifically distinguish between these solutions and the question becomes purely philosophical in nature.

Lets find out more still appeals to me more than lets guess and hope.

 

[CycloWizard]

Lets find out more still appeals to me more than lets guess and hope.

Only because you feel that it is the more intellectual option and you are afraid of being perceived as non-intellectual. No one is arguing (that I see, anyway) that we shouldn't try to find out more. I simply stated that even if we find out more, we will still be unable to discern between what happened and what might have happened.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Only because you feel that it is the more intellectual option and you are afraid of being perceived as non-intellectual. No one is arguing (that I see, anyway) that we shouldn't try to find out more. I simply stated that even if we find out more, we will still be unable to discern between what happened and what might have happened.

and lungs won't function properly if you go over 55 miles per hour and the atmosphere will ignite if we create a nuclear chain reaction and blah blah blah yea I've heard it before. It's got nothing to do with intellectualality and everything to do with what's more fulfilling to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

What does it profit a man that he gain the world an lose his immortal soul?

 

[Moonbeam]

Only because you feel that it is the more intellectual option and you are afraid of being perceived as non-intellectual. No one is arguing (that I see, anyway) that we shouldn't try to find out more. I simply stated that even if we find out more, we will still be unable to discern between what happened and what might have happened.

I am. You can know nothing via the intellect. The question is, can the intellect put an end to itself. Can a rat come to the end of its own rope?

Can thought end? Can the mind see that thought is dead, that all thought is memory of the past, a past that is dead.

 

[CycloWizard]

and lungs won't function properly if you go over 55 miles per hour and the atmosphere will ignite if we create a nuclear chain reaction and blah blah blah yea I've heard it before.

So you're comparing mathematical fact to pseudo-scientific crap? Maybe you should have stayed in school a little longer.

It's got nothing to do with intellectualality and everything to do with what's more fulfilling to me.

But that's not what you said. You said, "Except scientists say hey lets try to find out maybe if we discover more about how forces interact at those levels with colliders we can see even farther back in time, and you say I'm going to say it's this and hope for the best." Thus, you clearly did (and perhaps still do) think that scientists "can see even farther back in time" through the study of physics, all the while deriding Atreus for stating that he holds a philosophical view which is potentially opposed to yours. Your failing is that you refuse to recognize the philosophical nature of the inquiry, pretending instead that it is scientific.

 

[Moonbeam]

External Considering

from Gurdjieff's Views from the Real World Page 94-96

Everyone is in great need of one particular exercise, both if one wants to continue working and for external life.

We have two lives, inner and outer life, and so we also have two kinds of considering. We constantly consider.

When she looks at me, I feel inside a dislike of her, I am cross with her, but externally I am polite because I must be very polite since I need her. Internally I am what I am, but externally I am different. This is external considering. Now she says that I am a fool. This angers me. The fact that I am angered is the result, but what takes place in me is internal considering.

This internal and external considering are different. We must learn to be able to control separately both kinds of considering: the internal and the external. We want to change not only inside but also outside.

Yesterday, when she gave me an unfriendly look, I was cross. But today I understand that perhaps the reason why she looked at me like that is that she is a fool; or perhaps she had learned or heard something about me. And today I want to remain calm. She is a slave and I should not be angry with her inwardly. From today onward I want to be calm inside.

Outwardly I want today to be polite, but if necessary I can appear angry. Outwardly it must be what is best for her and for me. I must consider. Internal and external considering must be different. In an ordinary man the external attitude is the result of the internal. If she is polite, I am also polite. But these attitudes should be separated.

Internally one should be free from considering, but externally one should do more than one has been doing so far. An ordinary man lives as he is dictated to from inside.

When we speak of change, we presume the need of inner change. Externally if everything is all right, there is no need to change. If it is not all right, perhaps there is no need to change either, because maybe it is original. What is necessary is to change inside.

Until now we did not change anything, but from today we want to change. But how to change? First, we must separate and then sort out, discard what is useless and build something new. Man has much that is good and much that is bad. If we discard everything, later it will be necessary to collect again.

If a man has not enough on the external side, he will need to fill the gaps. Who is not well educated should be better educated. But this is for life.

The work needs nothing external. Only the internal is needed. Externally, one should play a role in everything. Externally a man should be an actor, otherwise he does not answer the requirements of life. One man likes one thing; another, another thing: if you want to be a friend to both and behave in one way, one of them will not like it; if you behave in another way, the other will not like it. You should behave with one as he likes it and with the other as this other likes it. Then your life will be easier.

But inside it must be different: different in relation to the one and the other.

As things are now, especially in our times, every man considers utterly mechanically. We react to everything affecting us from outside. Now we obey orders. She is good, and I am good; she is bad, and I am bad. I am as she wants me to be, I am a puppet. But she too is a mechanical puppet. She also obeys orders mechanically and does what another one wants.

We must cease reacting inside. If someone is rude, we must not react inside. Whoever manages to do this will be more free. It is very difficult.

Inside us we have a horse; it obeys orders from outside. And our mind is too weak to do anything inside. Even if the mind gives the order to stop, nothing will stop inside.

We educate nothing but our mind. We know how to behave with such and such. "Goodbye" "How do you do?" But it is only the driver who knows this. Sitting on his box he has read about it. But the horse has no education whatever. It has not even been taught the alphabet, it knows no languages, it never went to school. The horse was also capable of being taught, but we forgot all about it. . . . And so it grew up a neglected orphan. It only knows two words: right and left.

What I said about inner change refers only to the need of change in the horse. If the horse changes, we can change even externally. If the horse does not change, everything will remain the same, no matter how long we study.

It is easy to decide to change sitting quietly in your room. But as soon as you meet someone, the horse kicks. Inside us we have a horse.

The horse must change.

If anyone thinks that self-study will help and he will be able to change, he is greatly mistaken. Even if he reads all the books, studies for a hundred years, masters all knowledge, all mysteries--nothing will come of it.

Because all this knowledge will belong to the driver. And he, even if he knows, cannot drag the cart without the horse--it is too heavy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What is the first number which is so large that it cannot be named?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

External Considering

from Gurdjieff's Views from the Real World Page 94-96

Everyone is in great need of one particular exercise, both if one wants to continue working and for external life.

We have two lives, inner and outer life, and so we also have two kinds of considering. We constantly consider.

When she looks at me, I feel inside a dislike of her, I am cross with her, but externally I am polite because I must be very polite since I need her. Internally I am what I am, but externally I am different. This is external considering. Now she says that I am a fool. This angers me. The fact that I am angered is the result, but what takes place in me is internal considering.

This internal and external considering are different. We must learn to be able to control separately both kinds of considering: the internal and the external. We want to change not only inside but also outside.

Yesterday, when she gave me an unfriendly look, I was cross. But today I understand that perhaps the reason why she looked at me like that is that she is a fool; or perhaps she had learned or heard something about me. And today I want to remain calm. She is a slave and I should not be angry with her inwardly. From today onward I want to be calm inside.

Outwardly I want today to be polite, but if necessary I can appear angry. Outwardly it must be what is best for her and for me. I must consider. Internal and external considering must be different. In an ordinary man the external attitude is the result of the internal. If she is polite, I am also polite. But these attitudes should be separated.

Internally one should be free from considering, but externally one should do more than one has been doing so far. An ordinary man lives as he is dictated to from inside.

When we speak of change, we presume the need of inner change. Externally if everything is all right, there is no need to change. If it is not all right, perhaps there is no need to change either, because maybe it is original. What is necessary is to change inside.

Until now we did not change anything, but from today we want to change. But how to change? First, we must separate and then sort out, discard what is useless and build something new. Man has much that is good and much that is bad. If we discard everything, later it will be necessary to collect again.

If a man has not enough on the external side, he will need to fill the gaps. Who is not well educated should be better educated. But this is for life.

The work needs nothing external. Only the internal is needed. Externally, one should play a role in everything. Externally a man should be an actor, otherwise he does not answer the requirements of life. One man likes one thing; another, another thing: if you want to be a friend to both and behave in one way, one of them will not like it; if you behave in another way, the other will not like it. You should behave with one as he likes it and with the other as this other likes it. Then your life will be easier.

But inside it must be different: different in relation to the one and the other.

As things are now, especially in our times, every man considers utterly mechanically. We react to everything affecting us from outside. Now we obey orders. She is good, and I am good; she is bad, and I am bad. I am as she wants me to be, I am a puppet. But she too is a mechanical puppet. She also obeys orders mechanically and does what another one wants.

We must cease reacting inside. If someone is rude, we must not react inside. Whoever manages to do this will be more free. It is very difficult.

Inside us we have a horse; it obeys orders from outside. And our mind is too weak to do anything inside. Even if the mind gives the order to stop, nothing will stop inside.

We educate nothing but our mind. We know how to behave with such and such. "Goodbye" "How do you do?" But it is only the driver who knows this. Sitting on his box he has read about it. But the horse has no education whatever. It has not even been taught the alphabet, it knows no languages, it never went to school. The horse was also capable of being taught, but we forgot all about it. . . . And so it grew up a neglected orphan. It only knows two words: right and left.

What I said about inner change refers only to the need of change in the horse. If the horse changes, we can change even externally. If the horse does not change, everything will remain the same, no matter how long we study.

It is easy to decide to change sitting quietly in your room. But as soon as you meet someone, the horse kicks. Inside us we have a horse.

The horse must change.

If anyone thinks that self-study will help and he will be able to change, he is greatly mistaken. Even if he reads all the books, studies for a hundred years, masters all knowledge, all mysteries--nothing will come of it.

Because all this knowledge will belong to the driver. And he, even if he knows, cannot drag the cart without the horse--it is too heavy.

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

These rules are a simple agreement between communicators. Having just spent time in a foreign country where I could barely speak the language well enough to feed myself, I am acutely aware of how flexible these rules can be. But if you want to have any sort of discussion on any subject, you must accept the rules of language at the very least. The question of the OP essentially asks each of us to define truth based on the accepted definitions of every other word in the English language. If you reject my definition, then we are essentially speaking in different languages and cannot understand each other. I already gave my definition for truth in my first post in this thread. Maybe you'd care to address it.

You said:

Truth could be considered to be any set of axioms from which objective reality may be described using logic, reason, and science. Implicitly, this would include the laws/rules governing logic, reason, and science. Whether these rules form the entire set of "truth" is unclear because we do not yet know all of these rules.

With which I take virtually no issue. I don't think it is very clearly worded, however. I wouldn't say that axioms are "truth" (the noun), nor even that they are "true" (the adjective) other than trivially. Axioms basically define what is true within a system.

"All the propositions of logic say the same thing, to wit nothing." ~Wittgenstein.

I'd also note that your last sentence seems to imply that the rules are "out there" somewhere waiting to be "discovered." This is hardly the case for reasons I've explained at length already in this thread.

Now, I'm struggling to understand why you seem to object to at least one point made by me, and I don't even know which point that might be. Rather, you seem to be objecting to a position that I do no hold, and have had to repeatedly deny holding despite your continued argumentation against that strawman.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What is the first number which is so large that it cannot be named?

If the barber shaves all and only the townsmen that do not shave themselves, does the barber shave himself?