Truth itself does not contain information. Something can be true or false, but truth itself tells you nothing of what is true.
You're just said you can't make distinctions ever. That is what enumerating is. Obviously you don't understand the definition.
# specify individually; "She enumerated the many obstacles she had encountered"; "The doctor recited the list of possible side effects of the drug"
# count: determine the number or amount of; "Can you count the books on your shelf?"; "Count your change"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So your thoughts don't contain information? What we do is discover things, but to discover they exist, you must be able to process information. To discover a truth, is to gather information and then create a informational truth description of a relationships between events or existents. When we discovered anything that is in any sense real, it is in some sense truth
Your statement above is incoherent.
Truth is a part of the existent set, it's corollary is "to be real". You just said being real, doesn't tell us about what being real is.
There are different classes of truth, all a part of the truth set, such as 1. Existents 2. Perceptible information of the observers.
Gannon: Socrates is that man's question relevant to whether something is logically true?
Socrates: Indeed it is not.
Gannon: Then if it is not relevant to whether statements are logically true, do I have to acknowledge it, if it is not relevant to ascertaining truth?
Socrates: As truth exists independently of the observer and their credentials, it is not relevant.
Gannon: Indeed it is a silly statement.
Socrates: This is a silly thread.
Gannon: Damn, I must admit, that's true!
TecHNooB
Diamond Member
- Sep 10, 2005
- 7,458
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: Gannon
Gannon: Socrates is that man's question relevant to whether something is logically true?
Socrates: Indeed it is not.
Gannon: Then if it is not relevant to whether statements are logically true, do I have to acknowledge it, if it is not relevant to ascertaining truth?
Socrates: As truth exists independently of the observer and their credentials, it is not relevant.
Gannon: Indeed it is a silly statement.
Socrates: This is a silly thread.
Gannon: Damn, I must admit, that's true!
A friend of mine used to debate all sorts of intelligent topics online when he was a cocky highschooler. Had little to no credentials but somehow steered his way through the most advanced topics of discussion using a combination of knowledge beyond the average highschooler and good writing/vocabulary skills. He leaned entirely on common sense, with no real math or science background. He just knew the lingo.
Edit: That said, I like the first quote in your sig
My thoughts are not necessarily truth. My thoughts are my brain manipulating information as best it can. It is often wrong and is therefore not truth.
No, it's perfectly clear if you define truth as "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality," (again from Merriam-Webster, definition 3a). You are simply cherry-picking definition 2a: "the body of real things, events, and facts." If you want to tell me that I'm wrong, you should be able to tell me why. You said so yourself. In this case, the disparity is that you failed to define truth, not that my statement was incoherent.
At this point, you have diverged into a philosophical argument, though I assume that it is inadvertent. Senses do not always indicate what is truly present in reality, thus what they show you is often not what is really there. The most obvious case of this is color blindness, where photons are not correctly mapped to their wavelenghts' corresponding colors. Thus, if truth is red, I may still see green. Does my perception determine what is reality, or does the physical property determine it?
Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Originally posted by: Gannon
Gannon: Socrates is that man's question relevant to whether something is logically true?
Socrates: Indeed it is not.
Gannon: Then if it is not relevant to whether statements are logically true, do I have to acknowledge it, if it is not relevant to ascertaining truth?
Socrates: As truth exists independently of the observer and their credentials, it is not relevant.
Gannon: Indeed it is a silly statement.
Socrates: This is a silly thread.
Gannon: Damn, I must admit, that's true!
A friend of mine used to debate all sorts of intelligent topics online when he was a cocky highschooler. Had little to no credentials but somehow steered his way through the most advanced topics of discussion using a combination of knowledge beyond the average highschooler and good writing/vocabulary skills. He leaned entirely on common sense, with no real math or science background. He just knew the lingo.
Edit: That said, I like the first quote in your sig
The 2nd quote was made by a physicist.
Yeah, anyway, about your friend -- no one had time to figure out how his words were wrong because they weren't posted on a forum for everyone to pick apart... I bet if he did he would have been caught straight away.
Now if anyone makes an undefined statement, or an error, that error must exist and you must know it exists, otherwise you can't say "I know an error exists, but I don't know where", you have to show the error, otherwise you don't know.
A word has a meaning, either it is : defined, or undefined. So if someone says "you made a mistake", then they have to show where...
If a math teacher says you made a mistake in your work, and you ask where, and he can't point it out, how the hell can he make an intelligible claim? "You made a mistake, but I don't know where it is"
When you make any claim that something is incorrect and intelligibly so, its intelligible incorrectness is KNOWN..
For instance if I build my house out of 3 pieces of wood, and one is rotten, the claim that one is rotten must be known else it doesn't make any kind of sense!
Actually no its not, I'll make it clear for you because you don't understand what "not truth" means. Follow all of it, I'm sure it will be enlightening. I am showing you, you don't understand what "not true" means.
Def - Information
1. A collection of related data.
2. Knowledge about a topic.
3. Data that have been processed into a format that is understandable by its intended audience.
-Information is understandability:
Def - Truth
1. Conformity to fact or reality; correctness, accuracy.
2. True facts, genuine depiction or statements of reality.
3. That which is real,
4. Something acknowledged to be true; a true statement or axiom.
The statement I quoted is in fact not correct, "thoughts are not truth", so you're caliming they not -- in fact reality, or statements OF reality?
A statement of reality, even when it is false is partially true, the PART of the statement that is false, is just incorrect, but the statement itself that is coherent is true.
Which one of these definitions of truth is incorrect? That's all of them. So I'm asking in which sense is your thoughts do not contain any sense of truth?
Now, your thoughts do contain partial or potential truth. It's true they exist, but the DATA does not always match the relationship, remember truth is a description of any event or relationship. A false statement, is a truth-statement, containing false-data, the but the structure of the statement is true "I believe that (imaginary x) is real as (type actual-exist)" is partly true, but a part of the statement is incorrect. Every word that is consistent, is true, such as.... I, believe, that, imaginary, x, ( , ) , is coherent and true. (the x is a dragon, fairy, or whatever, etc).
But the data in this part of the statement part "is real as -type-actual exist" is false.
So the part that isn't, that contains the wrong pattern is not true, but it's true the false data exists.
Most people (including myself) can't really think straight because we don't understand how complicated our thoughts really are, and that's something I've discoverd over the years and why communciation is so important and partly because I've got some strange intuitive like abiltiy...
Your thoughts do contain either partial (one section that is right, other that is wrong) or potential truth (i.e. potential existing-data) when we say somethiing is "true" there is hidden content in that statement. We are saying "true", we always mean "yes it is true it exists, in some way, then it is true the thought/concept/idea exists, but the data incorrect".
At no time does your thought not contain truth (existing structure) in some way, else it wouldn't exist. The statement exists in a form, that is either partly there, potentially there, or all there. Even when you aren't thinking about anything in particular your unconscious, brain is otherwise your brain has stopped functioning (i.e. controlling breathing, detecting temperature, listening, seeing, etc).
Now the below is somewhat similar in a sense to how my intuition intuitively expands the hidden structure of a statement (at the most fuzzy and basic). I think there may be higher, but it's in the proto-stages at this point. I have to sit down and analyze the statement, because our words are a lot more complicated then we think
Consider the statement.
I think therefore I am
At the most basic and fuzzy layer this is similar to what my mind intuitively senses in a way I can't quite understand, and I'm not sure how it does it:
"I-the-existing-self-function, function-and calculate the existing-information, therefore it is true, I-the-exist-self-function am the function and the information"
No, you are showing me that you're an arrogant ass. You think that you have everything figured out, so anyone who doesn't see it that way is an ignorant putz. I just quoted from a dictionary what "truth" is, and you're essentially contesting it. In this case, you are wrong, though I have no doubt that you will never admit that it is so. However, for the sake of everyone else here, I'll do it anyway.
I'll postulate that truth cannot contradict truth, which is essentially the fundamental postulate of science. My thoughts are reality. However, their contents do not necessarily reflect the truth of reality. If my brain operates on distorted information (that is, information that is not truly real, such as confounding green and red colors), then the results of certain brain operations acting on that untrue information are not accurate data and, therefore, are not truth themselves. In mathematical terms, if x=a but I perceive that x=b such that f(x=a)!=f(x=b), then, while f(x=b) is information, it does not reflect reality, since reality dictates that f(x=a) is truth. Thus, it's nonsensical to say that all information is truth. This is exactly why I said you have delved into philosophy at this point rather than science because truth in science cannot contradict itself. If it does, you simply don't understand your data.
I pulled it from a dictionary too.
Actually I'm not trying to be an arrogant ass, I was just showing you said your thoughts were NOT NECESSARILY true, and I showed you that THEY MUST BE IN SOME SENSE, and when something is false, that only means part of the data in the statement is false, not that false-hood doesn't exist.
Every single challenge I have met, your only claim was that I have never defined truth at all, which is complete utter bullshit, I spent a whole post showing you the definitions, and then asking you which definition you meant? So which word was not properly defined in the previous post in my showing you, you didn't know what "not truth" was?
You're the one that participated in the thread, you're the one that just had to jump into the fire, and you decided to do so, I didn't force you to do anything. You just had to start and make a claim something was in error, so you got everything you asked for in this thread.
Thats all the audience needs to know, your post directly above this one. You just restated my post before it and then claimed it was yours. I worked very hard to learn how to think properly and have pages of notes and the fact that you'd rip off my post and restate it is yours is not very polite.
There's a reason why my arguments are so tight, I've started to develop a program for just that purpose, but for now, its only on paper. I'm studying Boole's works in detail because he was onto something else that I'm trying to figure out.
when are you going to have your physicist friend paraphrase your ideas.
believe me, you really need the help.
believe me, you really need the help.
Originally posted by: gururu2
when are you going to have your physicist friend paraphrase your ideas.
believe me, you really need the help.
I've already told you, if there is an error, point it out, otherwise there is none.
Look man you've just said this:
I just know it is wrong. Then how? a claim to know it, is a claim to show you know which words and where it is wrong, because if you KNOW that it is there IT MUST BE there! You can't get a non-existent error, from a non-existent error.
You can't say you know there exists and error, and then not be able to point it out, that is totally irrational.
So I don't have to DO anything because you should be able to SHOW it if you KNOW it.
you don't have to prove anything. you realize not one single person has come to his rescue.
even his physicist friend has refused to participate in this discussion.
Actually he does, a claim to know which statement is in error about the topic at hand, is a claim to show which statement is incorrect. Else: no valid claim.
You realize not one single person has been able to point out which statement is incorrect about the topic. So they are smart enough to stay away, or those that think I am wrong fear coming in. It's not that I need rescuing, it's that if anyone attempts to "rescue" you guys, they are in deep shit and they know it. Light is fundamental and they know it, to break the circularity of it is to break science itself.
From now on, no off topic posts.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter