Moreover, on top of what I've already pointed out in my previous post, you are also assuming a classical view of the world.

You are assuming that "reality" itself is totally objective and independent of the observer that interacts with it.

That's another assumption on your part. You probably feel that this too should simply be 'obvious' to any reasonable person.

But the problem with that kind of thinking is that our discovery of quantum mechanics brings into question the notion of what we consider to be 'reasonable'.

We need to change our intuition. We can no longer push our experience of the macro world onto the very fabric of reality as being a 'reasonable' conclusion.

That is no longer "reasonable".

The discovery of the laws of quantum physics has forced us to face the "reality" that the observe and the observed cannot be separated in a nice clear-cut way that our common sense intuition would prefer.


In short, I still hold that all your ideas are being presented within the extreme restrictions of classical thinking.

Your continual proclamation that these other concepts are "illogical" amounts to nothing more than a personal opinion which cannot be held up in the face of modern scientific knowledge.

The only way you can justify those kinds of views in a logical arena is if you indeed confess to be assuming classical foundational principles.

Otherwise, you have no logical ground to stand upon.

And I have confronted you with this repeatedly, but in every case you have refused to confess that you are taking a classical stance.

Statements like these are nothing more than your own personal opinion.

In fact, in the statement quoted above you are referring to truth/reality as though they are synonymous.

All you are basically doing is claiming that reality = truth, and then you go about trying to prove that truth = reality.

That's silly, IMHO.

And it amounts to nothing more than an ungrounded opinion.

You reject the concept of truth as used by humanity.

Instead you demand that they have set out truth "all wrong".

Then you claim that in your opinion truth should be defined as correspondence with reality (without anything further than this).

So all you are doing there is demanding that truth = reality.

Then after having rejected humanity's concept of truth and having replaced it with your own meaningless definition, you then go about proclaiming that your new definition of truth shows that truth = reality.

Well, no wonder.

That how YOU have defined it.

You haven't proven anything other than to prove that you don't like the way humanity defines the concept of truth.

If people accepted your definition of truth then they probably would need to accept your conclusions too because all you are doing is demanding that the state of affairs is TRUTH.

That's ridiculous.

You're not "proving" anything.

All you are attempting to do is redefine "truth" to mean "reality".

Why would you say that this is 'off-topic'.

If all you were doing was socially sharing views on how different people view the concept of truth, then you'd just acknowledge the views of others.

But you don't do that.

Instead you flatly renounce all other views of truth as being WRONG and demand that only your opinions of what truth should be have merit.

Obviously you are out to CONVINCE someone that you are right and the whole rest of the world is WRONG.

You have made this the topic of the thread by your own actions.

~~~~~

I don't think anyone cares about your opinions on truth to be perfectly honest with you.

You clearly don't care about theirs. Why should they care about yours?

Well, you haven't convinced me.

And besides, why are you even trying to convince me?

If you think you have a better working definition for truth than humanity has been using since the dawn of philosophy, science, and mathematics, then write up your new definition and submit it to these communities and see what they have to say about it.

My guess is that they will write back to you and tell you that they either don't understand your definition, or that it isn't a practical useful definition, or they will point out logical flaws in it that you were unable to recognize yourself.

Or if you're really lucky they might embrace it with open arms and agree with you on every point and you will go down in modern history as the person who changed the way humanity thinks about truth.



In the meantime, I'm not personally impressed with what you have presented thus far. I don't know what else to tell you.

It doesn't fix your problem. Because your problem is unrealistic.

You are attempting to treat 'truth' as though it is an independent absolute ontological object. That's your problem, not mine.

~~~~~

We already have a WORKING DEFINITION for truth.

~~~~~

Even the professionals have recognized this.



However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language.

It's utterly useless for you to complain about the way that we define truth unless you can come up with a better way of doing it that is actually useful and meaningful.

You have been unable to produce a coherent practical working definition.

Thus your complaints are utterly meaningless.

And your so-called 'refutations' are just as empty and meaningless.

Until you can offer an alternative meaningful definition for truth, that is actually USABLE, then you have nothing but empty complaints.

That's why it's far better to say that truths can be falsified.

Try to avoid speaking of truth as though it has some sort of independent mysterious ontological existence in its own right.

If you avoid thinking of truth in that way it will no longer be a problem for you.

It's simply wrong to say 'truth cannot be false'.

You'd be far better off simply stating that it makes no sense to give a single correspondence both truth values simultaneously.

Of course, as I have already mentioned, paradoxical states of affairs correspond to multiple descriptions that can indeed be in conflict with each other in terms of their truth values, but that's a whole other story.

Paradoxes are a special cases.

Exactly.



I've been saying that all along.

All you need to do is understand the currently accepted definitions and there are no problems.

Like I say, scientists and mathematicians have been using these definitions for centuries without a problem.

It's just a matter of understanding them.

By the way, I said that I have not claimed that 'truth' can be 'false'.

However, that dosen't apply to paradoxes.

Paradoxes are indeed paradoxes precisely because they are simultaneously both true and false.

So are you in denial of paradoxes now?

Are you going to try to claim that paradoxes cannot exist?

If you confess that paradoxes can indeed exist, then you too must confess that truth can be false.

I have not claimed that 'truth' can be 'false'

You have stated that very sentence in a way that makes 'truth' and 'false' appear to have some sort of objective absolute reality.

They don't.

That is your misguided notion.

What I have said is that 'truths' can be 'falsified'.

And this works perfectly well within to context of the working definitions that are used for this man-made concept of 'truth'.

So you are the one who is uncomfortable with this because you are attempting treat 'truth' as though it is some sort of absolute ontological object.

It's not.

It's a man-made definition.

A working definition that scientists and mathematicians have been using for centuries and will continue to use far into the future.

You reject all of that. You are attempting to objective truth in some sort of classical absolute sense.

~~~~~

I don't even know why I bother talking with you at all. You clearly can't get past classical thinking at all.

~~~~~

It would only be an uncomfortable idea for someone who thinks classically Michael.

I'm perfectly comfortable with how we define truths.

It's just a matter of understanding the definition is all.

That's all it takes.

It's simple.

I already answered that in a straightforward way.

You're extremely limited classical thinking isn't prepared for my answers.

It's easy to point out the paradoxes in things Micheal.

That's child's play, and totally unimpressive.

This is why the modern world has moved forward into a more relativistic style of thinking.

Apparent paradoxes will always exist.

So get used to it.

Everything ultimately leads to paradox, without exception Micheal.

Without exception.



And that includes any idealized philosophies or definitions you think you might be able to come up with as well.

You clearly aren't getting it.

Try this,...

Truths can be falsified.

That shows a better understanding of the concept of truth as it is used in the sciences and mathematics.

You are attempting to imagine idealized concepts of truths.

Conditions where every statement that is claimed to be a 'truth' can never be falsified.

However, if you PAY ATTENTION you will find that no philosophy in the history of mankind has ever survived that ideology.

All philosophies ultimately lead to paradoxes if taken far enough.

And what a false truth but a paradox?

~~~~~

You act like everything has to be paradox-free in order to be considered 'logical' but that is CLASSICAL THINKING.

You really need to get past that if you are going to discuss these things with modern people.

~~~~~

It's been explained to you how the human construct of truth works.

It is a man-made concept. It is a man-made definition. It has flaws. It's imperfect just like man is.

So get used to it already.

~~~~~~

You will NEVER come up with a perfectly flawless definition or philosophy of anything. No one has ever been able to achieve that classical dream.

In fact, with the insight gained from Relativity and Quantum Theories we now realize that those old classical notions where misguided to begin with.

We're far better off thinking implicitly rather than explicitly.

We're far better off thinking relativistically than classically.

We're far better off recognizing that the observer cannot be separated from the observed.

The same thing holds true with conceptualization.

We're far better off realizing that our very conceptualization of what we consider to be reality is indeed influenced and affected by our very conceptualization of it.

~~~~~

You keep trying to put your finger on the "Last Tortoise Down".

But there is no "Last Tortoise Down".

Just accept that as a fact/reality, and you'll instantly gain huge insights into the modern way of thinking

So yes, Truth can be False. Paradoxes can indeed occur.

Ever hear of Gabriel's Horn?

It has infinite surface area but finite volume.

So if you use it as a bucket to hold your paint it will only require a finite amount of paint to fill it.

But if you want to paint the inside surface that will require an infinite amount of paint.

Truth can be False, even within our beloved mathematics.

Everything ultimately leads to paradox, without exception.

Without exception.

Of course they can.

Truth wouldn't be truth if it couldn't be falsified.

Change the description, or change the state of affairs, and what was once a 'truth' has now become a 'falsehood'.

This is why scientist have no problem at all falsifying things that used to be considered truth, and replacing them with more likely truths.

It wouldn't even make sense to speak of truth of you couldn't potentially falsify it.

You wouldn't even need a concept of 'truth' if you couldn't falsify a truth.

That's the whole point to it.

It seems to me that what you are attempting to get at is the actual state of affairs itself.

Can a state of affairs be false?

No of course not! A state of affairs is whatever it is.

But that's not the definition of 'truth'.

Truth is a PROPERTY that is given to a DESCRIPTION, and that property can indeed be recognized to have been misplaced, in which case it becomes falsified.


Look at Webster's dictionary again:

2. a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

3. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality


The 'truths' of thermodynamics have been changing as that discipline of study becomes more refined.

#3 defines truth right there as 'THE PROPERTY OF A STATEMENT'

~~~~~~~~~

It's a WORKING definition.

It's dynamic.

It's intended to be that way.

~~~~~

If we demanded that all 'truths' were carved in stone, then we'd just have to toss our hands up in the air when asked if we have any 'truths' because we would have NONE.

Like I say, the concept would be totally meaningless. We couldn't use it. We would have no 'truths' and therefore no need to even refer to the idea of truth.

~~~~~

I don't know how much clearly it can be said,...


It's a WORKING DEFINITION.

It's not a stagnant philosophical ideology.

If they are correct assignments as the definition requires then yes they are.

That's precisely what we mean by the concept of 'truth'.

We mean that the description that is being referred to as 'truth' correctly describes the state of affairs insofar as well can tell.

That's probably the part that you aren't fully accepting.

When we say that something is 'truth' in mathematics or science it should always been followed by the words, 'in so far as we can tell'.

Those words are assumed to be understood because it's assumed that you understand the definition of truth and how we go about deciding whether or not we have a 'truth'.

~~~~~

In mathematics, mathematicians often get quite cocky about their 'truths' because they have very rigorous ways of verifying that the axioms of mathematics have been satisfied.

In other words, they have very rigorous means of determining that a mathematical description satisfies the axioms of mathematics and thus qualifies as an indisputable 'truth'.

However, some sloppy mathematicians fail to even realize that mathematical truths themselves actually stand upon unprovable axioms.

In fact, if we change the axioms the mathematical 'truths' change.

I've given the popular example in geometry several times where by simply changing the parallel postulate we end up with three totally different geometries; Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic.

All three of those geometries each have their own "truths". But their 'truths' are different from each other.

In Euclidean geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to exactly 180 degrees.

In Spherical geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to more than 180 degrees.

In Hyperbolic geometry the 'truth' is that the sum of the angles of any triangle sum to less than 180 degrees.

Three different truths. All changed because of an axiom, premise, or postulate was changed.

Of course there are many other differences between these geometries too. But I'm trying to keep the example simple.

There are many different areas within mathematics where this occurs, it's not just in this simple geometry example.

So 'truth' in mathematics even changes depending on how mathematics is defined.

~~~~

So when you ask about a 'truth' in mathematics you better ask for all the details that the 'truth' depends upon.

~~~~

The same is true in the sciences, but obviously things get far more complicated in the sciences.

When given a scientific 'truth' we must also inquire precisely what premises, postulates, and assumptions were made when determining whether this scientific 'truth' is indeed a 'truth'.

~~~~~

In fact, if you are going to demand that science must only call things 'truth' if they can be absolute perfectly established without any assumptions or doubt at all, then science probably wouldn't have any 'truths' to offer.

~~~~

It seems to me that you're just not happy that we have no way to guarantee what descriptions actually correctly match up to reality.

The only thing that I can tell you with 100% certainty, is that you are not going to change that by changing the definition of 'truth'.

Our inability to verify our claims to 'truth' with 100% certainty, has absolutely nothing at all to do with how we have defined the concept.

Because everyone understands what is meant by this.

At least professional people do.

Obviously you don't.

Too bad.

No I haven't.

I said that they determine "truth values" that we assigned to descriptions. And once those descriptions have been accepted as being true, we call them "truths".

And this is in completely accordance with how humanity uses these terms. I've already shown this using Webster's Dictionary.

From Webster's Dictionary:

2. a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>

3. the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

~~~~~

It is understood within the overall context of these definitions and processes.

~~~~

It's really quite simple.

Your constant efforts to attack this can only be a reflection of your own hostility and antagonism toward the status quo.

I have no interest in your personal issues and contempt for the way that humans have defined our man-made concepts of things such as truth.

Truly.

This has been a bait thread all along.

He starts a thread asking "Is Truth Subjective?"

And then blatantly ATTACKS anyone who suggests that it is.

He screams that they have fatal logic, they are all wrong, and that only his views on truth are the "Gospel Truth".

We may as well be in the Religion Forums having someone attempting to proselytize their religion at us.

Nobody said that the methods of verification determine truth.

Perhaps that's your misunderstanding right there.

All we've done is define what we mean by truth.

If we have incorrectly determined that a statement satisfies this definition of truth when in fact it hasn't, then we have simply made an error is all.

That doesn't mean that the definition of truth itself is logically flawed or wrong. It just means that we have incorrectly evaluated the truth value of a particular statement or description.

So your objections to the actual definition of truth don't even apply to methods of verification.

All you are complaining about is that we can never know for sure whether we have ever made a correct determination.

But everyone is already aware of this.

That doesn't make the foundational definition 'wrong'. All that shows is that we cannot be certain whether we have ever correctly evaluated a statement or description.

In fact, mathematics solves this problem by using limited axioms. If they have a statement that can be shown to have totally satisfied all of their axioms then they proclaim that statement to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because it satisfies all of their finite lists of axioms ABSOLUTELY.

Of course, their axioms themselves may not have an correspondence to any fact/reality. The axioms themselves are simply accepted to be "TRUTHS". In other words, they are accepted to be correct statements of the "state of affairs".

In fact, in pure mathematics the only "State of Affairs" that needs to be satisfied is the foundational axioms of the formalism.

If you've shown that, then you can safely conclude that your statement is indeed a mathematical "truth" because you have shown that your statement correctly describes the "State of Affairs".

~~~~~

In the physical science you can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your description of reality has indeed correctly described a physical state of affairs.

This is why scientific 'truths' are often regarded with some level of suspicion.

They might not actually be "truths".

These descriptions of reality may have been labeled as "Truths" when in fact, that determination had been incorrect.

~~~~~~

There are no logical inconsistencies in any of this.

You say,



Well, let's try Miles.

All I'm saying is that recognizing religion as a "Personal Eccentricity" is indeed a "Good Thing".

Unlike Tony Blair's view that it might be a "Bad Thing".

As you probably know by now, I am personally drawn to Eastern Mystical Philosophies of spirituality. I'm also drawn for romantic reasons to Wicca as a valid means of expressing my love and devotion to the "Holy Spirit" of humanity.

If an atheists would like to proclaim that this is nothing more than a "personal eccentricity" on my part, I have absolutely no problem with that at all. On the contrary I would totally agree with the atheist that this is precisely what it is. It's a "FAITH" that something may indeed be possible even though it cannot be known to be true.

I CONFESS that this is precisely what my FAITH in spirituality is.

I do not expect an atheist (or anyone else) to share my faith, or support it in any way (other than to respect my human right to have it).

I do not accuse an atheist (or anyone else) of rebelliously rejecting "God" simply because they don't believe in spirituality, or because they view spirituality differently from my view

So calling my entirely FAITH-BASED spirituality a "personal eccentricity" is fine with me. That doesn't belittle me, nor does it belittle my view of spirituality.

~~~~~~~

With Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) we have a totally different picture.

~~~~~~~

The Christians want to demand that the Bible is the absolute "Word of God" and that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and that their belief in this is not 'Faith-based" at all, but rather just an acknowledgment of absolute TRUTH.

By taking this stance, they are demanding that atheists, and even spiritual people like myself, are not only wrong, but that we are clearly rebelling against "God's" ultimate authority if we refuse to believe in the Christian doctrines.

Therefore, for them, the idea that their religion should be viewed as nothing more than a faith-based personal eccentricity is totally unacceptable.

~~~~~~~

However, as I had pointed out in the OP, there are indeed many modern day "Christians" who have no problem at all with recognizing that the religion is entirely faith-based, and it is indeed a "Personal Walk with God" (which basically amounts to a "Personal Eccentricity")

Just like I recognize that my faith in the Eastern Mystical view of God is a entirely faith-based and thus amounts to nothing more than a "Personal Walk with God", or "Personal Eccentricity".

~~~~~~~

The only hold-outs to this view are the radical fundamentalists, who believe that Christianity is not OPEN to faith, but rather it must be accepted and believed as FACT. And they treat it as though it is FACT, and not a Faith-based belief at all.

~~~~~~~

There is really no reason why all Christians shouldn't confess that their belief in the Hebrew stories is entirely FAITH-BASED and therefore it cannot truly be anything other than a "Personal Eccentricity" chosen via PURE FAITH.

Exactly.

They use that term in the hopes of falsely reducing everything we know about evolution to merely be a 'theory' which they claim is nothing more than "a guess".

But that's totally wrong.

Evolution is a process. (it may or may not actually occur)

The theory of evolution is simply a collection of explanations that attempt to explain how the process works.

The "theory" of evolution has grown tremendously since Darwin first proposed it. Today biologists and geneticists have explained how the process of evolution actually works. So now they have a working theory, that no only explains how evolution works, but it also shows them how to manipulate DNA to produce specific changes in organisms that we would like to see. Hopeful for reasons of better health.

It has no been confirmed the DNA is indeed the blueprint of an organism and geneticists show clearly how changes in the DNA blueprint can occur thus explaining how the process of evolution actually works.

There exists much evidence for the process of evolution.

Fossil records are quite profound evidence. But more recently the DNA evidence has been overwhelming. The Human Genome Project has shown how the process of evolution works in detail. If that process were not occurring we would not see the things we do in the DNA record of humanity.

So for all intents and purposes the process of evolution has indeed been confirmed. Whilst the theory of evolution (the actual explanations of this process) continue to be refined.

So dismissing the process of evolution as nothing more than a mere 'theory' is indeed just a ploy used by religious zealots who refuse to recognized and acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the process of evolution is indeed very real.