Nope. Is that really how you think?

3. Beliefs can be facts.

This statement does not say that beliefs are always facts. It only says that(some) beliefs can be facts.

5. Beliefs can be false.

This statement does not say that beliefs are always false. It only says that (some) beliefs can be false.

If a belief happens to be a fact, then it is always true.

If a belief is false, it cannot be true.

Its very simple.

Example:

"I believe the cup is on the table."

This belief is also a fact.

"I believe the cup is floating in the air."

This belief is not a fact.



A belief can be a fact.

A belief can be false or (a delusion.)

Muddle.

Muddle?

What the hell does that mean?

Are you telling me you actually can't understand the statements and the simple example I have given you?

If you seriously can't comprehend that, then you are seriously impaired and I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

OR ELSE you are just to full of pride to admit you are wrong.

Bah..i'm done...

You lose.

Muddle means that the language is muddied up. It is not clear. However, even though the description cannot account for things, I think that there is something to work with in it...



This brings up a good point. 3 does not claim that all belief are facts and 5 does not claim that beliefs are always false. How do you know which is which?

I don't understand your question. Which one is which?

The language is not muddled up. It is perfectly clear and perfect proper English. They are perfect and proper sentences.

A statement that "Boys can be bad" certainly does not mean that all boys are bad.

A statement that "Beliefs can be facts" certainly does not mean that all beliefs are facts.

Did you not make the claim that beliefs can be fact? Beliefs are most certainly affected by what we think/believe. Beliefs cannot be fact. Facts are states of affairs.

I can't believe that I'm doing this for free.

How do you know which beliefs are suposedly facts and which beliefs are supposedly false?

How do you know which is which?

Well if that's case then my answer to your concerns should be crystal clear:

What makes something "true" of "false" depends entirely upon the specific context of the situation and/or concept who's truth under consideration.

Therefore to ask this question in the abstract is meaningless. Because without the context of the specifics it would be impossible to say what makes something true (other than the abstract notion I just gave in the previous paragraph)

This is why I point out the importance of the domain of applicability, which I have yet to see you address.



I always speak for myself and about the claims.

In fact, when you make claims and I address those claims I'm not speaking about YOU, I'm speaking about the claims that YOU have made. So why do you continue to take that personally?

You have totally avoided the important points that I bring up.

1. What is the domain of applicability for truth?

You keep asking, "What does it take for something to be true?"

Well, that depends entirely on what it is that you are attempting to assess the truth value of.

You had suggested that truth is the "Universal state of Affairs".

Well, if that's the case then you need to define the domain of that "Universal state of Affairs". Only then can you begin to assess a truth value for a specific claim.



And every single "state of affairs" that you have described in the above is an example of Classical Macro Physics!

So as far as I can see, you can indeed assess a "Truth Value" for all of those states of affairs, based on THAT domain of applicability! The domain of Classical Physics!

As someone who has spent an entire life's career in the sciences, I am more than well aware of how to go about assessing the "Truth Value" for Classical Physics questions.

But that's only ONE DOMAIN of applicability?

~~~~~

I keep asking if this is the domain of applicability that you are restricting this conversation to.

You continually deny that this is the case.

Yet you refuse to address the very notion of domain of applicability.

And you have completely avoided addressing anything that doesn't fall under that domain.

So I really see no reason why I should not conclude that this is indeed only domain of applicability that you are interested in discussing.

~~~~

What I don't understand is why you don't just acknowledge this.

If you're going to restrict all conversations of "Truth" to only those ideals that can be decided based on classical physics, then at least I'll know precisely what you are talking about.

I have no interested in limiting myself to that domain. I spent a lifetime in science limited to that domain for the most part. I'm fully aware of the limitations of that domain.

What do you mean by "who's truth"?



It is not a problem for correspondence. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.

That is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the statement being true or false.

The above does not agree with the below, which is most definitely about me. Creative's quest, creative's feelings... blah blah blah.

It's wrong to begin with, which is what irks me, because those thoughts belong to you and are being attributed to me. Your posts show this over and over. Your posts confuse youe misunderstand with my claims. Getting the two straight is imperative. I do not want to argue about this kind of stuff, so please quit responding like you have below.

Yes I made the claim that beliefs can be fact.

I believe the sun gives off light and warmth.
That the sun is gives off light and warmth is a state of affairs is it not?

It is a fact.
I believe it.

You are totally confused. I think you should get a cat scan.

Seriously. You are not thinking strait.

It has verything to do with it. If we do not know which is which we cannot tell the difference between them. If we cannot tell the difference between them, then the claims are useless.

irrelevant

The statement "A belief can be a fact." is a true statement.

It does not matter what belief you are talking about. Any belief could also be a fact.

The ad homs are always an indication of a weak position.

Your belief that the sun gives off warmth and light is true because it corresponds to fact, not because it is a fact.

What makes it true?

Abra try this...

'An electron is in a superposition of states' IFF an electron is in a superposition of states.

This is just normal social interaction Michael.

What do you think we are here? Robots?

I was actually attempting to sympathize with your apparent position.

And I even stated, "It appears that he feels",....

That's not speaking for you. On the contrary it's a statement about how things appear to me.

There was no way that any of that was meant to be derogatory, or personal.

I was speaking about the POSITION you appear to be taking on things and even sympathizing with it.

~~~~~

As far as I'm concerned your entire line of "arguments" is entire based on the classical picture. Every specific example that you have ever given has been a classical example. You have totally avoided any and all issues that stray outside of the domain of the classical realm.

I'll leave this thread, because it's clearly not going anywhere anyway. I've already stated my position on things quite clearly.

~~~~

I will agree with you on the idea that truth is indeed dependent on the "Universal State of Affairs".

Where we obviously part ways in a major way, is on precisely what the domain of the "Universal State of Affairs" should entail.

I'm not prepared to restrict "Truth" solely to the domain of classical physics and classical examples.

And even though you refuse to acknowledge that you are not prepared to consider anything outside of that restricted domain, I have not seen anything in any of your arguments or examples to imply otherwise.

In fact, what I have blatantly noticed is that you totally avoid any and all issues and concerns that even remotely address anything that might be outside the domain of classical physics.

So it's crystal clear to me that even though you refuse to openly acknowledge it, you clearly are not prepared to consider anything beyond the classical ideas of classical physics.

That's what I have gained from this discussion.

And it appears that this is never going to change.

So I bid thee farewell.

There's nothing more to discuss here.