This topic is meant to parse out what things can be true or false. It is common to hold that statements can be true or false. It is also common to say that not all statements can be. For example...

"The earth orbits the sun" is either true or false. "This sentence is false" is neither true, nor false. The difference between the two is that the former makes a claim about the world, whereas the latter is self-referencial and therefore is utterly meaningless. That should do to get things going, hopefully. The forum looks rather dead-like lately...

Is there anything else that can be true or false that is not a statement?

Check out Robert Anton Wilson and the use of E-Prime, which discusses this issue in great detail and don't about Schrodinger's Cat- is it alive or dead?

Talk about it.

Truth and false is beyond statements.

Take illusions for example, we see what is not true.

Hearing, hunters use calls to mimic targeted animals, what that animal hears is not true.

So would you say any data transmission by an agent?
Or is agency not needed? Can the mirage produced by the heat of the desert be said to be false, or is the interpretation of the data mistaken?

The mirage is true and the interpretation of the data can also
be true - if the interpretation of the data is that there is an
image formed by a heat generated density gradient which produces a
image at that location.

Right . . . can the mirage be anything but true? It has no capacity to deceive, does it? It is what it is, only the agent perceiving can deceive himself, is that not true?

Is true and false expressions?
Or can they be states of existence?
Properties of more than just a statement?

I think it makes no sense as a state of existence independent from a statement, only as an expression from a conscious agent does it make sense to me at least.

The hunter is attempting to decieve not to be true or false. In this case if the call brings out the desired prey then the call was valid and it did what it was meant to do and truth had nothing to do with it.

If one attempts to argue that the call must have have been true or it would not have brought the prey, then we have a paradox because the call was meant to deceive which would have to be labeled false in keeping with using true false. But if it is false, the prey would not have been fooled - right?
Valid and not valid seem to work better in some cases. I think, but I always seem to miss the point.

Or, perhaps the mirage is false due to mistaken interpretation of data?

Take the unemployment rate for example, that is a false number based on misinterpretation of data.

Seems to me any distinction of true or false necessarily causes issues with identity unless its restricted to statements.

Meaning is semantic in nature, and without meaning false and true seem to merely be restricted to an assessment of identity.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/s-l-m/logic/

I think that this confuses existence with being true.

Perhaps it is better put that with 'pure' illusions, such as a mirage, we "see" what - quite simply - does not exist. That is, what we "see" exists only within our minds. With optical illusions, what we "see" is not an accurate representation of the way things are(fact/reality), but rather what seems to be the case, is not quite the way things are. Those are often due to the inherent limitations within our physiological sensory perception and/or the brain possibly overcompensating from the past habit of filling in for what is sometimes missing information.

--

What the animal hears does exist. The sound being made by the hunter may not be a sound being made by the animal that the hunter intends to mimic, however, it seems rather odd to say that "what that animal hears is not true". It is true that the hunter is making a sound that mimics the animal. It is true that the animal hears the sound. It is true that the animal thinks/believes that the sound indicates another animal. It is not true that the sound is coming from another animal.

So, given this, the animal does not hear what is not true.

"The mirage is true" says what about the mirage?

A mirage only exists in the mind of the subject. Being true cannot be the same thing. For if it were, then all interpretations of mirages would also be true. We know that that is not the case. One subject could think/believe that the mirage is real, and another subject could know that s/he is hallucinating. So, if existing is the same thing as being true, then both of those would be true. However, one is the negation of the other. I mean, a mirage cannot be both, real and imagined, at the same time. Thus we arrive at a contradiction.

Therefore, we can infer from this that a mirage exists in the mind of a subject, but we cannot call the mirage "true" and remain coherent.

"Being true" is not something that a mirage does. I mean, if that were the case - in addition to the earlier response regarding this - then my cat, my truck, the clouds, etc., could all "be true" as well. What would being false possibly mean?



As far as I can tell that's all they are. Truth, however, is another matter altogether.



As already argued, equating "true" and "false" to a state of existence leads us to incoherence/self-contradiction.



I agree. "True" and "false" cannot be shown to exist outside of language. However, I would be cautious here regarding what can be inferred from that and that alone. Does it follow that only statements can be true of false?

You're onto something here, but I think that the terms "valid" and "invalid" are best used if referring to an argumentative form rather than whether or not something is true or false. I say this because neither is sufficient for truth. I mean, an argument can be valid but still be false.

a man's heart can be true or false

Actually, it is a measure concerning the number of people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. Therefore, it is true in that sense if it corresponds to fact/reality(if it offers an accurate quantity regarding the aforementioned group). It is not a measure of the number of people who are currently unemployed. So, I find that there is no sufficient reason to claim that it is a false number based upon a misinterpretation of data.

The underlying point here, regarding the OP, is that that number is just another form of a statement. In this case, it is stating that X is the quantity of people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. If the number stated corresponds to the number collecting then the statement(number) is true.

Do you think that there can be a thing called "true meaning"? I mean, can meaning be "true" or "false"?

How so?