That makes sense. I can believe something from my experience without agreement.

If you say the window is green, I know what the statement means if I know we are talking about color, but without agreement about what "green" looks like, I cannot know if that statement is considered true.

If the window is red (as we know red) and a different planet or society decided to name it "green" (while to us it is still red,) then the statement that "the window is green" would be a true statement in that society but not a true statement in our society.

There must be agreement on the naming of things and on the meaning of words.

If the window is closed and I say that the window is open there must be agreement on what the words "closed" and "open" represent before you can determine if my statement is false.

If I say "The window is blurked." You must know what "blurked" means in order to determine if the statement is true. The meaning of the word "blurked" must be agreed upon.

"The statement is true only if the window is blurked." Is meaningless until there is agreement on the meaning of "blurked."

Is it true that we can? I mean we already have language. What could be believed about your experience without already being based in (meaning)agreement?



I'm less concerned about being considered "true" as I am about being true. I think that we're somewhat in agreement here though. Without knowing what "green" means, we cannot know what the statement means. If we do not know what the statement means, then we cannot possibly know if it is true.



I'm not following here. If the window has such features that we call "red" and someone else calls "green", they are the same features just different names. Both statements would be true, in the same way that both 'Der Schnee ist weiß' and 'The snow is white' are both true statements, regardless of the society.

I still haven't seen something that can be true that is not in the form of a statement.

It is true that I can believe something as a result of my experience.

If I actually saw a pig fly, I could believe I saw a pig fly and I might believe that some pigs can indeed fly.

If I saw it, I might believe it.

Everyone else could disagree with me and say that pigs don't fly.

No agreement. And yet I still believe I saw a pig fly.

Therefor unless I could be convinced otherwise, I would believe that some pigs, or at least that one pig can fly.

Things can be true without the need of a statement.

If the sun shines, that is truth. The sun gives off light. It will give off light, whether or not anyone makes a statement about it or not.

So, which part above is true that is not a statement?

My OP is :


If you read & try to understand it carefully,then you will get your mistake CS.

I was up to showing that both true & false are words & I've shown that.So,I wasn't wrong.

I knew what your question was & my laughing emoticon was carrying some meaning that u didn't understand.

That the sun gives off light.

Now what you seem to want to do is to limit something being true unless it can be expressed with language.

But to a person with no language, that the sun gives off light is a truth. Just because it is not expressed with language does not mean it is not true.

The cave man draws a picture of a sun on the cave wall. Is this a statement about the sun? If so, what does this statement say?

Is this language?

It is like the difference between "fact" and "fact."

One term is what we call something we believe to be the case.

The actual fact may differ. So although the name "fact" is identical, it has two different meanings.

Fact = what we agree is true
Fact = what is actually true

An actual fact never changes.
An agreed upon fact could change because it may be a wrong conclusion and just an agreement.

Yes,I did!!!

Your question is :


My answer is correct & to the point.

Outputs & Inputs in the truth table can either be true or false & those aren't statements.



Do you sill think your questioning is effective?

Those are also CALLED AS TRUE & FALSE.

In Digital electronics The absence of signal is CALLED as '0'(Zero) or LOW or OFF or FALSE.

& the presence of signal is termed as '1' or High or ON or TRUE.

Anything that is called as 'TRUE' is necessarily true as it is called as true because it is always true that it is true.If it is not true then why would we call it as true & how can it be true if it is not called as true??? similar is the case of anything that is called as False.

So don't you call true as true & false as false??

Next thing is PERCEPTION.

Another one is CONCEPTION.

ASSUMPTION is also not statement.

An Indication can also be true or false.

I'm seeing this question on two different levels.

Everything that exists is true.

The term "true" can mean different things.

If an arrow is "true" that means it hit its target as intended.

If a statement is true then its (agreed upon) meaning corresponds to reality.

From there you have to define reality.

Any definition of reality requires an agreement. Does everyone agree on what reality is? Probably not.

Here the question is: "Who knows for certain what is real?"

Who knows for certain what reality is?

The job of scientists is to observe and define physical reality according to the laws of physics.

But is physical reality the true and compete reality?

Give an example please.

prashant,

It seems to me that you are not making a distinction between being called "true" and being true. Without making and adhering to that distinction, you'll not understand what I'm getting at. Do you understand that being called "true" is not sufficient for being true?

Everything that exists is not true, JB. False statements exist.



Exactly. That is why being called "true" and being true are distinct.

Not sure what you're smiling about. The above claim is not correctly formed. "I know something that is both true & false ARE." says nothing meaningful at all.



If the statement were properly formed then...