The truth about truth.

keith1 said:
OP (sigurdV) logic syntax errors:

ERROR# 01--Line #03:

...The first sentence in this thread is "Theres two kinds of truth: Logical truth and Empirical truth."...

Sentence correction: The actual first sentence in this thread is the title sentence, "The truth about truth." (note period at end of title)
Click to expand...
LOL...

1. Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
2. Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is not true"
Now what?
(an often seen situation :p )
 
Emil said:
LOL...

1. Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
2. Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is not true"
Now what?
(an often seen situation :p )
Click to expand...

Im just a lonesome poor philosopher, not a formal logician so at first sight Id say it dissolves.

To produce paradox it must be corrected:

1. Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
2. Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is true"

But it still is not proper...Here is how it should be done:

1 Sentence 2 is not true
2 Sentence 1 is true

The sentence system above can be reduced to a Liar Sentence!
This is called indirect self reference and the chain can be as long as one wishes (I think):

1 Sentence 2 is not true
2 Sentence 3 is not true
...
n Sentence n+1 is not true
n+1 Sentence 1 is true
 
Emil said:
Yep,
Self-evidence:
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is slightly incompetent sometimes!

Here is what they say:

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

Here is what they mean:

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true only by understanding its meaning.

Are you aware that self_evidence is under discussion in here?
In the understanding of some self-evident proposition some proof is actually done!

And the question of what kind THAT proof IS... is not officially decided yet ;)
 
An empirical truth is like drawing the best curve through a bunch of data points. Although it may be a good fit, it normally will not touch all the data points. Therefore it is only subjectively true. Because it falls short of objective truth, humans may use fudge factor to pretend the other points are not there, so we can then use prestige to pretend it is objective truth.

Objective truth has to draw a curve that will touch all the data points. It may not be a smooth curve but may be convoluted via cause and effect.
 
wellwisher said:
An empirical truth is like drawing the best curve through a bunch of data points. Although it may be a good fit, it normally will not touch all the data points. Therefore it is only subjectively true. Because it falls short of objective truth, humans may use fudge factor to pretend the other points are not there, so we can then use prestige to pretend it is objective truth.

Objective truth has to draw a curve that will touch all the data points. It may not be a smooth curve but may be convoluted via cause and effect.
Click to expand...

There is nothing really wrong in what you say... but its not so relevant to what is supposed to go on in here.(Try showing me wrong :) )

One interpretation of what you are saying is that some possibly empirical truths like natural laws are not proven in the same strict sense that logical truths are proven.

Here its simplest to point towards Poppers solution of Humes problem with induction:

We cant PROVE inductions! What we do is trying to DISPROVE them, since its better to trust an induction we have not been able to prove wrong than to trust an induction we have proved wrong!
 
Emil said:
:eek: Lol....By whom?
Click to expand...

By us who care about truth!

I should do some summing up:

There has been one relevant contribution to the problem ...
I feel no need to lecture much.
It is better to try to nudge visitors towards the aha-experience!

Here is where I start:

1 Sentence 1 is not true (ASSUMPTION)
2 Sentence 1 ="Sentence 1 is not true" (EMPIRICAL TRUTH)

There is a lot to be said about the start, but let us continue one step at the time:

By substitution and simplification we can get the negation of sentence one:

3 Sentence 1 is true

A critical situation is arrived at: Sentences one and two imply sentence three!

It is generally known that it is useless to change the truth value of sentence one...
All that happens is that sentence three also changes and the result is nil.
That strategy makes us contradict ourselves.

WE have already admitted that sentence 2 is true...
What else is there to do to escape the paradox?

I can answer but:

I am asking you!
 
sigurdV said:
What else is there to do to escape the paradox?

I can answer but:

I am asking you!
Click to expand...

I do not know about your sentences, I know about my sentences.
Each with his sentences and his answers.
So, we enter the third sentence: "none of the sentences 1 and 2 are true". :itold:
 
sigurdV, the dilemma is: "to study or not study ?".


studyfail.jpg
 
Ehrrmm ... Theres no hurry...take your time.

And... With "you" I meant any reader of this thread.

Is the question clearly formulated? Does the reader understand that if sentence three can be gotten from sentence one and two then sentence one or two must be denied. Its hopeless to deny sentence one and we have AFFIRMED sentence two so it seems there is no alternative left...

And yet I claim that something is overlooked :)

What?

A hint: Why do I claim there is two kinds of truth?

Another hint: What would the consequence be for sentence one if sentence two WERE false?
 
Last edited:
Ok. Its not an easy answer to find...

The problem is over two thousand years old!

Sentence two is empirically true but logically not true!

And saying that is no contradiction!

But we should think hard about the difference between empirical and logical truth!

And its not certain we have avoided paradox yet...

Many attempts to solve the Liar only resulted in him coming back!

Perhaps we just won some extra time?

Someone asked about the sentence:

1 Sentence 1 is not empirically true!

Its slightly different from my sentence 1...

Must I dedicate my remaining life to check each and every self referential sentence?
 
Emil said:
1. Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
2. Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is not true"
Click to expand...

Binary choice--not sequenced values:

Choice (1)= Sentence 1 is true
Choice (0)= Sentence 1 is not true
Choice (11)= Sentence 2 is true.
Choice (00)= Sentence 2 is not true


Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is not true"
[unstable logic state]
Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true" = [Sentence 1 = (00)]
If [sentence 1 = (00)], then:
Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is not true" = [Sentence 2 = (0)] [logic gate switches to]:
[Sentence 2 = (1)]

If [Sentence 2 = (1)], then,
[Sentence 1 = (00)] [logic gate switches to]:
[Sentence 1 = (11)]

If [Sentence 1 = (11)], and, [Sentence 2 = (1)], then
[Sentence 1 = (11)], and, [Sentence 2 = (1)] =
[stable logic state]

sigurdv said:
To produce paradox it must be corrected:

1. Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true".
2. Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is true"
Click to expand...
[unstable logic state]
Sentence 1 = "sentence 2 is not true" = [Sentence 1 = (00)]
If [sentence 1 = (00)], then:
Sentence 2 = "sentence 1 is true" = [Sentence 2 = (1)] [logic gate switches to]:
[Sentence 2 = (0)]

If [Sentence 2 = (0)], then,
[Sentence 1 = (00)] [logic gate switches to]:
[Sentence 1 = (11)]

If [Sentence 1 = (11)], then,
[Sentence 2 = (0)] [logic gate switches to]:
[Sentence 2 = (1)]

If [Sentence 1 = (11)], and, [Sentence 2 = (1)], then
[Sentence 1 = (11)], and, [Sentence 2 = (1)] =
[stable logic state]
 
Although truth is a noun it is sort of empty without subject matter. (true) however is an adjective which refers to all those things that either have happened or will happen. There isn't really a word that explains what "truth" as we all seem to call it. But in reality there is; since we constantly check our thought processes with an imaginary figment of our perspective we call reality. Most of which hasn't happened yet and never happened in the first place. Most people call this "truth", the never-ending search for what we don't know already. Sad... No matter how hard I try I could not separate reality truth and belief as most people do these days...
 
I pinch my arm... am I dreaming? No!
TWO new relevant posts appeared in here.

Although the anatomy of paradoxes IS at the core in...if I may call it so: OUR enquiry!

The territory is huge! And our maps are slightly medieval ;)

I first divide the truths into empirical and logical truths
and I claim the difference is not properly understood.
I direct attention to the general case of self referential sentences.

Alfred Korzybski is remembered for the sentence: The Map is not the Territory.
Which in general is a truth but doesnt seem to include "This sentence contains five words.".

Relevant existing knowledge should be presented in a summary (but complete) form.
An undertaking that will take sigurdV eons to finish alone.

I could search the net and design a tour around concepts and theories...
But Ill save that as the last effort if my thinking get stuck.

I suspect most of my thinking is connected somehow
so I invite readers to browse my writings elsewhere
to see if something said there can give them inspiration
to the fusioning and classifying of concepts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113956
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113940
 
Last edited:
The following (slightly edited) post looks in the "outward" direction.

What is meant by truth?

NietzscheHimself said:
Although truth is a noun it is sort of empty without subject matter.

(true) however is an adjective which refers to all those things that either have happened or will happen.

There isn't really a word that explains what "truth" as we all seem to call it.

But in reality there is; since we constantly check our thought processes with an imaginary figment of our perspective we call reality.

Most of which hasn't happened yet and never happened in the first place.

Most people call this "truth", the never-ending search for what we don't know already.

Sad... No matter how hard I try I could not separate reality truth and belief as most people do these days...
Click to expand...

I think I will add a link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Content:
1. The neo-classical theories of truth
1.1 The correspondence theory
1.1.1 The origins of the correspondence theory
1.1.2 The neo-classical correspondence theory
1.2 The coherence theory
1.3 Pragmatist theories
2. Tarski's theory of truth
2.1 Sentences as truth-bearers
2.2 Convention T
2.3 Recursive definition of truth
2.4 Reference and satisfaction
3. Correspondence revisited
3.1 Correspondence without facts
3.2 Facts again
3.3. Truthmakers
4. Realism and anti-realism
4.1 Realism and truth
4.2 Anti-realism and truth
4.3 Anti-realism and pragmatism
5. Deflationism
5.1 The redundancy theory
5.2 Minimalist theories
5.3 Other aspects of deflationism
6. Truth and language
6.1 Truth-bearers
6.2 Truth and truth conditions
6.3 Truth conditions and deflationism
6.4 Truth and the theory of meaning
6.5 The coherence theory and meaning
6.6 Truth and assertion
Bibliography
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top