Night Ripper;173113 wrote:
A truth and a true proposition are the same thing. Truth is general and a truth is particular. It's like cars vs. a car.
More like car vs. a car. Still, you are right.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 01:50 AM ----------
Consider the following fact: A rock is on the ground.
Do you think the rock is a fact? I don't. I think it's an object.
ETA: maybe I should say consider the following fact: A rock on the ground. [I dropped the word "is."]
No, I do not. It is gibberish to say "the rock is a fact". And yes it is an object. If there is a point, then I don't see it. I only said that your web of beliefs imply that some objects are true/false and that you at the same time claim that it is meaningless to say that. That is inconsistent.
Objects are not said to be true or false. That would be a category error. Facts are said to be true only.
You think it is nonsense to say of any object that it is true or false. Quoted just above.
You think some objects, that is sentences, are true or false.
This is inconsistent. (Because being the case implies meaningfulness.)
You have to change some beliefs to get out of the inconsistency. What will you do?
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 02:04 AM ----------
I have color coded your post. If they are not all the same color, then they shouldn't be regarded as the same.
Fact = State of affairs = A truth = Truth-maker
Truth = True Proposition = Truth-bearer
Emil introduced the term "truth-carrier;" I suspect he means "Truth-bearer," but then again, I don't know the difference or implications between them. If all propositions are truth-bearers, then false propositions are truth-bearers; thence, truth-bearer shouldn't be red (or blue).
A little story to bring it all together:
I walked into the house and saw that the cat was not on the mat, yet I turned to Ms. Fast and uttered the sentence, "The cat is on the mat," that conveyed the proposition, "The cat is on the mat." Yes, I lied.
Ms. Fast (not knowing I lied) put on her red hat and began to wonder: 1) Was I telling the truth, 2) Did what I say convey a true proposition, and 3) Did the proposition indeed bear any truth about the world?
Then, she decided to wonder no longer and looked to the world to see if I did all those things she wondered about (not that they're all that different, mind you).
So, she went to look for just what would make it true: a truth maker. By "make," I mean indicate. It should be called a truth indicator (I propose), for only the fact that the cat is on the mat would indicate that it's true that the cat is on the mat. She looked to see if there was indeed a truth in the world that corresponds with the proposition expressed by the sentence I uttered.
Though she looked and looked, it was to no avail. Never would she have found a truth corresponding to the purported truth that the cat was on the mat, for the cat was not on the mat. It was off the mat and drinking 2% milk--that was the true state of [the worldly] affairs.
"truth carrier" and "truth bearer" mean the same. I prefer the first because it is easier for me to type on the keyboard.
I wonder what the equal signs are supposed to mean.
Obviously not all truth carriers are true. Some are false. These are called falsehoods. Truth carriers is a superset of truths, and of falsehoods. Falsehoods is a subset of truth carriers. Truths is a subset of truth carriers. If you want to do sets and categories and stuff, do it via images.