The necessary truth of any truth

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You don't make any sense and I don't really care to waste my time on it anymore. If you think you've got something new and exciting that flies in the face of thousands of years of logic then publish it and you'll be famous. Otherwise, you're just another crackpot on the Internet that doesn't know what they're talking about.

It is already published.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Damn, man, you don't have to strike so hard.

Apparently he does need it.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

I will save this thread as evidense of how irrational humans can be, it's not particular for any profession, branch of life or any specific group of people ..it's ALL!!!
99.999..99 of all people lack rationallity and can't realize it, even with all the worlds books to read, they still can't grasp simple rational/irrational things and concepts.

And I am amazed by how people still expect to solve the now very old problems of thought without changing the way they think.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

And, even if you were right, there is still a distinction between, necessarily if p then q, and if p then necessarily q. The distinction just stares you in the face. Just look at where "necessarily" is placed in the two different sentences. The sentences are different just because of the location of the term, "necessarily".

OK, let us go for a language you appear to understand: the most basic principle of Aristotelian logic, the principle of identity, "A is A." Or, which is the same: "A must be A" (otherwise, A would not be A, which would violate the principle of identity). Would you say that "A must be A" has a different meaning than "it must be that A is A"? Or that "necessarily if A then A" does not mean "if A then necessarily A"? I hope not. Well, since A is whatever I wish, it can be a truth, right? So a truth must be a truth. Finally, since being a truth is the same as being true (for whatever is untrue is not a truth), then we have: every truth must be true.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

You don't make any sense and I don't really care to waste my time on it anymore. If you think you've got something new and exciting that flies in the face of thousands of years of logic then publish it and you'll be famous. Otherwise, you're just another crackpot on the Internet that doesn't know what they're talking about.

It is already published.

And yet nobody important cared. I wonder what that tells you.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

You don't make any sense and I don't really care to waste my time on it anymore. If you think you've got something new and exciting that flies in the face of thousands of years of logic then publish it and you'll be famous. Otherwise, you're just another crackpot on the Internet that doesn't know what they're talking about.

It is already published.

And yet nobody important cared. I wonder what that tells you.

You continue to surprise me with your capacity to say a lot about something you know nothing about: you don't know the name of the publication, you don't know the date of the publication, you don't know who knows about it, you don't know its content, but you already know it is of no importance... congratulations! By the way, if you did't notice, with your comment you are neither discussing my reasoning nor my arguments - again. Instead of trying to review a book you did't read, please refute this:

guigus wrote:

OK, let us go for a language you appear to understand: the most basic principle of Aristotelian logic, the principle of identity, "A is A." Or, which is the same: "A must be A" (otherwise, A would not be A, which would violate the principle of identity). Would you say that "A must be A" has a different meaning than "it must be that A is A"? Or that "necessarily if A then A" does not mean "if A then necessarily A"? I hope not. Well, since A is whatever I wish, it can be a truth, right? So a truth must be a truth. Finally, since being a truth is the same as being true (for whatever is untrue is not a truth), then we have: every truth must be true.

1 Reply

@guigus,

It's obvious that if someone had cared then you wouldn't be here on the Internet ranting like a fool. You don't see respectable published authors doing that. I'll bite though. Please tell me the name of the publication and link me to some kind of review. Otherwise, my previous assessment stands.

Quote:

"A must be A"

You're making a fundamental mistake. You're confusing the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "my father" can mean one of two things, either a pointer to whoever my father is or a pointer to my actual father, James. It's necessary that whoever my father is, he is my father. However, it's not necessary that James is my father since my father could have been Tom, Dick or Harry.

Please read this article and educate yourself, especially the part at the end about the context of modality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

It's obvious that if someone had cared then you wouldn't be here on the Internet ranting like a fool. You don't see respectable published authors doing that. I'll bite though. Please tell me the name of the publication and link me to some kind of review. Otherwise, my previous assessment stands.

Quote:
"A must be A"

You're making a fundamental mistake. You're confusing the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "my father" can mean one of two things, either a pointer to whoever my father is or a pointer to my actual father, James. It's necessary that whoever my father is, he is my father. However, it's not necessary that James is my father since my father could have been Tom, Dick or Harry.

Please read this article and educate yourself, especially the part at the end about the context of modality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

The difference between a word and whatever it refers to is just plain obvious, and formulating it in Latin doesn't make it more "educative": it only shows that people have been aware of it for a long time now (perhaps because it is obvious).

So you mean that "A must be A" is false? Wow, that's a revolution. Now let us examine what you are possibly trying to say. Let us interpret "A must be A" as if "A" meant only the letter "A," rather than anything it could refer to. Then, "A must be A" means that the letter A must be the letter A. But wait: does the statement refer to the expression "the letter A" or to the letter A itself? So let us rewrite: the letter A to which the expression "the letter A" refers must be the letter A to which the expression "the letter A" refers. But wait: does this last statement refer to the expression "the letter A to which the expression 'the letter A refers'" or to the letter A itself? So let us rewrite...

You can do this forever if you will, but unfortunately I have more useful things to do: all these sentences are true, regardless of their referring to some expression or to whatever that expression refers to. A must be A, no matter what "A" means, in which consists precisely the universality of the principle of identity. Your father must be your father, no matter if you mean the expression "your father" or your father himself.

Another thing entirely would be to say that your father must have been your father, which is not at all the meaning of "your father must be your father" (A must be A). You need to learn some English.

1 Reply

@guigus,

You're a joke. I'm not wasting anymore time with your stupidity. I've got an academic letter of recommendation from Oxford for philosophy. You're just some dope. Farewell.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You're a joke. I'm not wasting anymore time with your stupidity. I've got an academic letter of recommendation from Oxford for philosophy. You're just some dope. Farewell.

Okay, but surely the question of necessity is one of definition within a constructed logic. Nevertheless, Guigus seems a little shy about referencing the publication.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You're a joke. I'm not wasting anymore time with your stupidity. I've got an academic letter of recommendation from Oxford for philosophy. You're just some dope. Farewell.

Fortunately you didn't show me your dick (perhaps because you are such an educated guy, or perhaps because it is not as impressive as your letter of recommendation). Anyway, take care: philosophy is the love of wisdom, and not of your image in a mirror.

1 Reply

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=necessity&searchmode=none

0 Replies

@guigus,

Don't get mad when you insult others and they insult you back. I can take it and dish it out. Can you?

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

What I said is that any true statement is necessarily true (every truth must be true). It seems that it is you that have problems reading, and I suspect you would have that same problem in any other language.

Light is waves = true, but it's only half a truth, the whole truth is that light is BOTH waves and particles.

Please stop polluting decent philosophy with poor anologies and ill logic.

1 Reply

This guy is a few steps away from saying "I just feel it..."

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

As generally agreed, for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be true Quito must be the capital of Ecuador.

I do not agree with that at all, since it is patently false. And you are making the same old confusion that you continue to make. It is not true that for it to be true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, that Quito must be the capital of Ecuador. Proof: Quito is indeed the capital of Ecuador, but some other city (say Guyaquil) might very well have been the capital of Ecuador. What is, true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital of Ecuador, the Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, once more, you confuse:

1. If must be that if Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then Quito is the capital of Ecuador. (which is true) with.
2. If Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then Quito must be the capital of Ecuador (which is false).

The question for you is when, if ever, will you be able to see the obvious distinction between 1 and 2. ?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Don't get mad when you insult others and they insult you back. I can take it and dish it out. Can you?

Who did I insult?

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

guigus wrote:
What I said is that any true statement is necessarily true (every truth must be true). It seems that it is you that have problems reading, and I suspect you would have that same problem in any other language.
Light is waves = true, but it's only half a truth, the whole truth is that light is BOTH waves and particles.

Please stop polluting decent philosophy with poor anologies and ill logic.

Sure light is both waves and particles, which I have already pointed out many times in this forum without much agreement. Regarding pollution and ill logic, please make them more than just metaphors by precisely identifying them in the following:

We can derive the statement "every truth must be true" from the so-called
"principle of identity":

1. The statement "A is A" means the same as the statement "A must be
A" since, in "A is A":

(a) The first "A" means anything.
(b) The second "A" means the same thing as the first "A," whatever
it is.
(c) If something is identical to itself - A is A - then it cannot be
different from itself, since nothing can be different from itself
while being identical to itself.
(d) If something cannot be different from itself, then it must be
identical to itself.
(e) Since "anything" - or "A" - already means anything else - other
than "A" - anything must be identical to itself - A must be A (the statement "it must be that A is A" just converts "A must be A" into a passive sentence).

2. The statement "a truth must be a truth" is an instance of the statement
"A must be A" since, in "A must be A":

(a) The first "A" means anything.
(b) The second "A" means the same thing as the first "A," whatever
it is.
(c) If anything, whatever it is, must be what it is - A must be A -
then a truth must be what it is, which is a truth.

3. The statement "a truth must be a truth" means the same as the statement
"every truth must be a truth" since:

(a) "A truth" means "any truth".
(b) If any truth must be a truth, then every truth must be a truth.

4. The statement "every truth must be a truth" means the same as the
statement "every truth must be true" since:

(a) A "truth" means anything that is true, whatever it is.
(b) A "truth" means only what is true, whatever its truth is.
(c) If a "truth" means exactly whatever is true, whatever its truth
is, then to "be a truth" means exactly to "be true."

So, according to the so-called "principle of identity," every truth must be true.

1 Reply

@guigus,

No, you're wrong. These are two different words with two different meanings, "must" and "is". The word "must" implies necessity but "is" implies actuality. To conflate the two means that you are ignoring contingency. Some truths are contingent and others are necessary. Please come up with some kind of argument that doesn't rest on this ambiguity.

You need to acknowledge the difference between "happens to be" and "must be". A is A because it happens to be A or it because it must be A. A is A doesn't imply either all by itself.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

As generally agreed, for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be true Quito must be the capital of Ecuador.

I do not agree with that at all, since it is patently false. And you are making the same old confusion that you continue to make. It is not true that for it to be true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, that Quito must be the capital of Ecuador. Proof: Quito is indeed the capital of Ecuador, but some other city (say Guyaquil) might very well have been the capital of Ecuador. What is, true is that it must be that if Quito is the capital of Ecuador, the Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, once more, you confuse:

1. If must be that if Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then Quito is the capital of Ecuador. (which is true) with.
2. If Quito is the capital of Ecuador, then Quito must be the capital of Ecuador (which is false).

The question for you is when, if ever, will you be able to see the obvious distinction between 1 and 2. ?

You are confusing:

1. Quito must be the capital of Ecuador.
2. Quito must be the capital of Ecuador for the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" to be true.

The first statement invokes an ex nihilo necessity that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, while the second simply recognizes the obvious: that for an assertion to be true it must refer to something true. I hope you can see the difference.

0 Replies

The necessary truth of any truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know