Every truth must be true

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Water must n´t be just possibly liquid, but it certainly must be able to be also liquid given that is one of its intrinsic property´s...what you fail to prove on the fallacy is how could it be otherwise once given the actual state of affairs if such portion of water in such space/time frame is liquid then by fact it could not be a solid or a gas in that given moment...it is what it is is quite simple to get. Or it should be...

Either you break the deeper meaning of causality, or all Truths (in context) are NECESSARY Truths...

Now I can just imagine what you are going to say next...
I read it, I get it, and I still don´t agree.

(...I have this impression that tautology´s are precisely what you don´t understand...)

I don't know what an intrinsic property is supposed to be. But what is clear is that water need not be a liquid since water can take the form of either a solid (ice) or a gas (steam). That is simply a fact.

I think you were the one who believed in accidental property´s...therefore the need for redundancy when speaking to you...

What have intrinsic properties (whatever they are supposed to be) to do with accidental or essential properties? What are you talking about?

0 Replies

Now, that is just plane rude ! You know I meant essential so why are you making a case on thin air ?
You well should know that I don´t edit information, neither do I tend to a control copy control paste spree, as many find opportune...I mostly speak my mind, in a, I think, reasonable manner...that kind of betting that you seam to do, on a certain type of criticism, makes poor reason on your motives, or ability to be substantial...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is surely logically possible that Obama is not president in 2010 even if he is president in 2010 since the proposition that Obama is not president in 2010 is not self-contradictory although it is true that Obama is president in 2010.

This is the kind of reasoning I am trying to overcome. The world is not made of propositions, and propositions are nothing without the world. When we refer to year 2010, we know enough about it so as to dismiss the possibility that Obama were never president in this year. The "logical possibility" that Obama is not president in 2010 is the same as imagining that year 2010 is another year, or that Obama is another person, which is anything but logical. I know that logicians love to talk about what is "logical" as if they could teletransport themselves to another dimension, which after all is just another "logical possibility" for them. But unfortunately this is not how things are. Now please consider this very carefully:

Once the necessity of Obama being president comes not from heaven, but entirely from the actual truth of the statement "Obama is president," it leaves the contingency of Obama being president intact. You can even replace the expression "state of affairs" by the word "contingency" and say that "every true statement needs a contingency to make it a truth." Such is the necessity I am talking about: one that follows entirely from the actual truth of a statement, leaving the state of affairs that makes that statement a truth as contingent and being entirely relative to that contingency. A relation instead of a property, this is a necessity by which a truth and a contingency become inextricable: there is no truth-indeterminate statement first (a "logical possibility"), and after that a contingency that must make it a truth (which would make that contingency an absolute necessity): there is rather a true statement and its necessary contingency, by which alone that statement is true and which makes all its necessity relative to its contingency, rather than absolute.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
It is surely logically possible that Obama is not president in 2010 even if he is president in 2010 since the proposition that Obama is not president in 2010 is not self-contradictory although it is true that Obama is president in 2010.

This is the kind of reasoning I am trying to overcome. The world is not made of propositions, and propositions are nothing without the world. When we refer to year 2010, we know enough about it so as to dismiss the possibility that Obama were never president in this year. The "logical possibility" that Obama is not president in 2010 is the same as imagining that year 2010 is another year, or that Obama is another person, which is anything but logical. I know that logicians love to talk about what is "logical" as if they could teletransport themselves to another dimension, which after all is just another "logical possibility" for them. But unfortunately this is not how things are. Now please consider this very carefully:

Once the necessity of Obama being president comes not from heaven, but entirely from the actual truth of the statement "Obama is president," it leaves the contingency of Obama being president intact. You can even replace the expression "state of affairs" by the word "contingency" and say that "every true statement needs a contingency to make it a truth." Such is the necessity I am talking about: one that follows entirely from the actual truth of a statement, leaving the state of affairs that makes that statement a truth as contingent and being entirely relative to that contingency. A relation instead of a property, this is a necessity by which a truth and a contingency become inextricable: there is no truth-indeterminate statement first (a "logical possibility"), and after that a contingency that must make it a truth (which would make that contingency an absolute necessity): there is rather a true statement and its necessary contingency, by which alone that statement is true and which makes all its necessity relative to its contingency, rather than absolute.

It is logically possible that Obama is not the president just means that the proposition that Obama is not the president is not self-contradictory. Which it is not. This is as contrasted with the proposition that the president is not the president, which is self-contradictory, and so, not logically possible.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is logically possible that Obama is not the president just means that the proposition that Obama is not the president is not self-contradictory. Which it is not. This is as contrasted with the proposition that the president is not the president, which is self-contradictory, and so, not logically possible.

Suppose the vice-president assumes. Then, the president is not the president. Or imagine that Obama is right now no longer exactly the same person he was an instant ago. Then again the president is not the president. Despite not "logically possible," this is possible. Suppose now light is both undulatory and corpuscular. Since for you this is a logical impossibility, you must throw away most if not all of current physics.

2 Replies

I think the city of Quito should, at the very least, start levying a royalty on philosophical conversations in which they feature. Judging by the frequency of mentions in the Forum, I'm sure it would be a nice little earner.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

I think the city of Quito should, at the very least, start levying a royalty on philosophical conversations in which they feature. Judging by the frequency of mentions in the Forum, I'm sure it would be a nice little earner.

And I think that, for the same reason, Obama should be elected president of the United States.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
It is logically possible that Obama is not the president just means that the proposition that Obama is not the president is not self-contradictory. Which it is not. This is as contrasted with the proposition that the president is not the president, which is self-contradictory, and so, not logically possible.

Suppose the vice-president assumes. Then, the president is not the president. Or imagine that Obama is right now no longer exactly the same person he was an instant ago. Then again the president is not the president. Despite not "logically possible," this is possible. Suppose now light is both undulatory and corpuscular. Since for you this is a logical impossibility, you must throw away most if not all of current physics.

Then the president is no longer the president if he resigns. But he was (indubitably) the president when he was the president. The fact that he is no longer the president does not change that. I don't know what you mean by saying that Obama is no longer the same person he was, so I really cannot speculate about something I do not understand. But, whatever you mean, it is still true that Obama was the president when Obama was the president no matter who Obama was. (I imagine, however, that Obama has always been Obama. Wouldn't you?)I didn't say that if light is both undulatory and corpuscular (whatever that may mean) that is logically impossible. In fact, I don't think I mentioned light. But what I think is that it is logically impossible for light to be both undulatory and not undulatory; and what I think is that it is impossible for light to be both corpuscular and not corpuscular. I haven't the foggiest idea whether or not is is logically possible for light to be both undulatory and corpuscular. And neither, I bet, do you, or about 99% of the readers of your post. Why don't we stick to talking about something we understand rather than talking about something neither of us understands? Finally, I have no idea what point you are trying to make with all this stuff about Obama changing (how, I don't know) and this stuff about light neither of with either of us has much of a handle on.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

jeeprs wrote:
I think the city of Quito should, at the very least, start levying a royalty on philosophical conversations in which they feature. Judging by the frequency of mentions in the Forum, I'm sure it would be a nice little earner.

And I think that, for the same reason, Obama should be elected president of the United States.

He was. Alas!

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Suppose the vice-president assumes. Then, the president is not the president. Or imagine that Obama is right now no longer exactly the same person he was an instant ago. Then again the president is not the president. Despite not "logically possible," this is possible.

Only if you are using two different definitions of "president". If "president" is defined clearly and consistently, it is logically necessary that the president is the president. If two things are the same in some respect, they cannot be different in that very respect.

guigus wrote:

Suppose now light is both undulatory and corpuscular. Since for you this is a logical impossibility, you must throw away most if not all of current physics.

If any property of a wave is inconsistent with any property of a particle, then it is logically impossible for light to be both undulatory and corpuscular. If there is no inconsistency of properties, then it is logically possible.

2 Replies

@ACB,

Confusion on this thread does not walk or trot, it gallops.

0 Replies

Particle/wave duality consists in a problem of description on the phenomena, not the actuality of the phenomena as a thing...

1 Reply

@guigus,

If obama is president in 2010, then there is a logical possibility that he is not president in 2010, but yes, if obama is president in 2010, then there is no longer an epistemic possibility that he is not president in 2010.

Am I using the word "epistemic" correctly?

1 Reply

@fast,

fast wrote:

If obama is president in 2010, then there is a logical possibility that he is not president in 2010, but yes, if obama is president in 2010, then there is no longer an epistemic possibility that he is not president in 2010.

Am I using the word "epistemic" correctly?

Well, if I have been living in a cave for the past 6 years, for all I know, Obama is not president. So, it is epistemically possible (for me) that Obama is not president. But, of course, for those who have not been living in a cave for the past 6 years, it is not epistemically possible for Obama not to be president. But, as you say, it is certainly logically possible that he is not president, since the proposition that Obama is not president is not self-contradictory, and what is not self-contradictory is logically possible.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

He wants to say that if obama is president in 2010, then there is no longer a possibility that he is not president in 2010, and though he is wrong (since it's logically possible that he is not president in 2010), I want to make what he says correct by qualifying the word "possibility" with the appropriate adjective. I came up with the word, "real," but I was hoping that the word "epistemic" would be a better fit.

I can't really jump fifty feet up into the air unaided. It's not possible! Awe, but it is possible. It's logically possible, so when I say "It's not possible," I'm wrong; however, I want to say it anyway!, but to do so and not be in error, I need to know what word to use to qualify the kind of possibility I'm talking about.

But, I need to be careful. It's not physically possible, but the scope of "physical" is not wide enough to cover both examples. After all, what's not physically possible about obama not being president in 2010?

The problem is simple. Kinds of possibilities are being equivocated. I just don't know the label to apply to the kind of possibility that both he and I is talking about. I'm hoping "epistemic" will do.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast wrote:

He wants to say that if obama is president in 2010, then there is no longer a possibility that he is not president in 2010, and though he is wrong (since it's logically possible that he is not president in 2010), I want to make what he says correct by qualifying the word "possibility" with the appropriate adjective. I came up with the word, "real," but I was hoping that the word "epistemic" would be a better fit.

I can't really jump fifty feet up into the air unaided. It's not possible! Awe, but it is possible. It's logically possible, so when I say "It's not possible," I'm wrong; however, I want to say it anyway!, but to do so and not be in error, I need to know what word to use to qualify the kind of possibility I'm talking about.

But, I need to be careful. It's not physically possible, but the scope of "physical" is not wide enough to cover both examples. After all, what's not physically possible about obama not being president in 2010?

The problem is simple. Kinds of possibilities are being equivocated. I just don't know the label to apply to the kind of possibility that both he and I is talking about. I'm hoping "epistemic" will do.

But it isn't even epistemically possible for you to jump 50 feet into the air, since it is not true (I hope) that for all you know you can jump 50 feet into the air. But it is logically possible for you to do so, since the supposition that you do so is not logically impossible. It is not a necessary truth that Obama is president. and therefore, Obama might not be president, although he is president. What I don't understand is why anyone thinks that every true proposition is a necessary truth.
Of course, I understand why he thinks so. He has made clear that why he thinks so is that he commits the modal fallacy of confusing (1) Necessarily if p then p, with if p then necessarily p. Some philosophers, notably Spinoza, have held that all truths are necessary truths, but that is something they believe follows from their metaphysics. But the op is just confused. Why do you want to make what he says correct when it is false? Indeed how can you make what he says correct when it is false?

4 Replies

@kennethamy,

What kind of possibility does the following statement refer to?

If p, then it is not possible that not-p. (E.g. If Obama is president, it is not possible that he is not president.)

It does not refer to logical possibility, since not-p may be logically possible.
Nor does it refer to epistemic possibility, since not everyone may know that p.

1 Reply

@ACB,

"real possibility"

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Why do you want to make what he says correct when it is false? Indeed how can you make what he says correct when it is false?

You know that obama is president. As sad as that makes us, it's nevertheless true. You also know that because it's true that he is president, there is therefore no room for the real possibility that he's not president. That's not what he said, but that's what he meant, and I want to be able to better express what he meant by slightly altering what he said.

0 Replies

Nope your claim that "if any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth" is false because truth can be context specific. Interestingly, the opposite of a context specific truth (ie a universal truth) cannot be readily shown to have likelihood.

1 Reply

Every truth must be true

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know