Every truth must be true

But that does not make me ambiguous. It only makes me different in respect to the change in my cells. To be different is not to be ambiguous. Just because I have gained a pound this week, does not make be ambiguous. That is not how the word "ambiguous" is used in English.

But that does not make me ambiguous. It only makes me different [from what?] in respect to the change in my cells.

But what does it mean for truth to be true, let alone necessarily true?

kennethamy wrote:

But what does it mean for truth to be true, let alone necessarily true?

For truth to be true means whatever you believe to be true having a counterpart outside your head. And for truth to be necessarily true means that if whatever you believe to be true does not have a counterpart outside your head, then it is untrue. You confuse this necessity with the necessity that whatever is outside your head would have of being there - independently of what you believe - hence with the necessity of whatever you believe as true to be true - as if it were the same as whatever is there outside your head. However, the necessity I mean is the one by which, for whatever you believe as true to be true, the corresponding state of affairs must be there in the world outside your head.

Hi !
...only if you change back again...(but also makes you a sci-fi "metamorph". )
The uncertainty between two given states would make you ambiguous.

kennethamy wrote:

But that does not make me ambiguous. It only makes me different in respect to the change in my cells. To be different is not to be ambiguous. Just because I have gained a pound this week, does not make be ambiguous. That is not how the word "ambiguous" is used in English.

Different from what? There is no difference in itself. To be different is to be different from something. And your body, from what is it different if not from itself? There it is: the contradiction between a difference and an identity (your body being different from itself, to which it is also identical) in which consists all ambiguity.

I weigh more than I did yesterday. Therefore my body differs from yesterday. That is not to say that I have a different body from the one I had yesterday. But that my body is changed.

But for a true statement to be necessarily true, is for it to be impossible that it is false. What is not a necessary truth is a contingent truth. That is how the terms, "true" and "necessarily true" have always been used in philosophy.

kennethamy wrote:

But for a true statement to be necessarily true, is for it to be impossible that it is false. What is not a necessary truth is a contingent truth. That is how the terms, "true" and "necessarily true" have always been used in philosophy.

That's fine, I already know (for quite some time now) what necessity means to you. How about what it means to me? Don't worry too much about the traditional use of the word "necessity." No philosopher can worry too much about tradition without ceasing to be a philosopher. Can you please answer me: did you understand what necessity means to me?

No I don't. But, then again, I don't really care what "necessity" happens to mean to you or to some particular individual.

What do you mean only words are ambiguous ?
Meaning is ambiguous as behaviour can well be.
What does makes ambiguous on your view ?
Changing and changing back again sure is pretty ambiguous to me...
Maybe your notion of ambiguous is turning a little bit ambiguous...

kennethamy wrote:

No I don't. But, then again, I don't really care what "necessity" happens to mean to you or to some particular individual.

OK, I think this is clear enough. I'm done with you, if you don't mind (and you surely don't).

No I don't. But, then again, I don't really care what "necessity" happens to mean to you or to some particular individual. For example, if it meant "fried eggs sunny side up" to you (or anyone else) it really would not matter. I care only about what the term "necessity" means. But I think you should not dismiss what philosophers have meant by necessity so readily. Philosophers like Kant, and like Leibniz, who were geniuses, have thought long and hard about this notion. And have said important things about it. I see no good reason to suppose that whatever eccentric meaning you would like to give to the idea is worth more than theirs is. And, from what I have read, you have not convinced me that you are not confused. So, my advice to you is to learn what those terms mean in philosophy, and say why you think what they mean is defective or inadequate before you go off on your own. After all, what would you think of someone who decided that what physicists meant by "mass" or by "force" could be dismissed, and that he could simply offer new definitions of those terms? Why would anyone pay any attention to him, particularly if he gave no reasons why the standard way in which those terms were used should not be adhered to? Why should philosophy be any different? Answer, it is not. I think you should be more modest, and maybe, when you have learned what philosophers like Leibniz, or Kant, or more recently, Quite and Davidson, and Kripke, have had to say about truth and necessity, you can first criticize their views, and then offer some revisions. Only then would you deserve to be taken seriously. But not until then. Philosophy is a discipline like any other (like physics, or like history). You have to learn about it before you can discuss it, let alone make criticisms. And you cannot suddenly offer replacements unless you say what is you think is wrong with what we already have. It may be, of course, that if you are a genius (say, like Einstein) you can entirely reshape what we already think. But even Einstein already understood the the accepted knowledge of Newton, and before he offered his revolutionary revisions, he carefully detailed why he believed that Newtonian physics was defective and inadequate. Then, he presented his own theory. It was because he had given reasons that Newtonian physics would not do, that Einstein was listened to, and taken serious. Einstein did not simply reject traditional physics out of hand, and then offer his own views. And, not only did he offer his own views, but he gave long and detailed argument for them. If he had not: (a) given long and detailed criticisms of Newtonian physics, and if he had not then not merely offered his revisions, but also given powerful and detailed arguments for his own views, no one would have taken him seriously. And they would have been right not to do so. For they would correctly have called him a "crackpot". Almost everyday someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, but the U.S. patent office will pay not attention to him because such a machine would be physically impossible, for it would be inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. When someone not only presents his perpetual motion machine, but also presents a refutation of the second law of thermodynamics will the US Patent Office even consider his "invention" seriously, and not think he is a crackpot.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What do you mean only words are ambiguous ?
Meaning is ambiguous as behaviour can well be.
What does makes ambiguous on your view ?
Changing and changing back again sure is pretty ambiguous to me...
Maybe your notion of ambiguous is turning a little bit ambiguous...

He champions the classical view of logic, in which contradiction and ambiguity are not accepted. It is like medieval Catholicism, in which it was not acceptable that the Earth moved. The difference is that, in the case of symbolic logic, nothing else moves.

kennethamy wrote:

No I don't. But, then again, I don't really care what "necessity" happens to mean to you or to some particular individual. For example, if it meant "fried eggs sunny side up" to you (or anyone else) it really would not matter. I care only about what the term "necessity" means. But I think you should not dismiss what philosophers have meant by necessity so readily. Philosophers like Kant, and like Leibniz, who were geniuses, have thought long and hard about this notion. And have said important things about it. I see no good reason to suppose that whatever eccentric meaning you would like to give to the idea is worth more than theirs is. And, from what I have read, you have not convinced me that you are not confused. So, my advice to you is to learn what those terms mean in philosophy, and say why you think what they mean is defective or inadequate before you go off on your own. After all, what would you think of someone who decided that what physicists meant by "mass" or by "force" could be dismissed, and that he could simply offer new definitions of those terms? Why would anyone pay any attention to him, particularly if he gave no reasons why the standard way in which those terms were used should not be adhered to? Why should philosophy be any different? Answer, it is not. I think you should be more modest, and maybe, when you have learned what philosophers like Leibniz, or Kant, or more recently, Quite and Davidson, and Kripke, have had to say about truth and necessity, you can first criticize their views, and then offer some revisions. Only then would you deserve to be taken seriously. But not until then. Philosophy is a discipline like any other (like physics, or like history). You have to learn about it before you can discuss it, let alone make criticisms. And you cannot suddenly offer replacements unless you say what is you think is wrong with what we already have. It may be, of course, that if you are a genius (say, like Einstein) you can entirely reshape what we already think. But even Einstein already understood the the accepted knowledge of Newton, and before he offered his revolutionary revisions, he carefully detailed why he believed that Newtonian physics was defective and inadequate. Then, he presented his own theory. It was because he had given reasons that Newtonian physics would not do, that Einstein was listened to, and taken serious. Einstein did not simply reject traditional physics out of hand, and then offer his own views. And, not only did he offer his own views, but he gave long and detailed argument for them. If he had not: (a) given long and detailed criticisms of Newtonian physics, and if he had not then not merely offered his revisions, but also given powerful and detailed arguments for his own views, no one would have taken him seriously. And they would have been right not to do so. For they would correctly have called him a "crackpot". Almost everyday someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, but the U.S. patent office will pay not attention to him because such a machine would be physically impossible, for it would be inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. When someone not only presents his perpetual motion machine, but also presents a refutation of the second law of thermodynamics will the US Patent Office even consider his "invention" seriously, and not think he is a crackpot.

OK, I told I was done with you, but I couldn't resist citing Einstein to you:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Of course if you "don't really care what 'necessity' happens to mean to you [to me] or to some particular individual," and if you are serious about that, you also don't give a damn about what Einstein has to say, but I sometimes have unjustified hope on people.

And you are willing to accept contradiction? Can you tell me why, since all contradictions are necessarily false, and if you accept contradiction you must accept the false as well as the true. Is that what you want? In any case, whether you want it or not, you are committed to accepting the false if you accept contradiction. Just as long as you realize that. If you do not mind believing what is false, that is all right. Just realize what you are committed to.

Could you please explain to me why if I don't care what private meaning some individual happens to give to his words, I don't care what Einstein says. Do you think that Einstein gave a private meaning to his words? Why would you think such a peculiar thing? Einstein did, of course, try to re-understand space and time. But he presented arguments for his views, argument that convinced his peers in the scientific community that he was right. Now, if you can do the same thing, and present arguments which will convince those in the philosophical community that you are right, then have a go. So far, I have seen no arguments, but only pronouncements, coupled with conviction that you are right and abuse for those who are waiting for your arguments for your views (whatever they may be).