kennethamy wrote:I know nothing about QM except for the pop sci stuff one sees around. But, I'll tell you one thing, if QM contains a contradiction (If) that ain't good. My interests are not in science, since I was not trained as a scientist. But I will tell you another thing: It does not follow from the proposition that it is necessarily true that all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true, and that is what this thread began with. So as long as that point is settled, until we get to something else I know about, I think I'll not participate, since I really hate to talk about something I know nothing much about. It make me feel like a fraud. How we got to QM is mysterious. But I do know some logic, and I know little to nothing about QM. So I think I'll stick to logic and philosophy, if you don't mind. And if you know a lot about QM you can talk about that. Although I really don't see how QM is about philosophy.
We ended up in quantum physics because I gave light as an example of a contradiction, the one of something that is both a wave and a particle. But you don't need to go so far to arrive at this result. All you have to do is getting familiar with the Airy disk experiment. You can do that by searching for the expression "Airy disk" in the text at http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html. And still the problem is much older then all this. So I would like to resume our discussion about you and your body. Could you please answer to the post http://able2know.org/topic/153677-6#post-4266088, which is the same discussion regarding light, but using a much more mundane example?
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I know nothing about QM except for the pop sci stuff one sees around. But, I'll tell you one thing, if QM contains a contradiction (If) that ain't good. My interests are not in science, since I was not trained as a scientist. But I will tell you another thing: It does not follow from the proposition that it is necessarily true that all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true, and that is what this thread began with. So as long as that point is settled, until we get to something else I know about, I think I'll not participate, since I really hate to talk about something I know nothing much about. It make me feel like a fraud. How we got to QM is mysterious. But I do know some logic, and I know little to nothing about QM. So I think I'll stick to logic and philosophy, if you don't mind. And if you know a lot about QM you can talk about that. Although I really don't see how QM is about philosophy.
We ended up in quantum physics because I gave light as an example of a contradiction, the one of something that is both a wave and a particle. But you don't need to go so far to arrive at this result. All you have to do is getting familiar with the Airy disk experiment. You can do that by searching for the expression "Airy disk" in the text at http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html. And still the problem is much older then all this. So I would like to resume our discussion about you and your body. Could you please answer to the post http://able2know.org/topic/153677-6#post-4266088, which is the same discussion regarding light, but using a much more mundane example?
Well, if it is a contradiction, and if, QM implies a contradiction, then QM is itself a contradiction, since whatever implies a contradiction is, itself, a contradiction. And in that case, QM is in big trouble. So I hope that those who know about QM get on the stick and do something to resolve that contradiction (if it exists) pronto! (But I have to add that I would have thought that after all this time, if there was a contradiction, the QM chaps would have done something about it. In any case, my advice to them is to get going-fast! If you happen to know any of them, please do me a favor and mention that to them, will you?)
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:I know nothing about QM except for the pop sci stuff one sees around. But, I'll tell you one thing, if QM contains a contradiction (If) that ain't good. My interests are not in science, since I was not trained as a scientist. But I will tell you another thing: It does not follow from the proposition that it is necessarily true that all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true, and that is what this thread began with. So as long as that point is settled, until we get to something else I know about, I think I'll not participate, since I really hate to talk about something I know nothing much about. It make me feel like a fraud. How we got to QM is mysterious. But I do know some logic, and I know little to nothing about QM. So I think I'll stick to logic and philosophy, if you don't mind. And if you know a lot about QM you can talk about that. Although I really don't see how QM is about philosophy.
We ended up in quantum physics because I gave light as an example of a contradiction, the one of something that is both a wave and a particle. But you don't need to go so far to arrive at this result. All you have to do is getting familiar with the Airy disk experiment. You can do that by searching for the expression "Airy disk" in the text at http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html. And still the problem is much older then all this. So I would like to resume our discussion about you and your body. Could you please answer to the post http://able2know.org/topic/153677-6#post-4266088, which is the same discussion regarding light, but using a much more mundane example?
Well, if it is a contradiction, and if, QM implies a contradiction, then QM is itself a contradiction, since whatever implies a contradiction is, itself, a contradiction. And in that case, QM is in big trouble. So I hope that those who know about QM get on the stick and do something to resolve that contradiction (if it exists) pronto! (But I have to add that I would have thought that after all this time, if there was a contradiction, the QM chaps would have done something about it. In any case, my advice to them is to get going-fast! If you happen to know any of them, please do me a favor and mention that to them, will you?)
Why don't you do it yourself? Don't forget to thank them for your internet, your DVD reader, your computer, etc, before trying to teach them anything. But what about my post http://able2know.org/topic/153677-6#post-4266088, could you kindly answer it?
But I am not acquainted with them, as I have already told you. You are. So I passed the request on to you. Is is possible that a contradictory theory, which if contradictory must be false, has engendered all those marvelous inventions? I am starting to believe in the miraculous, and not only in the marvelous. By the way, I am not trying to teach them anything. I am simply suggesting that if they believe that a self-contradictory theory is true (which is what you are suggesting) that for the sake of sanity, they try to do something about it. Don't you agree?
Chumly wrote:When I talk about a truth, I am referring to truth itself, to its "truthness." As a truth (as "truthness"), it must be true, no matter what it refers to in the world so as to become true. What I am saying is very, very simple. It is in fact obvious, and nothing is more difficult than that.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.
guigus wrote:Nope there is no such thing as so-called "truth itself" outside of whatever notion you (or others) claim.
Chumly wrote: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.
When I talk about a truth, I am referring to truth itself, to its "truthness." As a truth (as "truthness"), it must be true, no matter what it refers to in the world so as to become true. What I am saying is very, very simple. It is in fact obvious, and nothing is more difficult than that.
Unless or until one can demonstrate the absolutism of so-called "truth" it remains as I have discussed: 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.
I am not a big fan of argumentum ad nauseam so please present a logical coherent argument to counter (with an empirical basis) and in the interim (at the risk of the referred logical fallacy): of course a statement can be both true and not true because as discussed truth can be context specific. Interestingly, the opposite of a context specific truth (ie a universal truth) cannot be readily shown to have likelihood.
Sure! -2 is less then -1 when referenced on a linear number line but not necessarily when referenced multi-planar.
Sorry but noodling with semantics does not cut it, it only shows (at the very best) the weakness of the English language as you present/percieve it. Again at the risk of argumentum ad nauseam you have not demonstrated an absolutism as per truth, however I'll give you a hint towards one of the most likely: The second law of thermodynamics.
Nope there is no such thing as your so-called "truth itself" outside of whatever notion you (or others) claim.
Unless or until one can demonstrate the absolutism of your so-called "truth itself" it remains as I have argued: 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.
I am not a big fan of argumentum ad nauseam so please present a logical coherent argument to counter (with - I would hope - an empirical basis) and in the interim (at the risk of the referred logical fallacy): of course a statement can be both true and not true because as discussed truth can be context specific. Interestingly, the opposite of a context specific truth (ie a universal truth) cannot be readily shown to have likelihood.
I'll even make it easier for you: give me some empirically-based examples of truths that are not context specific, thus may be considered so-called "truth itself" or most to the point as I have referenced prior, a universal/absolute truth.
And talking about multi-planar, and linear, whatever that happens to mean, has nothing to do with the issue. How about presenting an objection in the form of an argument. Linear, if you please. Those are the only arguments I understand, along with logicians.
Sure! -2 is less than -1 when referenced on a linear number line but not necessarily when referenced multi-planar.
Chumly wrote:Sure! -2 is less than -1 when referenced on a linear number line but not necessarily when referenced multi-planar.
But that is just to say that -2 is less than -1 when referenced in one way, but not necessarily when referenced in another way. Or, to generalise:
A is B when X, but A is not-B when Y.
That is not a contradiction. "A is B when X, but it is not the case that A is B when X" would be a contradiction.
kennethamy wrote:And talking about multi-planar, and linear, whatever that happens to mean, has nothing to do with the issue. How about presenting an objection in the form of an argument. Linear, if you please. Those are the only arguments I understand, along with logicians.
I tried to discuss a simple argument with you, but you leaved me talking to myself. Perhaps now you give me an answer. I will reproduce what you said, and then my answer to that, after which I wait for your answer.
You said:
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.
To which I answered:
That is, that your body is different today from what it was yesterday. I'm sorry, but there is no way of escaping this: you are just playing with words here. For example: "my body differs from [itself as it was] yesterday." You are not comparing your body with the day yesterday, but with your body as it was yesterday - the same body - and it results different from itself.
I think this is "linear" enough, don't you think? So please answer.
I reckon what you are actually commenting on is the limit of the laws of thought. The laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction operate at a certain level of abstraction. When you look closely at actual reality, you can see that they are only approximations that don't exactly describe the reality.
In Buddhist logic, this is dealt with as a consequence of the difference between 'ultimate' and 'conventional' truths. On the level of ultimate truth, there are no real identities or individuals, as they are in a state of constant change, and there is no ultimate identity. But from a conventional point of view, of course, it is the same person yesterday, today and tomorrow. This is the level on which conventional logic operates.
What do you think?
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:And talking about multi-planar, and linear, whatever that happens to mean, has nothing to do with the issue. How about presenting an objection in the form of an argument. Linear, if you please. Those are the only arguments I understand, along with logicians.
I tried to discuss a simple argument with you, but you leaved me talking to myself. Perhaps now you give me an answer. I will reproduce what you said, and then my answer to that, after which I wait for your answer.
You said:
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.
To which I answered:
That is, that your body is different today from what it was yesterday. I'm sorry, but there is no way of escaping this: you are just playing with words here. For example: "my body differs from [itself as it was] yesterday." You are not comparing your body with the day yesterday, but with your body as it was yesterday - the same body - and it results different from itself.
I think this is "linear" enough, don't you think? So please answer.
What is your question? Am I the same person I was yesterday? Yes. But am I different from yesterday. Yes. So if I had a photo of me as a child, and compared it with a photo of me as an adult, it would be true to say, those photos are of one and the same person. The philosophical question is to explain how this is true. As Aristotle put it, how there is persistence through change. Aristotle had one explanation which I have mentioned before. It is an explanation that involves a distinction between essential and accidental properties, and than arguing the X is the same as Y as long as X and Y share the same essential properties, while the accidental properties change. Philosophers have had objections to this solution of how there can be persistence through change because they have found the distinction between essential and accidental properties obscure. Alternative solutions have be offered.
But none of this is relevant to your original post, which asked whether every truth must be true. The answer to that is clearly, no. Although it is, nevertheless true that it must be that whatever is true is true. So, 1. It must be that every truth is true, but it is false that every truth must be true.
The problem of identity which is among the various topics the original OP has morphed into is an important question, of course, but it has nothing whatever to do with the original OP, and I am reluctant to discuss it on this thread.
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:And talking about multi-planar, and linear, whatever that happens to mean, has nothing to do with the issue. How about presenting an objection in the form of an argument. Linear, if you please. Those are the only arguments I understand, along with logicians.
I tried to discuss a simple argument with you, but you leaved me talking to myself. Perhaps now you give me an answer. I will reproduce what you said, and then my answer to that, after which I wait for your answer.
You said:
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.
To which I answered:
That is, that your body is different today from what it was yesterday. I'm sorry, but there is no way of escaping this: you are just playing with words here. For example: "my body differs from [itself as it was] yesterday." You are not comparing your body with the day yesterday, but with your body as it was yesterday - the same body - and it results different from itself.
I think this is "linear" enough, don't you think? So please answer.
What is your question? Am I the same person I was yesterday? Yes. But am I different from yesterday. Yes. So if I had a photo of me as a child, and compared it with a photo of me as an adult, it would be true to say, those photos are of one and the same person. The philosophical question is to explain how this is true. As Aristotle put it, how there is persistence through change. Aristotle had one explanation which I have mentioned before. It is an explanation that involves a distinction between essential and accidental properties, and than arguing the X is the same as Y as long as X and Y share the same essential properties, while the accidental properties change. Philosophers have had objections to this solution of how there can be persistence through change because they have found the distinction between essential and accidental properties obscure. Alternative solutions have be offered.
But none of this is relevant to your original post, which asked whether every truth must be true. The answer to that is clearly, no. Although it is, nevertheless true that it must be that whatever is true is true. So, 1. It must be that every truth is true, but it is false that every truth must be true.
The problem of identity which is among the various topics the original OP has morphed into is an important question, of course, but it has nothing whatever to do with the original OP, and I am reluctant to discuss it on this thread.
What does change have to do with the statement "every truth must be true"? What is has to do with it is that you don't accept it because you don't accept contradictions. And I am showing you that change involves a contradiction. Aristotle's solution is equivalent to say that change is an illusion, like Einstein liked to believe time itself was an illusion: he is just trying to decouple difference from identity. Since change is only possible when difference and identity are the same, Aristotle ends up with pseudo-change. Even if we accept his solution, we must still explain how accidental properties and essential properties can refer to the same being, of which precisely they are the properties, and we are back to the original problem of a being that remains the same despite having a different set of properties, that is, despite not being the same. The problem with his solution is not that we would find "the distinction between essential and accidental properties obscure," but that this whole properties thing just "obscures" the problem, rather than solving it.
