Does absolute truth exist?

[Juma]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

These are tautologies. Why call them "absolute truths"?

 

[George S]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

Is A still A after then, or, is it something or somewhere else?

This kind of logic only works sans time. Change is constant. Change is not constant, though, because the rates of change are not uniform locally, and the universe is ever expanding. So some A are true timelessly, and others depend on time.
So after then, it my still be called A even though it has been subject to, if nothing else, universal expansion.

 

[George S]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

These are tautologies. Why call them "absolute truths"?

There is little difference, really, from mere "truth;" although "absolute truth" and "timeless truth" might be synonyms.

 

[Juma]

These are tautologies. Why call them "absolute truths"?

There is little difference, really, from mere "truth;" although "absolute truth" and "timeless truth" might be synonyms.

A! says something about the world. "If A then A" is a tautology. It says nothing about the world.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course, no machine, as we think of them today, will ever explain subjective experience. Machines will have to be something else as what they are today to explain subjective experience. And then, yes, why not.
EB

Of course (hand waves) no (mere) machine as Speakpigeon thinks of them will ever explain subjective experience.

I'm going to try mightily to pry your fingers off that never lever.

I have successfully modeled a sensory neuron with analog computer elements about 50 years ago as symposium project. 15 years later I modeled a pilot executing a landing in an F-14. Of course I had help. 5 years further on we (giving credit because I'm just the manager) we modeled a pilot communicating with command during simulated combat.

It gets better. 5 years later I used a Global Operator Modeling System in preliminary certification of a fifth generation F-18. We had already convinced pilots that the simulator was one of them for fun and giggles. Among the last things I did before I retired was to participate in adding humor, confusion, complex task learning, and doubt into human performance simulators being used in certifying the F-22.

You can check out what military human simulators can do now if you just check the web 20 years after my last interaction with such tools.. I've given you enough cues where you can find some I think.


The point is some of us are not as confident as your hand about never explaining subjective experience.

What can I say? You misrepresent my position. As I already pointed out, you like simplification too much. I'm tired of your gig.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

Is A still A after then, or, is it something or somewhere else?

The two occurrences of "A" are meant to refer to the same thing and what matters is what the statement means. So, yes, "If A then A" is a truth, and as such it is absolute.
EB

 

[Juma]

Is A still A after then, or, is it something or somewhere else?

The two occurrences of "A" are meant to refer to the same thing and what matters is what the statement means. So, yes, "If A then A" is a truth, and as such it is absolute.
EB

Can it be false? No. Then its not really a truth.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The two occurrences of "A" are meant to refer to the same thing and what matters is what the statement means. So, yes, "If A then A" is a truth, and as such it is absolute.
EB

Can it be false? No. Then its not really a truth.

Any true proposition cannot be false.

So what you said entails that all propositions that are true are not true.

If this was then it would be not true. And nothing we say can make sense.

You would have to explain I think but if nothing we say can make sense then you can't even explain anything to anybody.

Yeah, maybe that's the problem.
EB

 

[Juma]

Can it be false? No. Then its not really a truth.

Any true proposition cannot be false.

So what you said entails that all propositions that are true are not true.

If this was then it would be not true. And nothing we say can make sense.

You would have to explain I think but if nothing we say can make sense then you can't even explain anything to anybody.

Yeah, maybe that's the problem.
EB

Any proposition about the world could be false in a different world.

But "if A then A" can never be false in any universe.

 

[George S]

The two occurrences of "A" are meant to refer to the same thing and what matters is what the statement means. So, yes, "If A then A" is a truth, and as such it is absolute.
EB

Can it be false? No. Then its not really a truth.

If it is a tautology it might be called an uninteresting truth. If only Great Meaningful Truth to be believed by faith (after all, it could be false) is what you mean by "really a truth" then wtf.

 

[Juma]

Can it be false? No. Then its not really a truth.

If it is a tautology it might be called an uninteresting truth. If only Great Meaningful Truth to be believed by faith (after all, it could be false) is what you mean by "really a truth" then wtf.

See my answer to speakpigeon.

 

[bilby]

Any true proposition cannot be false.

So what you said entails that all propositions that are true are not true.

If this was then it would be not true. And nothing we say can make sense.

You would have to explain I think but if nothing we say can make sense then you can't even explain anything to anybody.

Yeah, maybe that's the problem.
EB

Any proposition about the world could be false in a different world.

But "if A then A" can never be false in any universe.

It can if variable labels change with each invocation.

Or on an Enigma machine, one of the flaws of which was an inability to code a letter as itself.

 

[none]

haha

 

[Juma]

Any proposition about the world could be false in a different world.

But "if A then A" can never be false in any universe.

It can if variable labels change with each invocation.

Or on an Enigma machine, one of the flaws of which was an inability to code a letter as itself.

Sorry, I thought my reference to the identity law was obvious.

 

[none]

Sorry, I thought my reference to the identity law was obvious.

hmm... that only applies in certain contexts...

 

[Juma]

Sorry, I thought my reference to the identity law was obvious.

hmm... that only applies in certain contexts...

What was your point?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Any true proposition cannot be false.

So what you said entails that all propositions that are true are not true.

If this was then it would be not true. And nothing we say can make sense.

You would have to explain I think but if nothing we say can make sense then you can't even explain anything to anybody.

Yeah, maybe that's the problem.
EB

Any proposition about the world could be false in a different world.

No. We are able to imagine, somehow, that a proposition could have been different. How is that about the world? Isn't it more something we say that's, like, about us? That we can imagine something?

But "if A then A" can never be false in any universe.

What do you mean, "any universe"? Are they actual universes? Do you know at all they are there somewhere, if we could just "look"?!

I think it's so much simpler to just say that we are unable to conceive of "if A then A" as false. So, we say it's true (since it's not meaningless). Just as we can conceive of A as something that could have been B, which doesn't change the fact that it is A and that we cannot conceive of A as not being A.

I agree we see these as a different kind of truths. Some will say "tautologies" are meaningless because they don't refer to anything in the material world, so, as you said, not really true. But we should expect propositions that are evidently true to be of a different sort than ordinary, contingent, truths, which are never evidently true.

So, now, you could rephrase the question to exclude the vexating case of tautologies: Do we know any truth about the world? And there, I will say no, we don't, at least as far as I know, and if by "world" we mean the material world. That's why I say science is not knowledge. Do you agree with that?

But I still say that we know some things and that there are therefore propositions which are true of them.
EB

 

[Juma]

Any proposition about the world could be false in a different world.

No. We are able to imagine, somehow, that a proposition could have been different. How is that about the world? Isn't it more something we say that's, like, about us? That we can imagine something?

But "if A then A" can never be false in any universe.

What do you mean, "any universe"? Are they actual universes? Do you know at all they are there somewhere, if we could just "look"?!

I think it's so much simpler to just say that we are unable to conceive of "if A then A" as false. So, we say it's true (since it's not meaningless). Just as we can conceive of A as something that could have been B, which doesn't change the fact that it is A and that we cannot conceive of A as not being A.

I agree we see these as a different kind of truths. Some will say "tautologies" are meaningless because they don't refer to anything in the material world, so, as you said, not really true. But we should expect propositions that are evidently true to be of a different sort than ordinary, contingent, truths, which are never evidently true.

So, now, you could rephrase the question to exclude the vexating case of tautologies: Do we know any truth about the world? And there, I will say no, we don't, at least as far as I know, and if by "world" we mean the material world. That's why I say science is not knowledge. Do you agree with that?

Not at all. Science is the best knowledge we got.

Your comments seems to indicate that you are very idealistic and your concept of knowledge rather obscene.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not at all. Science is the best knowledge we got.

The expression "best knowledge" is an oximoron if by "knowledge" you want to mean actual knowledge but I understand that you don't. "Best knowledge" can only means sensibly a belief. So, the claim that "science is our best belief" would be better, and I might even agree with it but this applies only to our beliefs about the material world.

Your comments seems to indicate that you are very idealistic and your concept of knowledge rather obscene.

I'm not idealistic at all as I must have told you several times already but you are quite good at forgetting.

I don't have a concept of knowledge so it can't be obscene. From time to time I try to make one but without success.

I have looked into the ones that other people have proposed and each time it thought it was crap. Since they all disagree between themselves each of these concepts must have a majority against it with me.

I would call the JTB concept pretty obscene so we must have different values.
EB

 

[Juma]

The expression "best knowledge" is an oximoron if by "knowledge" you want to mean actual knowledge but I understand that you don't. "Best knowledge" can only means sensibly a belief. So, the claim that "science is our best belief" would be better, and I might even agree with it but this applies only to our beliefs about the material world.

Your comments seems to indicate that you are very idealistic and your concept of knowledge rather obscene.

I'm not idealistic at all as I must have told you several times already but you are quite good at forgetting.

I don't have a concept of knowledge so it can't be obscene. From time to time I try to make one but without success.

I have looked into the ones that other people have proposed and each time it thought it was crap. Since they all disagree between themselves each of these concepts must have a majority against it with me.

I would call the JTB concept pretty obscene so we must have different values.
EB

How can you use words as "know" and "knowledge" when you dont have a concept that matches them?