Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 21, 2003, 07:37 pm

We touched base upon this on the truth topic, but I believe that the argument is so huge, that it needs to have it's own topic.

First, I will define untruth.
Untruth is neither true nor false. Imagine truth as white and false as black, henceforth untruth is gray. Unfalse and uncertain are the same things as well.

Theory of Fractional Determination of Untruth, Truth, and False.
Truth is 100% factional and correct, while untruth is anywhere between 1 and 99% true. There is a grey area between truth and false, which, as stated above, is untruth.

Theory of the Untruth of Man
Nothing that man says is true or false. This is because man's devices with which he determines truth or flasities is imperfect, thus man will never say anything true or false.

Theory of the Untruth of Man's Creations
If man is an untrue species, that means that he cannot create true creations, such as science and religion. Henceforth, his creations such as math and God aren't true.

Definition of Truth.
Truth is pure fact, and cannot be disproven for that simple fact.

G. Adams · Oct 21, 2003, 07:49 pm

Maths and laws of physics are not contingent upon man, they would be true with or without his existence. It is because (i think...) Pythagoras was so taken by his recognition that nothing he ever knew could be true but maths, that he founded his academy.

Section 8 · Oct 21, 2003, 09:00 pm

Who discovered physics? Man.

eXploiTeD · Oct 21, 2003, 09:10 pm

The idea that there are no absolute truths is not entirely innovative.

The Devil · Oct 21, 2003, 09:20 pm

Physics are 100% true, but our perception of them may be flawed. They'd be here with or without "man".

Section 8 · Oct 21, 2003, 09:23 pm

How do you know? We could be floating in space, and defying the laws of physics, but we're not 100% true.

eXploiTeD · Oct 21, 2003, 09:29 pm

Nothing is 100% (absolutely) true. Were that the case, than the notion of falsity [I think I may have just created a new word] would simply not occur.

Geoff332 · Oct 21, 2003, 10:25 pm

We've already had this deebate. You have a fairly classic supposition of epistemology for ontology. Your argument rests on assuming that 'knowledge of x' is the same as 'x'. This is either pure solipsism or pure nonsense (which is precisely what many people argue solipsism is, but that's beside the point). The way you use the word 'true' I think you are referring to 'certain knowledge' -- it certainly doesn't relect any common usage of the word 'true'.

Either way, this is a pretty old and well established idea - but not a stunningly credible one.

Veonik · Oct 21, 2003, 11:05 pm

This might be true, but then if it is then what you said is untrue, therefore cancelling out the whole thing (liars paradox).

Geoff332 · Oct 21, 2003, 11:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Veonik,)
This might be true, but then if it is then what you said is untrue, therefore cancelling out the whole thing (liars paradox).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>That's the 'pure non-sense' I referred to.

The Devil · Oct 21, 2003, 11:47 pm

Looks like nobody can read. Notice how I said our perception of physics is flawed? Physics themselves are not flawed, we just don't know everything about them. And yes, physics are 100% true.

xm.bretton · Oct 22, 2003, 12:05 am

truth lies outside humanity then?

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 12:09 am

the language of mathematics is nothing more than a language game... mathematics does not refer to actual events or things in the empirical world... same with any other "scientific" language game...

all you have is grunts and groans that signify nothing but themselves... it is a nice circle but it isn't "Truth"

The Devil · Oct 22, 2003, 03:29 pm

Of course the things we use to represent things isn't universally true... it's what it represents that is. Mathematics and physics are probably the only things that are actually true. I should upload some of my writings about what's real and what's not one of these days...

Impenitent · Oct 22, 2003, 05:22 pm

the language we use to describe the things-in-themselves isn't universally true...

yet the things-in-themselves are universally true?

but you cannot know the things-in-themselves...

all you have is the description... describe and describe and describe in a never ending attempt to get to the actual definitive description... of course this is nothing but convention... mathematics and physics and all other sciences are nothing but circular systems of descriptions that are true circularly...

Geoff332 · Oct 22, 2003, 08:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the language we use to describe the things-in-themselves isn't universally true...

yet the things-in-themselves are universally true?

but you cannot know the things-in-themselves...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Almost what I was thinking -- but not quite. Language (or knowledge of) things is incapable of perfectly knowing them. Therefore, we cannot know if we know 'things in themselves' or not. Whether or not things-in-themselves are univerally true or not is unknowable (we don't/can't know if physics is a good description of the essential nature of the universe or not).

What I object to in Section 8's idea is that our imperfect knowledge of things-in-themselves means that the things-in-themselves are imperfect (or, in his words, untrue). Our knowledge is imperfect -- we can't say any more than that.

TwoShanks · Oct 23, 2003, 12:21 pm

Mathematics is entirely true, since it is wholly self-consistent and logical.

Physics cannot be claimed to be "absolutely true", because physics is the creation of models approximating reality. The mathematics involved in the models is entirely true, but that doesn't mean that the model is anything other than an accurate approximate model.

Approximate things are not precisely true.

Impenitent · Oct 23, 2003, 08:26 pm

mathematics doesn't tell you anything about the empirical world...

TwoShanks · Oct 23, 2003, 08:37 pm

but that's not the point. mathematics is entirely self-consistent and logical, and a mathematical truism is perfectly and completely true.

Impenitent · Oct 23, 2003, 08:43 pm

yes it is the point, mathematics is nothing but another language...

self-consistent, logical, true... big deal...

it still doesn't mean anything outside itself...

Oct 21, 2003, 07:49 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Maths and laws of physics are not contingent upon man, they would be true with or without his existence. It is because (i think...) Pythagoras was so taken by his recognition that nothing he ever knew could be true but maths, that he founded his academy. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 21, 2003, 11:14 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Veonik,) This might be true, but then if it is then what you said is untrue, therefore cancelling out the whole thing (liars paradox).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>That's the 'pure non-sense' I referred to.

Oct 22, 2003, 12:05 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	truth lies outside humanity then? xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 22, 2003, 12:09 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	the language of mathematics is nothing more than a language game... mathematics does not refer to actual events or things in the empirical world... same with any other "scientific" language game... all you have is grunts and groans that signify nothing but themselves... it is a nice circle but it isn't "Truth" "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 22, 2003, 05:22 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	the language we use to describe the things-in-themselves isn't universally true... yet the things-in-themselves are universally true? but you cannot know the things-in-themselves... all you have is the description... describe and describe and describe in a never ending attempt to get to the actual definitive description... of course this is nothing but convention... mathematics and physics and all other sciences are nothing but circular systems of descriptions that are true circularly... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 21, 2003, 07:37 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	We touched base upon this on the truth topic, but I believe that the argument is so huge, that it needs to have it's own topic. First, I will define untruth. Untruth is neither true nor false. Imagine truth as white and false as black, henceforth untruth is gray. Unfalse and uncertain are the same things as well. Theory of Fractional Determination of Untruth, Truth, and False. Truth is 100% factional and correct, while untruth is anywhere between 1 and 99% true. There is a grey area between truth and false, which, as stated above, is untruth. Theory of the Untruth of Man Nothing that man says is true or false. This is because man's devices with which he determines truth or flasities is imperfect, thus man will never say anything true or false. Theory of the Untruth of Man's Creations If man is an untrue species, that means that he cannot create true creations, such as science and religion. Henceforth, his creations such as math and God aren't true. Definition of Truth. Truth is pure fact, and cannot be disproven for that simple fact.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:00 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Who discovered physics? Man.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	The idea that there are no absolute truths is not entirely innovative.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:20 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	Physics are 100% true, but our perception of them may be flawed. They'd be here with or without "man".

Oct 21, 2003, 09:23 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	How do you know? We could be floating in space, and defying the laws of physics, but we're not 100% true.

Oct 21, 2003, 09:29 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	Nothing is 100% (absolutely) true. Were that the case, than the notion of falsity [I think I may have just created a new word] would simply not occur.

Oct 21, 2003, 10:25 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	We've already had this deebate. You have a fairly classic supposition of epistemology for ontology. Your argument rests on assuming that 'knowledge of x' is the same as 'x'. This is either pure solipsism or pure nonsense (which is precisely what many people argue solipsism is, but that's beside the point). The way you use the word 'true' I think you are referring to 'certain knowledge' -- it certainly doesn't relect any common usage of the word 'true'. Either way, this is a pretty old and well established idea - but not a stunningly credible one.

Oct 21, 2003, 11:05 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Veonik Sedimentary Rock Location: Utah Posts: 5	This might be true, but then if it is then what you said is untrue, therefore cancelling out the whole thing (liars paradox).

Oct 21, 2003, 11:47 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	Looks like nobody can read. Notice how I said our perception of physics is flawed? Physics themselves are not flawed, we just don't know everything about them. And yes, physics are 100% true.

Oct 22, 2003, 03:29 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	Of course the things we use to represent things isn't universally true... it's what it represents that is. Mathematics and physics are probably the only things that are actually true. I should upload some of my writings about what's real and what's not one of these days...

Oct 22, 2003, 08:11 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the language we use to describe the things-in-themselves isn't universally true... yet the things-in-themselves are universally true? but you cannot know the things-in-themselves...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Almost what I was thinking -- but not quite. Language (or knowledge of) things is incapable of perfectly knowing them. Therefore, we cannot know if we know 'things in themselves' or not. Whether or not things-in-themselves are univerally true or not is unknowable (we don't/can't know if physics is a good description of the essential nature of the universe or not). What I object to in Section 8's idea is that our imperfect knowledge of things-in-themselves means that the things-in-themselves are imperfect (or, in his words, untrue). Our knowledge is imperfect -- we can't say any more than that.

Oct 23, 2003, 12:21 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
TwoShanks Molten Ash Posts: 29	Mathematics is entirely true, since it is wholly self-consistent and logical. Physics cannot be claimed to be "absolutely true", because physics is the creation of models approximating reality. The mathematics involved in the models is entirely true, but that doesn't mean that the model is anything other than an accurate approximate model. Approximate things are not precisely true.

Oct 23, 2003, 08:26 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	mathematics doesn't tell you anything about the empirical world... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 23, 2003, 08:37 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
TwoShanks Molten Ash Posts: 29	but that's not the point. mathematics is entirely self-consistent and logical, and a mathematical truism is perfectly and completely true.

Oct 23, 2003, 08:43 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	yes it is the point, mathematics is nothing but another language... self-consistent, logical, true... big deal... it still doesn't mean anything outside itself... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...