Exactly what is “Truth”?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by REASON

I disagree with all of this except for "We exist in reality." While it is true that people have beliefs, having beliefs does not make those beliefs consistent with reality.

I, er... believe he meant that beliefs are reality in the sense that the fact that someone believes something is reality. This is distinct from what one believs being reality. If John believes Sue secretly loves him and doesn't show it cuz she's got hubbie and kids, even if what he believes is false it is still a fact of reality that John believes it.

Originally Posted by REASON

I think this is a more accurate statement than the ones above, but still open to interpretation. There was a time when the observable evidence clearly demonstrated that all celestial objects revolved around the Earth which was fixed at the center of the universe. As such, this was believed to be true by a vast majority of the population at the time. Was it any less false then than it is now? I say no. While the evidence, both observable and from scriptural accounts, was interpreted to be in support of the geocentric model of the universe, the truth is that the evidence was being misinterpreted (or maybe even manipulated considering the influence of the church).

An ounce of formal logic and A implies B isn't the same as B implies A.

The implicant, or antecedent, clause can also be called "sufficient condition" and the consequent can be called "necessary condition" and must means necessity. The meaning was not consistent implies true; it was consistent is necessary for being true.

P. S. I meant to say the evidence was not being manipulated and it wasn't really the influence of the church. The influence was Aristotle and the evidence was the "obvious fact" that planet Earth is not moving. I mean, we're sitting right on it! Surely we'd be aware if it were moving!

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

There are two types of abstract entities:
a) The numbers 1, 2, 3 , 4 etc. These are neither true nor false, they merely are.
b) The relationships between them. E.g. 2 + 2 = 4. These are true.
...
So there are two (2 + 2 = 4)'s in this analysis:
a) The statement "2 + 2 = 4" which is about an abstract entity.
b) The abstract entity 2 + 2 = 4 itself.

You have a contradiction between first a and b, and the second a and b. In the first, you claim that entities just are, which I said before and agree with; and statements are true or false, which I also said and agree with. In the second you depart and say that now the entity is 2+2=4 itself is true. I can not agree with that. An entity just is, as said before.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Both are believed to be true:

Only statement can be true. The entity just exists.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

So "2 + 2 = 4" is a statement. What is it about? It's about an abstract relationship between the numbers 2 and 4.

It is a "generalized" statement that holds true universally through repeated empirical observation. As an entity it just exists in imagination, and as a statement it holds true generally as it relates to any evidence.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

So what makes the abstract relationship 2 + 2 = 4 true? That is the question I was asking...

Again, the definitions make it true. Let's talk about definitions.

When born, we first learn definitions. This is a "cap." The shape we perceive through sensory mechanisms that serves a specific function is defined in alphabetical and lingual manner as a "cap." (letters are defined as certain lingual sounds.) This is a "bottle." This is a "liquid." This is a "juice." This is an "apple." We have definitions. Definitions help us communicate about reality in an organized manner.

Similarly, we define 1 as a unit of something, bounded by wherever our sensory perceptions draws distinction. (Our sensory perception tells us that a table is bounded by air, and air is not part of the unit of table. Our perception draws a distinction. A table is one unit within its bounds.)
Then, we define 2 as one more than 1. We define four as two more than two. The statement is true by definition and it is consistent with evidence in all applications as far as we have tested it.
(It is consistent because, when we perceive one table, and another, and another, then we perceive more than one. When we perceive one more than one, then by definition we perceive two. Then three. Then four, and so on by definition.)
The number entity or an equation, as a part of our imagination or thinking, or as written somewhere, just is; it exists neither true nor false; it just is. But the statement is true as it says something about reality.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I'll also throw in the question "can abstract relationships be false?". I think not. 2 + 2 = 4 is an abstract relationship, it is meaningful. 2 + 2 = 5 is false, but I'd suggest that there is no such abstract relationship. It's just numbers I've arranged into an equation. So perhaps it is false because there is no such abstract relationship?

Sure. An equation can exist and be false. 2+2=5 exists, right here, in reality. But, as a statement it is false by definition; because we define 5 as 1 more than 4, and we define 4 as 2 + 2.

2+2=5 is not consistent with evidence, and is false.
The fact that definitions are embedded in our understanding of 2+2=5 statement is of no moment. Definitions are embedded in all communications. When you read the dictionary, which is a compilation of defintions, it will not tell you that a definition of something consists of definition of this and definition of that. The dictionary just tells you what the definition is without mentioning definitions. It is assumed and understood that all is defined; that you understand it. All I have to tell you is 2+2=5, and I do not have to define 2 or 5 for you. Simlarly, if a chair is defined as a furniture designed to seat one person, the dictionary will not tell you: a chair is defined as what is defined as furniture to what is defined as designed to what is defined to seat to what is defined as one to what is defined as person. It assumed that you uinderstand that all is defined and you uinderstand the definitions.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by lawcat

You have a contradiction between first a and b, and the second a and b. In the first, you claim that entities just are, which I said before and agree with; and statements are true or false, which I also said and agree with. In the second you depart and say that now the entity is 2+2=4 itself is true. I can not agree with that. An entity just is, as said before.

No there is not a contradiction. You omitted the following from your quote:

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

I suggest that a type of abstract entities, abstract relationships, are also true.

This made clear that I regard abstract relationships as a type of abstract entity. Therefore it is legitimate to use the term "abstract entity" provided that I make it clear what type of abstract entity I was referring to (an abstract relationship). If that confused you, then I apologize. If it helps, please substitute the word "relationship" for "entity" in the second set of a's and b's. I.e.

So there are two (2 + 2 = 4)'s in this analysis:
a) The statement "2 + 2 = 4" which is about an abstract relationship.
b) The abstract relationship 2 + 2 = 4 itself.

I hope that clarifies my meaning.

Originally Posted by lawcat

Only statement can be true. The entity just exists.

See above. I was referring to abstract relationships, which are a type of abstract entity that can be true. If you accept that abstract relationship can be true, then your statement "Only statement can be true" is false. If, on the other hand, you do not accept that abstract relationships (like 2 + 2 = 4) can be true (in and of themselves), please explain your logic:
a) Are you denying that abstract relationships exist in and of themselves, separately from statements about them? Or...
b) Are you denying that abstract relationships (although they exist) can be true? Or...
c) Are you saying that the truth of a statement about an abstract relationship makes the abstract relationship true? Or what???

Originally Posted by lawcat

Again, the definitions make it true...

So here you appear to acknowledge that abstract relationships can be true? So why do you say:

Originally Posted by lawcat

Only statement can be true.

This seems to be inconsistent.

I won't answer your further points in detail, as they appear to just expand on comments you have already made, and which I answered in #56. Do you have an answer to my comments in #56?

[lawcat]

Jedaisoul, you are free to disagree and I respect that. I think we've come to an impass at the fundamental level: the definition of abstract entity.

If abstract entity is an entity, and if entities just are, then an abstract entity just is.
If abstract entity is an entity, and if entities can not be true or false, then abstract entity can not be true or false.

The entity, 2+2=5 for example, does not speak, does not state anything. The statement is in your head. You interpret it according to definitions.

In communication it goes like this: INTENDED STATEMENT BY SOURCE -> ENTITY ->RECEIVED STATEMENTBY A TARGET.

Source generates entity to convey a statement. When I speak to you I generate sound, sound propagates through air, sound reaches your sensors, you interpret the sound.

The sound is an entity; it is not a statement. The statement exists only in my head as I interpret it, and in your head as you perceive it.

If I speak Lithuanian to you, and if you do not understand Lithuanian and I do, then the sound is an entity in air. But the statement in my head carries one meaning, and in your head a totally different meaning, even though the entity is the same: the Lithuanin sound. The Statement is only in your head, regardless of the entity. The entity just is, and only the statement can be true or false.

Same with abstract entitites and relationships. When I generate 2+2=4 to convey some meaning, the 2+2=4 just exists, but the statement is created in my and your head; the meaning, the definitions. The entity just is, but the meanings can be true or false.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Jedaisoul, you are free to disagree and I respect that. I think we've come to an impass at the fundamental level: the definition of abstract entity.

I agree that we have reached an impasse. You are, of course, entitled to your views, but I'm disappointed that you have not answered my questions.

I've come to the conclusion that you are denying the existence of abstract relationships as things in themselves that are not dependent on a statement of them to make them real. At least that seems to be what you are saying. There certainly seem to be unresolved inconsistencies in what you've said, but as you are not willing to answer questions, nor comment on my reply #56, there is nothing more to say.

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

you are denying the existence of abstract relationships as things in themselves that are not dependent on a statement of them to make them real. .

No I do not. I specifically agreed that your relationship 2+2=4 is an entity in itself. I just do not care how you characterize relationships; as abstrtact or concrete. The only pertinent question is whether you are considering the relationship as (1) an entity itself, or (2) a statement.

The abstract relationship, as an entity just is, and as a statement in your head or my head can be true or false.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by lawcat

No I do not. I specifically agreed that your relationship 2+2=4 is an entity in itself. I just do not care how you characterize relationships; as abstrtact or concrete. The only pertinent question is whether you are considering the relationship as (1) an entity itself, or (2) a statement.

The abstract relationship, as an entity just is, and as a statement in your head or my head can be true or false.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning. I can't see how "2 + 2 = 4" as a statement is capable of being true or false, but 2 + 2 = 4 as an abstract relationship is not. However I accept that that is your view, and you are entitled to your view. 'Nuf said.

[lawcat]

What makes a relationship into a statement is your perception and brain. You create it in your head.

A sound in air just is. But once you perceive it in your ears, and interpret it according to your definitions in your head, the relationship of sound waves becomes a statement in your head. That is the only place where a relationship exists as a statement; otherwise it is just an entity outside of your head.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by lawcat

What makes a relationship into a statement is your perception and brain. You create it in your head.

A sound in air just is. But once you perceive it in your ears, and interpret it according to your definitions in your head, the relationship of sound waves becomes a statement in your head. That is the only place where a relationship exists as a statement; otherwise it is just an entity outside of your head.

Yes, I know you believe that. You are entitled to your beliefs, but that does not make them credible. An abstract relationship is not a sound in the air. But that is what you seem to believe, and if so, I really do not want to discuss this any further.

[watcher]

Your mind is clouded by the fact that you believe that what you know what you are talking about here is “real”. I can show quite clearly (via logic; except that you have to understand mathematics) how you have come to convince yourself of that delusion and that it is indeed a delusion.

mathematics doesn't tell us if something is real or unreal. it has no power to tell us if we are delusional or not. this is the point of jedi. but it does tell us if we we are being precise or just approximating. the physical meaning of our equations are an entirely different fields of study. math does not directly tell us what exists out there. our consciousness does.