• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

How would you define Truth?

^ *nods understanding*

Although your certitude that certitude is no measure of truth is not a correct measure of truth. Is this not certain?
 
^ *nods understanding*

Although your certitude that certitude is no measure of truth is not a correct measure of truth. Is this not certain?


No, because I am trying to illustrate something different to what you have attributed to me..

I was merely positing the question as to whether one's certitude of something makes it true, via an example, perhaps poorly laid out. I did not posit an answer, but rather a question. Is certitude a necessary and sufficient position from which to elicit truth.

One might be certain that certitude is no measure of truth, but does that make it true?

Just playing around, trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to avoid a paradoxical, or recursive statement.
 
I define Truth as this thing that is always right outside of my reach... DAMN YOU TRUTH! GET BACK HERE!
 
its the collection of everything that isnt false or wrong or distasteful or whatever the environment suggests.
 
Your version of truth seems to be in the form of weaponry.

you mean my examples of truth I presented in this thread.I think truth is lie that you find closest to truth,I think our brain are not capable of understanding of real 100% hardcore truth.Its like ant trying to think about nasa stuff,in his mind Discovery shutle is "big,it moves... oh no fire!" thats his truth,and its real truth but so shallow.Thats his definition of truth but the real truth,that happens at sub sub sub electron/multiverse and transcendental level is beyond anything he or even us ever dreamed off.If someone saw real truth,his head would explode and universe will implode into singularity,or not but it would be still crazy for us little humans.We call our self mega fauna but petite fart would be closer to truth
 
Last edited:
^ Hm, reminds me of some of those movies where people search for the truth of everything and cannot handle it when it is given to them. They go insane as the knowledge pours into their brains.

So your suggestion would be that truth is anything that can be sensed in the "real" world through the five senses?
 
^ Hm, reminds me of some of those movies where people search for the truth of everything and cannot handle it when it is given to them. They go insane as the knowledge pours into their brains.

So your suggestion would be that truth is anything that can be sensed in the "real" world through the five senses?

my sugestion is that take every sugestion about truth with terra grain of salt.Human brain trying to understand real 100% truth is like trying to run Crysis 2 on ultra high graphic settings with three 1920x1200 monitors on this

images


what I am trying to say that our brains are good to find food and sex but they are lightyears away from level needed to understand real deepest truth of any kind
 
^ Do you believe those lightyears will come to us before the end of our existence? That one day, we'll find truth before we take ourselves in the process of knowing all?
 
my sugestion is that take every sugestion about truth with terra grain of salt.Human brain trying to understand real 100% truth is like trying to run Crysis 2 on ultra high graphic settings with three 1920x1200 monitors on this

images


what I am trying to say that our brains are good to find food and sex but they are lightyears away from level needed to understand real deepest truth of any kind

do you think knowing 100% truth would be y(t) = 2^n where y(t) = truth t = time and n = the number of thoughts youve had?

because you can have two solutions to every thought.. T or F..
 
^I'm not sure thoughts follow mathematical principles... True and False are not the only two ranges for values of n and t. Moreso, some (perhaps an enlightened guru) might explain exactly the opposite, one of y(t)= 1/t^n.
 
yeah but each thought can only be either true or false. if it is 'kind of true'.. then it is false and contains factors
if there are factors then those are previous thoughts that were either true or false and must be accounted for

n would represent all the factors.
so if you have 3 factors representing absolute truth then you would have

TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF which the number of possiblities is 8 which is 2^3

oh hahah i guess it would be 1/(2^n) chance that its the absolute truth
thanks for correcting me!
 
For something (an idea, philosophy or thing) to qualify as being true, it must be so under any condition, eternally. Otherwise it's temporary & illusory, therefore untrue.

For example:
'Reality exists' is an eternally true statement that is applicable in all circumstances. Reality DOES exist (details aside), and always will. It may change condition, but it's still reality. REALITY is REAL.

'It's cold today' is only a relative truth, a temporary comparison between one thing & another. (Q: does subjectiveness equal 'untruth'?)
^In this case, the statement being made is relative only to the perceiver and subject to debate. The perception of it being significantly 'cold' for one person is true for them, but may not be for another.
However, TEMPERATURES are TRUE.
 
yeah but each thought can only be either true or false. if it is 'kind of true'.. then it is false and contains factors
if there are factors then those are previous thoughts that were either true or false and must be accounted for

n would represent all the factors.
so if you have 3 factors representing absolute truth then you would have

TTT TTF TFT TFF FTT FTF FFT FFF which the number of possiblities is 8 which is 2^3

oh hahah i guess it would be 1/(2^n) chance that its the absolute truth
thanks for correcting me!


I'm not sure every thought can be given a truth value. Imagining a scene from one's memory, or novel imagery (creative thoughts, or phantasmagoria) are thoughts that one cannot really define as 'true' or 'false'. Inquisitive thoughts don't seem this way either.

As I said in a post earlier in this thread

Perhaps Tarski's correspondence theory rein unhindered in analytic philosophy, but that does not preclude the value in coherentist theories of truth, axiomatic theories, deflationary theories and metaphilosophical questions of what we are doing when we say something is true. etc.

Under which theory of truth would you place your stated argument, as I'm not too clear on what you are presenting with your formula.

PAX
 
^ This was the type of explanation I was searching for. The image that thoughts have a given value of T or F would most likely point all thoughts to false, for their inherent renderings alone. We proclaim thoughts all the time, observe memories using our recordings from our fives senses. This does not, however, mean they are truths.
 
I'm not sure every thought can be given a truth value. Imagining a scene from one's memory, or novel imagery (creative thoughts, or phantasmagoria) are thoughts that one cannot really define as 'true' or 'false'. Inquisitive thoughts don't seem this way either.

As I said in a post earlier in this thread

Perhaps Tarski's correspondence theory rein unhindered in analytic philosophy, but that does not preclude the value in coherentist theories of truth, axiomatic theories, deflationary theories and metaphilosophical questions of what we are doing when we say something is true. etc.

Under which theory of truth would you place your stated argument, as I'm not too clear on what you are presenting with your formula.

PAX

i dont know anything about philosophy, im a math major

i guess if you said "god creaded the universe" you couold not give it a truth value

but you could work backwards.
or your could work forwards giving each thought that would effect the universe a truth value

it would end up being some huge collection of Ts, but it would still fit under what i said.

wasnt trying to discover something profound just sayind as n goes to infinity where n is the number of thoughts, the probability that you are thinking the absoute truth is 1/2^n

also every thought that you have is a matrix of collected thoughts so that you can make a valid assumption. then when you give it a valid assumption you label it and store it in your memory

a unicorn... thoughts: {horn, horse} a horse is a 4 legged creature, a leg is something that helps you stand up right...

so if you cant relate the matrix all the way back to the beginning of time then you cannot have absolute truth.

sorry if all my posts are farfetched, im also trying to learn everytime i post.
 
Last edited:
^^

As am I (learning from every post as part of a dialectic and dialogical endeavour) :)

As a maths major I would assume you know Tarski better than I do as he reduced theories of truth to formal logic using first and second order mathematic, using metalanguage to inform truth statements. a better explanation was given earlier in the thread by someone with a Masters in Logic

You might want to think about the truth values of moral claims, ontological claims, or scientific claims or whether there exists any objective truths, all of which pose various problems in philosophy.
 
^ Actually, I was unaware of the name to evaluation of mathematical statements! I'll have to add that to my list of names-I-should-remember-but-probably-won't.
 
^^

As am I (learning from every post as part of a dialectic and dialogical endeavour) :)

As a maths major I would assume you know Tarski better than I do as he reduced theories of truth to formal logic using first and second order mathematic, using metalanguage to inform truth statements. a better explanation was given earlier in the thread by someone with a Masters in Logic

You might want to think about the truth values of moral claims, ontological claims, or scientific claims or whether there exists any objective truths, all of which pose various problems in philosophy.

ill look into him but as of yet i havent come across him!
im still an underclassman in undergraduate classes.

i also have a really hard time being taught formally.
its hard for me to bring myself to class when i can gain more insight researching in the library.
 
Top