The ontological Foundation of logical truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
  1. A square triangle is impossible and therefore this is eternally true. It never changes. This is a logical truth.
2… logical truths do not have an independent act of being and thus logical truths reflect the nature of an actual being and are dependent on the existence of that being in-order to be true…
  1. Beings which begin to exist cannot be that which makes a thing logically true since logical truths are eternal truths. they never change.
  2. Therefore the ontological foundation of logical truths has to be an eternal necessary being that does not begin to exist.
  3. The ontological foundation of logical truth cannot be an actualized potential
  4. Physical processes are essentially a sequence of actualized potential therefore physical processes cannot be the foundation of logical truth
Conclusion: Therefore the foundation of logical truth is not a physical process and therefore transcends physical processes.
 
My issue starts with 1.

What makes a triangle a triangle is definitional. We decided that as people. As with all mathematical objects. So anything we might say about triangles come about because of our conventions. But I know that’s a really noodly, hair-splitting comment. So I’ll move past that. Plus I get that like… All triangles share similar properties, the simplest of which are interior angles and having 3 sides and angles. So there’s maybe something more real about “triangleness.” All triangles ever share the properties above.

But in the same vein, there’s three feet to every yard. Ever. Even back in the dinosaur times, there were three feet to every yard. So on one hand, saying that a two-foot yard is a logical, a priori impossibility sounds pretty robust. But a two-foot yard is simply not a yard. It is ~Y. This is also an a priori logical truth. So if we say there can’t be any two-foot yards, what we’re saying via equivalence is ~Y=/=Y, a tautology if ever there was one.

So when people say “there can’t be square triangles” it’s the same as saying “triangles cannot not be triangles”. This isn’t remarkable or helpful. And I don’t think it takes some sort of special ontological transcendence for A to be equal to A.
 
Rhubarb said:
My issue starts with 1.

What makes a triangle a triangle is definitional. We decided that as people. As with all mathematical objects. So anything we might say about triangles come about because of our conventions. But I know that’s a really noodly, hair-splitting comment. So I’ll move past that. Plus I get that like… All triangles share similar properties, the simplest of which are interior angles and having 3 sides and angles. So there’s maybe something more real about “triangleness.” All triangles ever share the properties above.

But in the same vein, there’s three feet to every yard. Ever. Even back in the dinosaur times, there were three feet to every yard. So on one hand, saying that a two-foot yard is a logical, a priori impossibility sounds pretty robust. But a two-foot yard is simply not a yard. It is ~Y. This is also an a priori logical truth. So if we say there can’t be any two-foot yards, what we’re saying via equivalence is ~Y=/=Y, a tautology if ever there was one.

So when people say “there can’t be square triangles” it’s the same as saying “triangles cannot not be triangles”. This isn’t remarkable or helpful. And I don’t think it takes some sort of special ontological transcendence for A to be equal to A.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you rhubarb, given our understanding of a triangle, can a square-triangle exist?

Its a simple question.
 
IWantGod said:
Let me ask you rhubarb, given our understanding of a triangle, can a square-triangle exist?

Its a simple question.
Click to expand...
Given our understanding of mathematics, geometric shapes do not exist at all - strictly speaking.

“A square triangle” is meaningless. In the semantic sense of the word. “A four sides three sided shape”. The question is a non-starter.
 
IWantGod said:
  1. A square triangle is impossible and therefore this is eternally true. It never changes. This is a logical truth.
2… logical truths do not have an independent act of being and thus logical truths reflect the nature of an actual being and are dependent on the existence of that being in-order to be true…
  1. Beings which begin to exist cannot be that which makes a thing logically true since logical truths are eternal truths. they never change.
  2. Therefore the ontological foundation of logical truths has to be an eternal necessary being that does not begin to exist.
  3. The ontological foundation of logical truth cannot be an actualized potential
  4. Physical processes are essentially a sequence of actualized potential therefore physical processes cannot be the foundation of logical truth
Conclusion: Therefore the foundation of logical truth is not a physical process and therefore transcends physical processes.
Click to expand...
That is physical process which allows us to experience logical truth. Where could logical truth be in absence of a thinking mind? We understand logical truth and we are physical. Therefore logical truth does not transcend physical process.
 
IWantGod said:
Its irrelevant. Can a square triangle exist.
Click to expand...
It’s completely relevant. If geometric shapes don’t exist at all, then pointing out one hypothetical shape doesn’t mean anything. But sidestepping that worry, let me answer your question by repeating myself.
Rhubarb said:
“A square triangle” is meaningless. In the semantic sense of the word. “A four sides three sided shape”. The question of its existence is a non-starter.
Click to expand...
 
Rhubarb said:
It’s completely relevant. If geometric shapes don’t exist at all, then pointing out one hypothetical shape doesn’t mean anything. But sidestepping that worry, let me answer your question by repeating myself.
Click to expand...
So you would agree that a square triangle cannot exist…
 
Rhubarb said:
Maybe at a glance. I guarantee you that none of those shapes will hold up to the exacting requirements of a geometric definition.
Click to expand...
And I changed my mind. I looked at the images on my desktop, not just my phone. Even to the naked eye those images don’t show perfect geometry. They’re beautiful. And come close to our mathematical definitions at times. But they aren’t perfect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top