We Must ALL Agree (part 1)

[rossum]

But what that “statement” (A=A) tells us that their is at least ONE “A”. That “A” exists!

No. Unicorn = Unicorn is a perfectly good logical statement but it does not require that unicorns exist. In mathematics a great many things have been proved about odd perfect numbers. So far nobody is even sure if any such numbers exist, but if they do we already know some things about them. Existence is not always a requirement for the application of logic.

You would do well to study more before posting. Making incorrect statements does not do you any favours.

rossum

 

[Valke2]

Guess we all are not agreeing.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Then, it is an absolute truth that you don’t deny that absolute truth is a possibility?

No, it is contingent truth since I expressed it in language.

<chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>

So, it is simply axiomatic that no absolute truth exists because absolute truths are contingent on being expressed by human language, and since human language is by definition incapable of doing that that absolute truth can’t exist?

That IS perfectly logical!

Though utterly false. Why? Because the sun in the sky today being there for me to see was an absolute truth, and yet I can’t tell you the speed of the fourth hydrogen atom south of the northern rotational pole point in direct line with my eyeball at precisely 2:43pm pacific time.

All I need to do to show you, or prove to myself, that an absolute truth exists is to point at it and have you, or myself, agree with our “fuzzy” observation, within the scope of the truth being pointed at.

“The sun existed for me then”, confines the scope of the pointed-at truth in question quite sufficiently, thank you very much.

Quote:
But we don’t HAVE to be “utterly specific” about identifying absolute truths. We only have to agree with each other that we are describing something real.

Is something that it 99% absolute truth an absolute truth? Not to me it isn’t, it is an approximation to an absolute truth but not itself an absolute truth.

But it IS 100% true that the sun existed for me today in the sky!

An absolute truth is a truth that one can’t be denied. How would one deny the absolute truth that the sun existed for me today in the sky?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
To say that language is incapable of describing absolute truth is like saying that painters are incapable of painting because no canvas is BIG ENOUGH to contain what is to be painted.

The real painting is in the painters mind. What is on the canvas is only a representation of the real painting. It is a finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moon.

What is in the painter’s mind is not a painting, as paintings really must be composed of paint.

The painting points to the moon. The moon being paintable is a truth. The truth of the moon DOES exist, and the truth of there being a pointer toward the truth of the moon being DOES exist.

These truths do exist, and they are absolute, because there is no denying them.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
There is no “buddhist logic”.

You would do well to study Nagarjuna, Dignaga and Dharmakirti before making such an assertion.

All logic, if it is explainable in language, is contained in the universal symbolic system of logic, which is nothing more than a rather large bag of agreements as to meanings.

I can SAY, 1+1=3, but unless the symbol “3” means “2” it is not a logical statement.

All symbols are mere agreements about meanings. Don’t think that symbols ARE meanings! They are merely tokens of agreement.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But what that “statement” (A=A) tells us that their is at least ONE “A”. That “A” exists!

Good grief! That was a REALLY badly made sentence! I meant:

But what that “statement” (A=A) tells us is that there is at least ONE “A”. That “A” exists!

(( Now I feel better! ))

No. Unicorn = Unicorn is a perfectly good logical statement but it does not require that unicorns exist.

But “Unicorn” DOES exist! It is a mythical beast! Identifying unicorns AS unicorns is a statement of the existence of unicorns. It says nothing about WHERE to FIND a unicorn!

In mathematics a great many things have been proved about odd perfect numbers. So far nobody is even sure if any such numbers exist, but if they do we already know some things about them. Existence is not always a requirement for the application of logic.

Just like the square root of negative 2, it DOES exist as something to have to deal with, but can’t seem to be “found” as something to have to “handle”.

You are CONSTANTLY confusing “reality” with “existence as YOU define existence”.

Radical negative two DOES EXIST, but it is not findable in reality! Just like unicorns!

You would do well to study more before posting. Making incorrect statements does not do you any favours.

And you would do well to work to understand what others mean, and not assume that what they meant was what you heard (your interpretation of what they said).

That is called “wisdom”. Bone up on it.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Guess we all are not agreeing.

<heh he he he, chuckle, snork!>

Some folks don’t WANT to agree because it’s to their advantage to not have agreements, so that they can do “cool stuff” that is other wise forbidden (or at least “ill advised”).

 

[Mirdath]

The four values are:* A: I will go to work tomorrow.

• not A: I will go to the shops tomorrow.
• both A and not A: I will go to work and I will go to the shops tomorrow.
• neither A nor not A: I will be at the beach all day tomorrow.

If we’re going to get into quaternary logic, my favorite way of expressing it is ‘true, false, don’t know (null), don’t care’

Truth can be absolute and it can be knowable (to humans) but it doesn’t have to be both at once.

Absolute and knowable: the cogito, deontological ethics.
Absolute and unknowable: whether the divine exists, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Relative and knowable: the meaning of a particular symbol, as already covered with the 2+2 thing.

I’m having trouble coming up with a relative and unknowable truth off the top of my head; if anyone else can think of one, I’d be interested to see it.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

But it IS 100% true that the sun existed for me today in the sky!

An absolute truth is a truth that one can’t be denied. How would one deny the absolute truth that the sun existed for me today in the sky?

What’s your age again ??:harp:

Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), september 20, 2008

 

[Americanrevert]

**Hello,

In Mathematics,

1+1 can equal 1

also 1+ 1 can equal 0

depending on your calculations eh?

americanrevert**

 

[rossum]

So, it is simply axiomatic that no absolute truth exists because absolute truths are contingent on being expressed by human language, and since human language is by definition incapable of doing that that absolute truth can’t exist?

There are ways to express truths that do not depend on language. The truth of the taste of Vegemite is expressed by eating some Vegemite and tasing it. That taste cannot be expressed fully in words, yet it is still a truth. You are limiting truth by requiring that it only be expressed in language. While language is required for discussions such as this, there are truths that cannot be expressed in language.

Though utterly false. Why? Because the sun in the sky today being there for me to see was an absolute truth, and yet I can’t tell you the speed of the fourth hydrogen atom south of the northern rotational pole point in direct line with my eyeball at precisely 2:43pm pacific time.

The Sun as seen by you is not an absolute truth. I would need to know if your sight is the same as mine. Are you short-sighted? Are you colour blind? Are you a tetrachromat? When does your “seeing” start. When the light enters your eye? When the light hits your retina at the back of your eye? When the nerve impulse starts travelling down your optic nerve? When the nerve impulse reaches your brain? When the nerve impulse is routed to the optic areas of your brain? When the optic areas have finished processing the incoming data? For absolute truth all of these underlying assumptions need to be examined and resolved.

An absolute truth is a truth that one can’t be denied. How would one deny the absolute truth that the sun existed for me today in the sky?

We differ on our definitions. For me an absolute truth is a truth that stands alone and is not dependent on anything else. Your truth depends on a geat many other things. For example your own existence depends on the existence of planet earth and of an oxygen atmosphere - without both of those there is no “me” in your statement. Hence your truth is dependent on other things and cannot be absolute. It is a contingent truth and not an absolute truth.

rossum

 

[AnAtheist]

• A: I will go to work tomorrow.
• not A: I will go to the shops tomorrow.

“I will go to the shops tomorrow.” is not not(" I will go to work tomorrow."). That would be “I will not go to work tomorrow.”. I’d like to see, how you’re doing both or nothing of that.

 

[rossum]

“I will go to the shops tomorrow.” is not not(" I will go to work tomorrow."). That would be “I will not go to work tomorrow.”. I’d like to see, how you’re doing both or nothing of that.

A common example is taken from Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika:Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

MMK 1:1
This is explained as a denial of the four limbs of the underlying tetralemma:

• A: things arise from themselves.
• not A: things arise from other things.
• both: things arise both from themselves and from other things.
• neither: things arise uncaused.

He uses the same technique in his analysis of nirvana in MMK Chapter 25. All four limbs of the tetralemma are denied:

• it is wrong to say that nirvana exists.
• it is wrong to say that nirvana does not exist.
• it is wrong to say that nirvana both exists and does not exist.
• it is wrong to say that nirvana neither exists nor does not exist.

Nagarjuna usually uses a negative technique; he refutes all propositions put forward by an opponent without advocating a thesis of his own. The tetralemma is used to ensure that all possible combinations of the opponents arguments are refuted, as well as the “if you disagree with my positive argument then you must support the negative of that argument” response from his opponent.
If I had any proposition, then this defect would be mine.
I have, however, no proposition. Therefore there is no defect that is mine.

Nagarjuna, Vigrahavyavartani 1:29

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Just like the square root of negative 2, it DOES exist as something to have to deal with, but can’t seem to be “found” as something to have to “handle”.

You are CONSTANTLY confusing “reality” with “existence as YOU define existence”.

Radical negative two DOES EXIST, but it is not findable in reality! Just like unicorns!

Imaginary numbers are used a lot in electrical engineering.

They DO exist as a useful thing, yet you can’t QUITE seem to find them! They exist only as “intermediate products”.

…same thing with unicorns. You only find them as an “intermediate product” in a story which is trying to convey some very humanly meaningful thing.

…unless you think that any story which uses a unicorn in it is, on the face of it, meaningless?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I’m having trouble coming up with a relative and unknowable truth off the top of my head; if anyone else can think of one, I’d be interested to see it.

The gods.

They are agreed to “symbols”, AND quite unknowable qua “gods” (as such, since “gods” don’t exist as they are really demons).

Relative and unknowable things are symbols (agreements) which can’t be proved to be what they symbolize.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But it IS 100% true that the sun existed for me today in the sky!

An absolute truth is a truth that one can’t be denied. How would one deny the absolute truth that the sun existed for me today in the sky?

What’s your age again ??

That “one” shouldn’t have been in that first sentence, by the way. Sorry about that!

And that “harp” emoticon was pretty nifty!

My age is “old”, but not THAT old. You’ll have to draw your own conclusion as to my age by the words I use and the way in which I use them, just like everyone else around here!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Hello,

In Mathematics,

1+1 can equal 1

also 1+ 1 can equal 0

depending on your calculations eh?

Huh!? Please show me how YOU’D pull off that clever bit of mathematics? Your definition of “can equal” seems just a BIT faulty, as far as I can tell.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
So, it is simply axiomatic that no absolute truth exists because absolute truths are contingent on being expressed by human language, and since human language is by definition incapable of doing that that absolute truth can’t exist?

There are ways to express truths that do not depend on language. The truth of the taste of Vegemite is expressed by eating some Vegemite and tasing it. That taste cannot be expressed fully in words, yet it is still a truth. You are limiting truth by requiring that it only be expressed in language. While language is required for discussions such as this, there are truths that cannot be expressed in language.

OK. So now you’ve hijacked what I was trying to say, and given it back to me as a response to contradict yourself.

Lovely.

My entire POINT was that truth being truth is not dependent on whether it can be conveyed in language. To simply, and fuzzily, POINT AT a truth is all that’s necessary to communicate to another that a truth exists.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Though utterly false. Why? Because the sun in the sky today being there for me to see was an absolute truth, and yet I can’t tell you the speed of the fourth hydrogen atom south of the northern rotational pole point in direct line with my eyeball at precisely 2:43pm pacific time.

The Sun as seen by you is not an absolute truth. I would need to know if your sight is the same as mine. Are you short-sighted? Are you colour blind? Are you a tetrachromat? When does your “seeing” start. When the light enters your eye? When the light hits your retina at the back of your eye? When the nerve impulse starts travelling down your optic nerve? When the nerve impulse reaches your brain? When the nerve impulse is routed to the optic areas of your brain? When the optic areas have finished processing the incoming data? For absolute truth all of these underlying assumptions need to be examined and resolved.

All instances of truth are absolute truths. To be true, they must be absolutely true within the bounds of how they are true.

An absolute truth is NOT an exhaustively described truth. It is merely a truth that can not be shown to be false.

The truth is that my statement that the sun was there for me to see (which I did see) is an absolute truth, because you can’t show it to be false, because the “bounds” of that truth are such that it is impossible for you to do so.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
An absolute truth is a truth that one can’t be denied. How would one deny the absolute truth that the sun existed for me today in the sky?

We differ on our definitions. For me an absolute truth is a truth that stands alone and is not dependent on anything else.

Yes. Apparently we do.

So, to you, there is only one “absolute truth”. And that would be “all of everything” (I hesitate to use the word “universe”).

If absolute truth is utterly independent of all other things, then the only “absolute truth” is God. While I would agree that God IS an absolute truth, God is not the only absolute truth.

Your truth depends on a geat many other things. For example your own existence depends on the existence of planet earth and of an oxygen atmosphere - without both of those there is no “me” in your statement. Hence your truth is dependent on other things and cannot be absolute. It is a contingent truth and not an absolute truth.

Since you are “allowed” to live in a world where, “If I don’t have perfect understanding of a thing I may say it doesn’t exist!”, it’s perfectly sensible that you’d feel like you were living in “the Matrix”.