What is truth?

[SwimExpert]

At scales so small that measuring devices can no longer measure

Erm, what are you talking about? Nobody here is talking about things that can't be measured. I'm talking about things that can and have been measured.

You're evading.

 

[danielpalos]

Is it true that is your perception or is it true she is beautiful?

Is the statement true?

Sandra Bullock is a beautiful woman.

Is that a true statement, or a false statement?

mr.happy says every chic is a keeper, potentially; so, what is your point?

 

[Wuwei]

You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.

The color red is evoked by light with a dominance of wavelengths in the range 620-740 nanometers.

 

[PratchettFan]

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?

Truth is that which is.

What about that which is not; may it not still be a truth?

Sure. Because it is not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is it true that is your perception or is it true she is beautiful?

Is the statement true?

Sandra Bullock is a beautiful woman.

Is that a true statement, or a false statement?

Neither. It's a subjective opinion.

 

[PratchettFan]

You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.

The color red is evoked by light with a dominance of wavelengths in the range 620-740 nanometers.

You say it is evoked, but that doesn't say what it is. Perhaps color is merely an electrochemical reaction in the brain. In which case the text is not red, the triggered cerebral response is. And if the individual is color blind, that does not change the nature of the photons.

 

[SwimExpert]

Neither. It's a subjective opinion.

Impossible. Every statement is either true or false. This is the law of excluded middle.

 

[PratchettFan]

Neither. It's a subjective opinion.

Impossible. Every statement is either true or false. This is the law of excluded middle.

No problem. The above statement is false.

 

[SwimExpert]

You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.

The color red is evoked by light with a dominance of wavelengths in the range 620-740 nanometers.

Actually, it's evoked by a biological reaction, whereby various pigmented cone cells transmit their respective stimulation to the brain by means of electrical signals , which interprets the electrical signals and incorporates the sum total of varying signals.

 

[Wuwei]

You say it is evoked, but that doesn't say what it is. Perhaps color is merely an electrochemical reaction in the brain. In which case the text is not red, the triggered cerebral response is. And if the individual is color blind, that does not change the nature of the photons.

I'm saying what the unambiguous definition of red is. Sure it provokes an electrochemical response in an animals whether they have a word for it or not. Sure, color blindness does not change the nature of photons, but that's pretty much my point.

 

[PratchettFan]

You say it is evoked, but that doesn't say what it is. Perhaps color is merely an electrochemical reaction in the brain. In which case the text is not red, the triggered cerebral response is. And if the individual is color blind, that does not change the nature of the photons.

I'm saying what the unambiguous definition of red is. Sure it provokes an electrochemical response in an animals whether they have a word for it or not. Sure, color blindness does not change the nature of photons, but that's pretty much my point.

You didn't define red. That's my point. You only said what it was evoked by, not what it was. If I run my car into a tree I may dent my fender, but that doesn't make the tree a dented fender.

 

[danielpalos]

The absence of fallacy. I can practice what I preach everyday merely to be Faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding any discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[PratchettFan]

The absence of fallacy. I can practice what I preach everyday merely to be Faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding any discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

But if something is not true, then that it is not true is a truth.

 

[Wuwei]

Neither. It's a subjective opinion.

Impossible. Every statement is either true or false. This is the law of excluded middle.

You are talking about a very formal system: predicate calculus. You must clearly define the terms you are using first. Sandra Bullock is clearly defined. Obviously beauty is not. If you first clearly define "beauty" then you can use predicate calculus. Otherwise not.

Try this for imposibility: is the first statement true or false:
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement is false.

 

[Wuwei]

You say it is evoked, but that doesn't say what it is. Perhaps color is merely an electrochemical reaction in the brain. In which case the text is not red, the triggered cerebral response is. And if the individual is color blind, that does not change the nature of the photons.

I'm saying what the unambiguous definition of red is. Sure it provokes an electrochemical response in an animals whether they have a word for it or not. Sure, color blindness does not change the nature of photons, but that's pretty much my point.

You didn't define red. That's my point. You only said what it was evoked by, not what it was. If I run my car into a tree I may dent my fender, but that doesn't make the tree a dented fender.

You have to understand that words have multiple definitions. You are conflating the physical definition of red with an animal perception. So which one are you talking about. You cant change definitions midstream and expect anything coherent to come out of it.

 

[hangover]

Going through this thread and reading the posts, exposes the posters desire to get others to "believe" their "perception" of the "truth", just like so many other preachers.

Positive is positive, negative is negative. They are not interchangeable. The truth can NOT be a lie, and a lie can NOT be the truth.

 

[danielpalos]

The absence of fallacy. I can practice what I preach everyday merely to be Faithful to my State motto: Eureka! regarding any discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

But if something is not true, then that it is not true is a truth.

is something not True; a fallacy.

 

[SwimExpert]

You are talking about a very formal system: predicate calculus. You must clearly define the terms you are using first.

I'm merely talking about the fundamentals of logic as understood since the time of Plato.

Sandra Bullock is clearly defined. Obviously beauty is not. If you first clearly define "beauty" then you can use predicate calculus. Otherwise not.

You are correct to note that the truth value of the statement rests with understanding what constitutes "beautiful." But it does not change the fact that the statement is either true or false. This example highlights how truth can indeed be subject to perception.

 

[Wuwei]

Going through this thread and reading the posts, exposes the posters desire to get others to "believe" their "perception" of the "truth", just like so many other preachers.

Positive is positive, negative is negative. They are not interchangeable. The truth can NOT be a lie, and a lie can NOT be the truth.

I think the real problem here is that people are arguing with words that have a different definition to each person. x is true; x is false; depends on the exact definition of x, and possibly a good definition does not exist.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm saying what the unambiguous definition of red is.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Color is 100% a perceptual phenomenon. Objects do not inherently possess color. Our observation of color is entirely an interpretation as we perceive object to be, due to various other facts.