What is truth?

[SwimExpert]

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.

And upon what can you base that conclusion?

 

[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.

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.

If x is both truth and false, then there is no difference.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Ah yes, good old Plato. In the modern world of Quantum Mechanics, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, predicate logic has been replaced by statistical calculations and outcomes. Is an electron here or there? It can be both.

Remember Schroedinger's cat? It is both dead and alive. People here should look that up if they want to know what truth is about.

 

[hangover]

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.

Perception is not fact. If I say evil is good, it doesn't make it so. Everything must be kept in "proper" "perspective".
Jesus said, "Blessed are those that rightly divide the word of truth."

 

[Wuwei]

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.

You really can't say "I'm afraid you are mistaken" You should have said "I'm afraid we have different definitions of red.

Right. Objects don't possess color; they reflect a spectrum of colors. That spectrum can be unambiguously determined. I like to define "red" as a physical phenomenon. Apparently you want to define it as a perception. We are both right because we have different definitions.

 

[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.

You really can't say "I'm afraid you are mistaken" You should have said "I'm afraid we have different definitions of red.

Right. Objects don't possess color; they reflect a spectrum of colors. That spectrum can be unambiguously determined. I like to define "red" as a physical phenomenon. Apparently you want to define it as a perception. We are both right because we have different definitions.

You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to set your own definitions.

 

[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.

Perception is not fact. If I say evil is good, it doesn't make it so. Everything must be kept in "proper" "perspective".
Jesus said, "Blessed are those that rightly divide the word of truth."

If you perceive something, is it not a fact that you perceived it?

 

[Wuwei]

You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to set your own definitions.

They are not "my" definitions. Red as a spectrum of photons is the only definition that makes sense to a scientist.

Does near infrared exist? We can't see or feel it.
How about far infrared. We feel it as heat but we can't see it.

Yes, I think human perception is a poor way of defining the spectrum of photons.

 

[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.

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.

I haven't changed definitions. I have yet to see one. I repeat, saying it is evoked is not defining it. If you define red as light in a set range of wavelengths is one way to do it. But then red = light between X and Y. Anything outside that set is not red and anything inside is. Whether anyone ever perceives that light is irrelevant. In which case, red is evoked by nothing, it just is.

 

[SwimExpert]

Is an electron here or there?

Depends on whether or not you are watching it.

Remember Schroedinger's cat? It is both dead and alive. People here should look that up if they want to know what truth is about.

Now you're just invoking things you don't truly understand. Schrodinger's cat was a hypothetical metaphor used to describe Schrodinger's rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. He used the absurdity of the cat being both dead and alive at the same time to highlight the fundamental failings of the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[danielpalos]

a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge but no Anti-Hypocrisy laws on the books.

 

[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.

is something not True; a fallacy.

Are you saying that it is not true that something not true is not true?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

By that standard, if I perceive a cow to be a horse then it is a horse.

 

[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.

And upon what can you base that conclusion?

Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false, it is therefore false to state that every statement is true or false.

 

[SwimExpert]

They are not "my" definitions. Red as a spectrum of photons is the only definition that makes sense to a scientist.

So, you are choosing for yourself a definition that is rooted in the foundation of electromagnetic science. You have selected your own definition, and reject others.

How then would you describe conditions whereby people see color when they read or when they listen to music?

Does near infrared exist? We can't see or feel it.
How about far infrared. We feel it as heat but we can't see it.

Yes, I think human perception is a poor way of defining the spectrum of photons.

You are starting to confuse yourself. Light color is based on wavelength. Your "spectrum of photons" implies (incorrectly) that photons have set types, akin to the various atoms which make up the periodic table.

 

[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.

Are you saying that it is not true that something not true is not true?

i am only saying something untrue must be a fallacy.

 

[Capstone]

You attribute temporal qualities to describe an alleged atemporal reality...

No, I've attributed temporal and atemporal qualities to the multifaceted nature of the reality I've alleged is both..."in various respects". This seeming contradiction has direct corollaries in 4-D spacetime in the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Figuratively speaking, the cards in the universal deck are eternally existent (read: atemporal, existentially speaking); while the cardhouses constructed from those physical building blocks (and impetuses) are temporary.

Personal knowledge of an objective truth is a contradiction. ...

God, I hope not!

When knowledge of the truth of a claim is objectively available (as with self-evident truths), it's no contradiction in terms to describe the intersubjective possession for each and every individual who possesses it as "personal knowledge of an objective truth".

 

[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.

is something not True; a fallacy.

Are you saying that it is not true that something not true is not true?

i am only saying something untrue must be a fallacy.

But that it is a fallacy is true.

 

[Wuwei]

Depends on whether or not you are watching it.

Good answer!

Now you're just invoking things you don't truly understand. Schrodinger's cat was a hypothetical metaphor used to describe Schrodinger's rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. He used the absurdity of the cat being both dead and alive at the same time to highlight the fundamental failings of the Copenhagen interpretation.

I'm invoking things that nobody intuitively understands yet. Hypothetical or not, S's cat lead to the concept of entanglement. And ultimately leads to the idea that quantum mechanics under any interpretation evades an intuitive understanding.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I've attributed temporal and atemporal qualities to the multifaceted nature of the reality I've alleged is both..."in various respects".

No, you are using temporal terms to claim atemporal qualities. You are contradicting yourself because these alleged atemporal qualities exist within the context of an extant time.

This seeming contradiction has direct corollaries in 4-D spacetime in the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

*wipes face*

I'm sorry, please continue

Figuratively speaking, the cards in the universal deck are eternally existent (read: atemporal, existentially speaking)

No. If something is eternally existent it is temporal, not atemporal.

When knowledge of the truth of a claim is objectively available (as with self-evident truths)

Is there a such thing as a self evident truth? Even if there is, it is quite the opposite of anything objective. By definition a "self evident" truth requires recognition by an observer in order to exist, and as such is entirely subjective.