https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KGidsuxgY
Even within mathematics, truth cannot be defined within a jargon, it takes a meta-jargon. But given human language, it would take a meta-human language (something no human can ever do) to define truth within any native language. And in so far as thought is just internalized natural language, you can't even think the truth.
This of interest to me, because I would like to know, if I have a coded message, if I can tell if the coded message is true, even if I can't decode the message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH9TDXOPWqs
Any message can be converted into a long positive integer per Godel numbering. Tarski is all about ... how can we apply the logical notion of truth (a limited definition) to Godel numbered logical statements. Tarski's theorem is that we cannot define truth within an object language, you have to have a metalanguage to assess true statements. Given that, logic cannot be used to prove the truth of logical statements (aka depends on the truth of the premises, unless you have a tautology or a contradiction). This is a problem for logic, a logical paradox within logic itself, that is not tied to natural language paradox like "liar's paradox". It only assumes the validity of the arithmetic of the positive integers ... not even zero or negative numbers need be used). Addition, multiplication, powers, roots are defined. Negation, subtraction and division are undefined. Primes are defined however.
So given that I can Godel number a natural language statement, converting that statement into a long integer, can I use the Tarski Theorem to state that ... the truth of the natural language statement is undefined, unless I uses a meta-language? Well that is a paradox, same as happens with mere pure logic statements. I would have to have a supernatural language to assess the truth of a natural language ... but that is impossible, if everything is defined as natural. Any meta-language devised by people, would still qualify as natural.
Per Marcus de Sautoy ... if a logical statement is put into a Godel numbering, and you have a set of axioms that are put into a Godel numbering, then that logical statement is a theorem (derivable from the axioms) if the Godel numbering of the logical statement can be factored by the Godel numbers of the axioms, with no irreducible remainder left over (that is, a number that isn't an axiom). This I will play with this week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ndIDcDSGc
The problem of not being able to define an interior without an exterior (in a logical sense) impacts the potential for understanding consciousness, and the practicality of AI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mccoBBf0VDM
Quote from: Baruch on May 06, 2018, 07:12:16 PM
So given that I can Godel number a natural language statement, converting that statement into a long integer, can I use the Tarski Theorem to state that ... the truth of the natural language statement is undefined, unless I uses a meta-language? Well that is a paradox, same as happens with mere pure logic statements. I would have to have a supernatural language to assess the truth of a natural language ... but that is impossible, if everything is defined as natural. Any meta-language devised by people, would still qualify as natural.
Logic has it's limitations. It's value is that it is the best tool we have to gain knowledge. It is better than a meta-language by virtue of the fact that meta-language is just a made up word for a thing which no one understands, because it doesn't exist. Meta-language is the bait at the end of the maze. Just keep making up bigger and bigger nonsense words or nonsense speculations, until you think you have invented the final solution. Unfortunately, there isn't even a final solution. That's why we need rules to guide us and keep us from cluttering up our minds with junk thoughts.
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2018, 04:52:15 AM
Logic has it's limitations. It's value is that it is the best tool we have to gain knowledge. It is better than a meta-language by virtue of the fact that meta-language is just a made up word for a thing which no one understands, because it doesn't exist. Meta-language is the bait at the end of the maze. Just keep making up bigger and bigger nonsense words or nonsense speculations, until you think you have invented the final solution. Unfortunately, there isn't even a final solution. That's why we need rules to guide us and keep us from cluttering up our minds with junk thoughts.
Logic prevents one kind of screw up ... inconsistency. Without empirical evidence to go with it, it is toothless. Math isn't derivable from logic. Mathematicians do meta-languages (not ordinary language at all). In math, there is an uncountable hierarchy of meta languages, just as one would suspect ... meta goes to meta-meta etc. And yes, we still don't know what Platonic Forms are, though they are inspired by math. Ideal triangles etc.
Math isn't junk thought ... unless you want to stick to Euclid and Pythagoras level of math.
"Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."
Bertrand Russell
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 07, 2018, 01:48:05 PM
"Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true."
Bertrand Russell
True, if you say that it is abstract rather than concrete. Bertrand Russell made Plato spin in his grave ;-)
Quote
You cannot define Truth
Sure you can. Greatest I Am will do it for you for free.
Quote from: SGOS on May 07, 2018, 07:31:06 PM
Sure you can. Greatest I Am will do it for you for free.
Everyone here is the Truth ... because all atheists are ... dum dum dum ... Jesus!
2+2=4 is consistent. But consistently isn't truth, unless one is playing semantic games, which nobody here would ever ever do ...
Truth is facts put together in a coherent system.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 09, 2018, 06:40:02 AM
Truth is facts put together in a coherent system.
Not relevant. The article is pure rationalism and its limitations, limitations of coherence. Empiricism is very important ... those facts on the ground. Getting those facts on the ground into relative coherence is useful too.
More references on this topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
"No sufficiently powerful language is strongly-semantically-self-representational." even for arithmetic, you can't consistently define what is true about it without using something outside of arithmetic. Now extend this to natural language ... you cannot define what is true in natural language, without using words outside of natural language ... in practical terms, if you have a finite vocabulary, to define the truth of that vocabulary, you have to use words outside of it (this is a clear corollary with Godel's results). So we add a new word. But we are in infinite regress, we can define the truth of the extended language without adding another word, and so on.
Critics of this say ... you get into circularity. And I reply ... yes, that is exactly the problem with any natural language. A dictionary is a big circular (web like) self definition. What makes it valuable it going outside of it, to the real physical world aka empiricism.
This is why we never get anywhere ... we don't share the same theory of semantics ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics#Theories_in_semantics
And of course, even within a particular theory, we don't agree on the details. Monkeys all the way down.
The reason why the culture of a language is important ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_field
Words/concepts group differently in different languages. Technically, the dictionary definition of a word isn't universal, but depends on cultural context. How different languages group words, how they reflect different cultural styles of thinking, is why I like language studies.
Googled Truth
Quotetruth
troÍžoTH/Submit
noun
noun: truth
the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More
antonyms: dishonesty, falseness
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More
antonyms: lies, fiction
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More
antonyms: lie, falsehood
Bam! Defined Truth!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 14, 2018, 11:32:14 PM
Googled Truth
Bam! Defined Truth!
The word is frequently used, and everyone knows what it means. You CAN define truth! In fact, the definition is included in all dictionaries and described much the same way in all. Perhaps a better thread title might have been, "It's sometimes hard to identify the truth."
The word is defined quite adequately for most uses, but "truth," like so may other words, can be slippery. There are Christians, and then there are real Christians. There are facts, and with the Trump administration, we have alternate facts. And fake news is still news.
There is truth, even absolute truth, and truths which are beyond us, but truth does exist, except for those who say it doesn't. But you can't please everyone.
SGOS nailed it. But the OP used 'Truth' and not the lower case truth. 'Truth'--the ultimate spiritual knowledge cannot be defined or found. Why? Simple, really. 'Truth' is revealed to those who have found a pipeline to god(s). And since god(s), nor the supernatural, does not exist, Truth does not exist either. While it may not actually exist, Truth is useful for the snake-oil type religious leaders who wants your money and the ability to tell you what to do and how to act. It may not exist, but it can be a powerful tool.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2018, 09:14:30 AM
While it may not actually exist, Truth is useful for the snake-oil type religious leaders who wants your money and the ability to tell you what to do and how to act. It may not exist, but it can be a powerful tool.
I recall that Jesus Christ once said, "I am the truth and the light." I don't know if I read it or heard it, but it was very early in my indoctrination. It was one of those Biblical phrases that perplexed me immediately, and it continued to perplex me even more as I got older. Finally, late in life, I decided it was a silly thing to waste my time on. You can take some poetic sounding liberties that add a mysterious lilt to a phrase so that it seems to have been elevated into the spiritual realm. It doesn't matter if it's a nonsense phrase or if it's grammatically incorrect.
"I am the truth and the light:" Every key word in that has a clearly defined purpose or meaning. Unfortunately, you can string well defined words together in ways that make an entire phrase meaningless, and that seems to be what happened here. Theologians will jump to the defense and say, "What it really means is bla bla bla, "because theologians see themselves as highly qualified to make sense out of poorly constructed sentences, and can even come up with authoritative explanations from total gibberish.
"I am the gas pump of darkness." See how you can string useful words together to make nonsense? If you want to play head games with yourself, you could probably make that sentence mean something, but it wouldn't be important.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 14, 2018, 11:32:14 PM
Googled Truth
Bam! Defined Truth!
Red pill or blue pill? Y'all are on the pill, but not pregnant yet.
People here hate or don't even try to understand any philosophy, but I will occasional post things by people smarter than I am. The sum of their intellect is Funk & Wagnals. Sad. The OP had nothing to do with theology.
Yes, Jesus said "I am the truth" ... he spoke perfect American English. Bwahaha .. you fools.
John 14:6
λÎγει αá½Ï,,á¿· ἸησοῦÏ, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ á½Î´á½¸Ï, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οá½Î´Îµá½¶Ï, á¼"ÏχεÏ,,αι Ï€ÏὸÏ, Ï,,ὸν ΠαÏ,,ÎÏα εἰ μὴ δι’ á¼Î¼Î¿á¿¦.
alétheia: truth
Original Word: ἀλήθεια, αÏ,, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: alétheia
Phonetic Spelling: (al-ay'-thi-a)
Short Definition: truth
Definition: truth, but not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity, truth in the moral sphere, divine truth revealed to man, straightforwardness.
One could spend a lifetime exegeting this one word. This dictionary gives some scope of the range of meaning, not found in an English dictionary looking at the usual English quotations (usage).
Quote from: SGOS on May 15, 2018, 10:05:06 AM
I recall that Jesus Christ once said, "I am the truth and the light." I don't know if I read it or heard it, but it was very early in my indoctrination. It was one of those Biblical phrases that perplexed me immediately, and it continued to perplex me even more as I got older. Finally, late in life, I decided it was a silly thing to waste my time on. You can take some poetic sounding liberties that add a mysterious lilt to a phrase so that it seems to have been elevated into the spiritual realm. It doesn't matter if it's a nonsense phrase or if it's grammatically incorrect.
"I am the truth and the light:" Every key word in that has a clearly defined purpose or meaning. Unfortunately, you can string well defined words together in ways that make an entire phrase meaningless, and that seems to be what happened here. Theologians will jump to the defense and say, "What it really means is bla bla bla, "because theologians see themselves as highly qualified to make sense out of poorly constructed sentences, and can even come up with authoritative explanations from total gibberish.
"I am the gas pump of darkness." See how you can string useful words together to make nonsense? If you want to play head games with yourself, you could probably make that sentence mean something, but it wouldn't be important.
But nonsense is the stock-and-trade of the guru--easier to make it say what the sheeple want to hear.
Quote from: Baruch on May 07, 2018, 06:33:38 AM
Logic prevents one kind of screw up ... inconsistency. Without empirical evidence to go with it, it is toothless.
I'll be damned. Baruch said something I wholeheartedly agree with.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 15, 2018, 04:18:09 PM
But nonsense is the stock-and-trade of the guru--easier to make it say what the sheeple want to hear.
Reject all dictionaries .. embrace the only truth ... silence. See, it all comes down to a battle of scriptures, in this case dictionaries. I will take Strong's over Funk & Wagnal. Given that we are talking about 2000-3000 year old languages. Y'all should approve of this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyJtyK9eStg
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 15, 2018, 07:29:19 PM
I'll be damned. Baruch said something I wholeheartedly agree with.
I have to try many times, but I get there. People think that logic = Spock. They need to edumacate themselves more.
Quote from: SGOS on May 15, 2018, 08:24:04 AM
The word is frequently used, and everyone knows what it means. You CAN define truth! In fact, the definition is included in all dictionaries and described much the same way in all. Perhaps a better thread title might have been, "It's sometimes hard to identify the truth."
The word is defined quite adequately for most uses, but "truth," like so may other words, can be slippery. There are Christians, and then there are real Christians. There are facts, and with the Trump administration, we have alternate facts. And fake news is still news.
There is truth, even absolute truth, and truths which are beyond us, but truth does exist, except for those who say it doesn't. But you can't please everyone.
Truth is universal. Not Lies some dead people made in the past. 1+1=2. 1+1=3 is what some people say, but it logically is x+x=3. That is Truth. This is why we have scientific method because lies cloud everything but the only Truth is logical. So Logical=Truth.
there I just explained it for all the philosophers out there.
Jesus = I am the Truth
Atheist = No, I am the Truth ... and am oblivious to the irony
Some people spend a lifetime in the futile attempt to escape their past. Of course it is equally bad fearing their future, and trying to escape that.
I am the egg man.
I am the walrus.
-john lennon
Goo goo g' joob
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2018, 02:13:42 AM
Jesus = I am the Truth
Atheist = No, I am the Truth ... and am oblivious to the irony
Actually, the irony here is your arrogant assertions. I don't know of any atheists who suggest they are the Truth. Most that I am familiar with insist there is no Truth. There is a personal truth or a scientific truth, but not Truth. Truth is a theist concept, and it is ironic that theists cannot envision a universe without their security blanket god(s)--or in your case your silly G_d.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
Actually, the irony here is [that] I don't know of any atheists who suggest they are the Truth. Most that I am familiar with insist there is no Truth.
This is a projection of one's own perception onto others. It's similar to the projection of belief onto others. Neither truth or belief are of the atheist domain. Assumed truths and beliefs interfere with clarity of vision. They become things seen that are not really there. Absence of truths and beliefs clear the way for accurate perception. It's better to not know than to have incorrect answers.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2018, 09:23:01 AM
This is a projection of one's own perception onto others. It's similar to the projection of belief onto others. Neither truth or belief are of the atheist domain. Assumed truths and beliefs interfere with clarity of vision. They become things seen that are not really there. Absence of truths and beliefs clear the way for accurate perception. It's better to not know than to have incorrect answers.
It seems theists have a very hard time saying 'I don't know'.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2018, 08:53:32 AM
Actually, the irony here is your arrogant assertions. I don't know of any atheists who suggest they are the Truth. Most that I am familiar with insist there is no Truth. There is a personal truth or a scientific truth, but not Truth. Truth is a theist concept, and it is ironic that theists cannot envision a universe without their security blanket god(s)--or in your case your silly G_d.
My comment is irony ... not QFT. And you deny all meaning, other than the trivial personal kind. So yes for you, there can be no overarching truth.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2018, 09:23:01 AM
This is a projection of one's own perception onto others. It's similar to the projection of belief onto others. Neither truth or belief are of the atheist domain. Assumed truths and beliefs interfere with clarity of vision. They become things seen that are not really there. Absence of truths and beliefs clear the way for accurate perception. It's better to not know than to have incorrect answers.
So damn the hypotheses ... no speed ahead? You either know perfectly, or not at all? And perception is universally shown to be inaccurate (say in eye witness crime scenes). So .. who has clarity of vision .. monkeys?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2018, 10:21:36 AM
It seems theists have a very hard time saying 'I don't know'.
So do atheists ... unless they are nihilist, then they shut up.
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2018, 10:32:38 PM
So do atheists ... unless they are nihilist, then they shut up.
Oh----I don't know...............
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2018, 10:53:29 PM
Oh----I don't know...............
Yes you do. You know what you had for supper tonight. So don't go skeptic or nihilist ... that is just fake posturing.
Same with politics, there are plenty of non-skeptical people who know deep down political things (sorry, I don't think any of us do).
And yes, an atheist can be skeptical on one thing ... but totally gullible on all the rest.
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2018, 10:31:59 PM
You either know perfectly, or not at all?
Fallacy of the excluded middle, but if you demand a forced choice, which one are you?
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2018, 10:31:59 PM
And perception is universally shown to be inaccurate (say in eye witness crime scenes).
Is this only for everyone else, or do you include yourself?
Quote from: Baruch on May 16, 2018, 11:08:35 PM
And yes, an atheist can be skeptical on one thing ... but totally gullible on all the rest.
Really?????????????? Never knew that!
or...........
my other take---No shit! A-theist; not-theist. That's all it means. Not a theist. That explains absolutely nothing else about the thoughts of any atheist. Talk to your G_d--I'm sure he will fill you in.
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Fallacy of the excluded middle, but if you demand a forced choice, which one are you?
Is this only for everyone else, or do you include yourself?
Mostly on himself as he deludes himself further
One of the reasons I both laugh at and ignore philosophers is that they argue about things like "truth". I just don't see the debate.
If person "A" shoots and kills person "Z", on camera, with many kinds of evidence, admits to it, has the motive and ability and intent, seen by mutliple witness, etc, isn't that truth?
But to give Baruch something to pin an argument on... "Who shot Liberty Valance?" Where is the truth there? Have fun...
Quote from: SGOS on May 16, 2018, 11:29:56 PM
Fallacy of the excluded middle, but if you demand a forced choice, which one are you?
Is this only for everyone else, or do you include yourself?
Did you even listen to the technical presentation? Based on accepting the law of excluded middle ... paradox is possible even in logic, unless you are very careful. This has been known, and struggled with, for over 100 years now. There are no Vulcans. Logic is like Norman the android who was defeated by Kirk. This is why the Halting problem is real (given that computers are based on the law of excluded middle).
Actual logic is simple formalism ... you can use T or F, but equally 1 or 0, or Fred or Ethel. Logic is about process, not about truth. Its variables have no connection to anything else, necessarily. We choose to use logic in math, science ... we make that connection. So it should come as no surprise that in Logic, you can't define Truth. So while the presentation (I didn't include all of it) is technical, it's conclusion is pretty obvious on general grounds. Since truth is defined outside of logic, it must be irrational ;-)
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 17, 2018, 12:12:44 AM
Mostly on himself as he deludes himself further
This OP isn't about religion or politics. Yes as a human, I am 100% monkey shit. Same as the rest of you. Take that Cheeta! (throws poo).
Quote from: Cavebear on May 17, 2018, 01:17:53 AM
One of the reasons I both laugh at and ignore philosophers is that they argue about things like "truth". I just don't see the debate.
If person "A" shoots and kills person "Z", on camera, with many kinds of evidence, admits to it, has the motive and ability and intent, seen by mutliple witness, etc, isn't that truth?
But to give Baruch something to pin an argument on... "Who shot Liberty Valance?" Where is the truth there? Have fun...
Rashomon ... did it.
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2018, 07:32:40 AM
Did you even listen to the technical presentation?
No, I seldom watch those Utube diatribes. They are usually too long and uninteresting. I expect the poster to put his own case forward.
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2018, 07:32:40 AM
Based on accepting the law of excluded middle ...
The excluded middle is a fallacy, not a recognized source of logical verification.
Quote from: Baruch on May 17, 2018, 07:32:40 AM
Logic is about process, not about truth. Its variables have no connection to anything else, necessarily. We choose to use logic in math, science ... we make that connection. So it should come as no surprise that in Logic, you can't define Truth. So while the presentation (I didn't include all of it) is technical, it's conclusion is pretty obvious on general grounds.
To paraphrase Mike CI: "No shit, Sherlock."
Quote from: SGOS on May 17, 2018, 08:34:04 AM
No, I seldom watch those Utube diatribes. They are usually too long and uninteresting. I expect the poster to put his own case forward.
The excluded middle is a fallacy, not a recognized source of logical verification.
To paraphrase Mike CI: "No shit, Sherlock."
Anything longer than 140 characters, not worth reading? And a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth a thousand pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Even outside of logic, there is no agreed to definition of truth. The logical types of definition rely on primitive notions ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion
You can read the middle part "Details" though it is longer than 140 characters.
If y'all reject all authority, why bring a dictionary to a gun fight?
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2018, 11:45:40 PM
Really?????????????? Never knew that!
or...........
my other take---No shit! A-theist; not-theist. That's all it means. Not a theist. That explains absolutely nothing else about the thoughts of any atheist. Talk to your G_d--I'm sure he will fill you in.
When Baruch prays, he's only talking to himself. ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on May 17, 2018, 01:17:53 AM
But to give Baruch something to pin an argument on... "Who shot Liberty Valance?" Where is the truth there? Have fun...
Probably the same scurvy dog who shot JR.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2018, 01:38:33 PM
Probably the same scurvy dog who shot JR.
But all the different results in all the parallel universes, not to mention per soap operas, it was just a dream, or a malfunctioning holodeck ...
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 17, 2018, 01:36:58 PM
When Baruch prays, he's only talking to himself. ;-)
That matches something I have posted before. Prayer is auto-hypnosis. Too bad you haven't gotten over the canceled show "My Mother The Car".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vOxPUFF0T0
Not many people even remember that one! I do recall watching it many decades ago, it brings back memories that I just made up. ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 18, 2018, 01:43:44 PM
Not many people even remember that one! I do recall watching it many decades ago, it brings back memories that I just made up. ;-)
It was unpopular, in spite of staring Dick Van Dike.
I thought it was the other Van Dyke, Jerry.
"There are truths...millions of them. But humans have climbed the ladder to the pedestal of arrogance, where they claim that "truths" are merely a concept, an illusion, a vision that can only be seen when one opens their mind to the idea that humanity is far more than an animal.....we are "created" and thus....facts and truths are to be bent to a belief that there are greater things that can bend fact and truth...alas...we create our own illusion and truth and ...facts so...there is no such thing as we, each of us, interpret our illusions in our own way"....
said many a brain to a bullet, with no success.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 18, 2018, 06:43:46 PM
I thought it was the other Van Dyke, Jerry.
You are right, it was Dick's younger brother ...
Quote from: aitm on May 18, 2018, 08:15:11 PM
"There are truths...millions of them. But humans have climbed the ladder to the pedestal of arrogance, where they claim that "truths" are merely a concept, an illusion, a vision that can only be seen when one opens their mind to the idea that humanity is far more than an animal.....we are "created" and thus....facts and truths are to be bent to a belief that there are greater things that can bend fact and truth...alas...we create our own illusion and truth and ...facts so...there is no such thing as we, each of us, interpret our illusions in our own way"....
said many a brain to a bullet, with no success.
That was... "interesting".
I like some truths. F=MA, 1+1=2, plane triangle angles add up to 180 degrees, and "Fudd's First Law Of Opposition" (you can't fall off the floor).
Regarding a bullet, recall that Rango told Rattlesnake Jack that he would defeat him with *1* bullet. And did. Sort of Maxwell Smart-wise, but he did...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 02:12:23 AM
That was... "interesting".
I like some truths. F=MA, 1+1=2, plane triangle angles add up to 180 degrees, and "Fudd's First Law Of Opposition" (you can't fall off the floor).
Regarding a bullet, recall that Rango told Rattlesnake Jack that he would defeat him with *1* bullet. And did. Sort of Maxwell Smart-wise, but he did...
Bonus for mentioning Rango ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hptQDGywkyQ
Ars Verite
Quote from: Cavebear on May 19, 2018, 02:12:23 AM
I like some truths.
There are truths and absolutes as well, and we all know them and recognize them. They only become pliable when one suggests that reality may be illusory whereas reality IS and illusory IS but when one suggests they are interchangeable one uses illusory instead of reality. Whereas the one who claims that reality IS and illusory is not, is using reality. Or something like that.....I think I need another beer....SONOFABITCH!
Quote from: aitm on May 19, 2018, 02:09:26 PM
There are truths and absolutes as well, and we all know them and recognize them. They only become pliable when one suggests that reality may be illusory whereas reality IS and illusory IS but when one suggests they are interchangeable one uses illusory instead of reality. Whereas the one who claims that reality IS and illusory is not, is using reality. Or something like that.....I think I need another beer....SONOFABITCH!
There's that darn SONOFABITCH brand again. I asked my local liquor store about it and the couldn't find it in the list. So I bought an N/A beer and chilled it JUST right at home and tasted it. Spit it right out and said...
(Get with the program here...)
"SONOFABITCH" that was awful"! So now we know where it comes from...
Your taste in beer...or rather, lack thereof, should suffice to conclude that your opinion on anything...from acne to zinx oxide is irrelevent.
const true = 1;
const false = 0;
Computer science is the king of all sciences.
I think of truth as that which - as far as we are able to discern scientifically - most corresponds to reality.
Now this has some caveats, most notably, anything that has subjective traits. Like, for example, notions of beauty or other sense of general tastes and opinions. Language itself, I think, is insufficient to describe notions of opinion as truth in the subjective and I find no truths in personal experience that cannot be reduced to the objective.
This is most clearly seen in idealized versus the real. We can draw a circle on a piece of paper, but the idealized Circle is just that, something idealized, where the distinction in a drawn circle is, what I call, pixelated and not a "true" circle. A Circle is the abstraction, the drawing something that corresponds to that Circle in the same way something objective is to the subjective. I'll stop now before it becomes too semantical.
Fortunately, truth is not critical and even acts as a barrier to knowledge. Science doesn't deal in truth, but rather in probabilities. Truth is the domain of theism where truth is used as evidence of the unknowable and the unseen. It's the pursuit of fools.
Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 06:41:42 AM
Fortunately, truth is not critical and even acts as a barrier to knowledge. Science doesn't deal in truth, but rather in probabilities. Truth is the domain of theism where truth is used as evidence of the unknowable and the unseen. It's the pursuit of fools.
In scientific realism, an offshoot of Platonism ... eggheads are discovering another world, thru their minds. Originally promulgated by Pythagoras and his secret society, in regards to mathematics ... Plato extended this idea to the rest of reality. Thus the invention of "not a true Scotsman". The only true Scotsman is the one on the etherial Platonic plane of reality.
Science is empirically driven development of better questions, not better answers. In that sense, it doesn't see the truth, it seeks to suppress know it all gullibility. At least per Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2018, 08:48:12 PM
Your taste in beer...or rather, lack thereof, should suffice to conclude that your opinion on anything...from acne to zinx oxide is irrelevent.
You LIKE any N/A beer? Please tell me which one.
Do americans make beer?
Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 12:57:38 PM
Do americans make beer?
Well, you might be surprised. Some of the world's best IPAs are coming from the US these days. And some serious craft lagers, too. But if you mean that crap in cans. NO!
Thanks Cavebear.
This merits more research.
Quote from: Jason78 on May 27, 2018, 05:07:29 AM
Thanks Cavebear.
This merits more research.
In the last 20 years, small micro breweries have been popping up all over he place. Few make it onto the national scene, and most remain regional. By regional, I'm talking about almost small enough to be the "north end of the county." While the breweries are tiny, they usually make a good impression on the local consumer. And from what I understand, there is a wide variety of very good quality, but I can't speak from experience. My drinking ended just about the time these things started popping up. Even the small town I came from in Montana, population 2,000 has a brewery, which is held in high regard and even hosts community functions. I'm not talking about drinking contests, but legitimate outreach events by worthwhile causes.
Americans, contrary to what you may think, can recognize bad beer. Lord knows we've had enough experience. We drank it because that's all there was. So I guess that's why these mom and pop breweries caught on. Beer made by entrepreneurs that cared about making something people would appreciate, not looking to get rich, but just wanting to be part of an industry that was sorely in need of improvement.
Logic demonstrates the obvious ... but with rigor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97fU6yyNaB4
You beer drinkers ;-) I have worked at Coors, I know that all beer comes from piss.
Quote from: Baruch on May 27, 2018, 12:07:35 PM
You beer drinkers ;-) I have worked at Coors, I know that all beer comes from piss.
From piss it comes, to piss it shall return.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 27, 2018, 05:58:21 PM
From piss it comes, to piss it shall return.
That's a pissy thing to say. :)
Ah, but what kind of piss? Some piss is much better than other piss. We could just recycle the piss of beer drinkers to make more beer.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 27, 2018, 08:19:34 PM
Ah, but what kind of piss? Some piss is much better than other piss. We could just recycle the piss of beer drinkers to make more beer.
Well, if you want to discuss piss, the best is after you eat asparagus!
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 01:50:51 AM
Well, if you want to discuss piss, the best is after you eat asparagus!
That will never happen................I don't eat asparagus.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2018, 12:18:45 PM
That will never happen................I don't eat asparagus.
Ah you are missing the wonderful smell of asparagine... But then SOME people like fish eggs...
Title: "You cannot define truth."
If that statement is true, would it not [in part] define truth?
Good point! I was wondering the same thing.
Quote from: Baruch on May 27, 2018, 12:07:35 PM
Logic demonstrates the obvious ... but with rigor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97fU6yyNaB4
You beer drinkers ;-) I have worked at Coors, I know that all beer comes from piss.
Bear Whiz Beer: "Its in the water, son, that's why it's yellow"!
Quote from: Baruch on May 27, 2018, 12:07:35 PM
Logic demonstrates the obvious ... but with rigor ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97fU6yyNaB4
You beer drinkers ;-) I have worked at Coors, I know that all beer comes from piss.
BTW, you DO realize that your arrows men nothing whatsoever, right?
Quote from: Emancipated on May 29, 2018, 01:11:51 PM
Title: "You cannot define truth."
If that statement is true, would it not [in part] define truth?
Define the result of considering a logical contradiction? What does that define? If all words are implicitly contradictory ... then they are meaningless (in themselves). They are like grunts and farts, it takes context to give them meaning.
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 01:50:25 PM
Define the result of considering a logical contradiction? What does that define? If all words are implicitly contradictory ... then they are meaningless (in themselves). They are like grunts and farts, it takes context to give them meaning.
As usual, a faulty premise. All words are NOT implicitly contradictory.
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 01:50:25 PM
Define the result of considering a logical contradiction? What does that define? If all words are implicitly contradictory ... then they are meaningless (in themselves). They are like grunts and farts, it takes context to give them meaning.
"If all words are implicitly contradictory", which they are not.
Words are meaningless - their meanings are implied, and often misunderstood in conversations... Like this one.
Quote from: Emancipated on May 29, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
"If all words are implicitly contradictory", which they are not.
Words are meaningless - their meanings are implied, and often misunderstood in conversations... Like this one.
Words do have meanings. In context. But often misunderstood.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:25:04 PM
Words do have meanings. In context. But often misunderstood.
I can live with that :)
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 12:49:19 PM
Ah you are missing the wonderful smell of asparagine... But then SOME people like fish eggs...
Real beluga caviar is pretty good, I have had some. Some like fowl eggs ;-)
Quote from: Emancipated on May 29, 2018, 02:09:03 PM
"If all words are implicitly contradictory", which they are not.
Words are meaningless - their meanings are implied, and often misunderstood in conversations... Like this one.
Find me a dictionary without words. That is part of the meaning of the original post. You have an object language, but you can't talk about that language, just in it. To talk about an object language, you have to have a metalanguage, that has words in it that aren't in the object language. And up the ladder it goes, more an more abstract, more and more meaningless (disconnected from practical reality).
Nobody here, watched the videos, not even the simple ones. But are qualified to comment ;-) I at least watch all that I post.