The Black Vault

When a description is isomorphic to that which is described, that description is 100% truth. All else are degrees of truth correspondence. We construct a mental model of reality that approximates ...reality. If the mental approximation becomes 100% truth then we are the reality, not just the perception of difference.

What if there were a way to have multivalence in the metalanguage? I read somewhere that there is some tribe somewhere whose language includes a third truth value, based on a ternary logic.

At any rate, if logic has any strength at all then there is truth. There probably isn't an effective procedure (basically--a computer program) from ascertaining whether or not an arbitrary statement is true or not.

So it's sort of like randomness in that it can be proved to exist yet proving something in particular is random is almost impossible.

While truth may be a predicate that is applicable to some statements, it seems that "the truth" is more than a collection of the true statements... again going back to existence.

It could be viewed as chasing one's tail. This whole line of inquiry.

Maybe that is the answer, as unsatisfying as it is, that truth is an atomic concept (as khan pointed out).

Three years ago I would have said that logic is how to deal with this question until it occurred to me one day that the so called truth tables have T's and F's in them but that doesn't mean it's really defining truth.

greeney2 wrote:I said to me its simple.

Can you prove we don't live in matrix or is it just not relevant whether we do?
You said it was simple so there should be a simple proof (or some other way to know) either way.

khanster wrote:When a description is isomorphic to that which is described, that description is 100% truth. All else are degrees of truth correspondence. We construct a mental model of reality that approximates ...reality. If the mental approximation becomes 100% truth then we are the reality, not just the perception of difference.

Perhaps reality itself can only be an approximation.

Anyways, are there absolute differences or only relative differences? Eg. truth and falsity, are they different?

Some statements are false...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

Examples of false statements

Misleading statement (lie)

John told his little brother that sea otters aren't mammals, but fish, even though John himself was a marine biologist and knew otherwise. John simply wanted to see his little brother fail his class report, in order to teach him to begin projects early, which help him develop skills necessary to succeed in life

Statement made out of ignorance

James, John's brother, stated in his class report that sea otters were fish. James got an F after his teacher pointed out why that statement was false. James did not know that sea otters were in fact mammals because he heard that sea otters were fish from his older brother John, a marine biologist.

That doesn't seem to address the question. Do you understand my question?

Is there an absolute difference between truth and falsity, or is the difference relative?

Ie. Does truth exist in contrast to falsity, and vice versa, in a co-arising reciprocal relation rooted in perceptual contrast

OR does truth absolutely exist, and is therefore not fundamentally relative to falsity?

If "any perceived differences share a common medium relating to their perceptual status quo" then that seems to me to be saying differences are relative, which includes the difference between truth and falsehood. Unless objective truth exists which is not intrinsically relative to falsity, and thus not dependent on any perceptual status quo of conceptual contrast.

Does that help to clarify the question for you?

khanster wrote:Some statements are false...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

Examples of false statements

Misleading statement (lie)

John told his little brother that sea otters aren't mammals, but fish, even though John himself was a marine biologist and knew otherwise. John simply wanted to see his little brother fail his class report, in order to teach him to begin projects early, which help him develop skills necessary to succeed in life

Statement made out of ignorance

James, John's brother, stated in his class report that sea otters were fish. James got an F after his teacher pointed out why that statement was false. James did not know that sea otters were in fact mammals because he heard that sea otters were fish from his older brother John, a marine biologist.

Seems like this is a example of telling the truth, and valid to the point I thought was simple discussing what is truth. Not telling the truth has consequences.

at1with0 wrote:What if there were a way to have multivalence in the metalanguage? I read somewhere that there is some tribe somewhere whose language includes a third truth value, based on a ternary logic.

At any rate, if logic has any strength at all then there is truth. There probably isn't an effective procedure (basically--a computer program) from ascertaining whether or not an arbitrary statement is true or not.

So it's sort of like randomness in that it can be proved to exist yet proving something in particular is random is almost impossible.

While truth may be a predicate that is applicable to some statements, it seems that "the truth" is more than a collection of the true statements... again going back to existence.

It could be viewed as chasing one's tail. This whole line of inquiry.

Maybe that is the answer, as unsatisfying as it is, that truth is an atomic concept (as khan pointed out).

Three years ago I would have said that logic is how to deal with this question until it occurred to me one day that the so called truth tables have T's and F's in them but that doesn't mean it's really defining truth.

greeney2 wrote:I said to me its simple.

Can you prove we don't live in matrix or is it just not relevant whether we do?
You said it was simple so there should be a simple proof (or some other way to know) either way.

I have no reason to think I live in whatever you define as a Matrix. I live in a house, on a street, in a city in California. That I can proove, but will you consider my proof the truth?

Greene, you're not doing your position any favors by citing artificial man-made constructs.