The Black Vault

When a logician puts up a "truth table," they must know that they're merely playing a game with the letters T and F. Is truth ever going to come out of a symbol-chasing game involving the letters T and F?

I might be surprised.

If I change the letters from T and F to a and b, if I were to describe how to play the game of "symbol chasing", I doubt that you would have guessed that we're supposedly talking about truth.

Much less knowing the truth.

So can logic really be that great of a tool in discerning and knowing what truth is? Or do you think 'logic' is based on more than just a few assumptions, not unlike a foundation of spider webs?

They recently observed a new particle that does not obey the 'standard model'. Other forms of logic have been around for centuries.

Aristotle created a paradigm that can be a trap.

objective or subjective truth?

this whole thing drove Descartes almost mad. He ended at Cogito ergo sum and that is the whole of truth, that's all there is.

I personally have never given an 'ultimate truth' much thought.


factiod:In logic, a statement which cannot be broken down into smaller statements, is simply called an atom.

------edit --------
sorry Cogito ergo sum = i think, therefore i am

Wher you been? Thought your snake ate you.

Thought this was a interresting question to make you think, so moved it to here.

chrisv25 wrote:objective or subjective truth?

Both.

this whole thing drove Descartes almost mad. He ended at Cogito ergo sum and that is the whole of truth, that's all there is.

Is "that's all there is" true?

I personally have never given an 'ultimate truth' much thought.

Is there any other kind of truth?

factiod:In logic, a statement which cannot be broken down into smaller statements, is simply called an atom.

A lot could be said about logic, even just what an atomic formula is. I bet that if I decided to use letters other than T and F in my "truth tables," that you would not think that logic is related to truth whatsoever.

i'm sorry i meant

p or q
not q
therefore p.

chrisv25 wrote:i'm sorry i meant

p or q
not q
therefore p.

The two tables in the attachment demonstrate the structural equivalence between the two "truth" tables. In the first, a classic proof of your disjunctive syllogism statement, the letters T and F are used. These letters are supposed to represent the concepts of truth and non-truth (false).

Suppose I don't call it a truth table. Table 2, which is structurally equivalent to table 1, is just symbolic manipulation. Suppose I call this process "symbol chasing" and use the less suggestive letters a and b instead of T and F.

Looking at table 2, does it look like the table is telling us anything about truth?

According to the premise
the conjecture
((P or Q) not Q) then P

is a reductio ad absurdum

providing proof through a conscious choice of inclusive when the premise of the question could be inclusive or exclusive. I would say that

p or q
not q
therefore p

is not a well formed conjecture. (and was intended a little tongue and cheek)

Would you care to make a conjecture about truth and knowing?

Although it occurs to me that, maybe the point you are trying to make involves the boolean nature of the argument it's self in comparison to the fuzzy logic of the original thought.

in such a case i occurs to me that the question should be formulated with fuzzy logic to provide the possibility to have a truth value of "maybe".

chrisv25 wrote:Would you care to make a conjecture about truth and knowing?

Yes, a negative answer to the question I posed:
can logic really be that great of a tool in discerning and knowing what truth is?

ok so my answer would be:

conjecture:
boolean logic must exist or a greater form of logic must exist
boolean logic is not the greatest logic
therefore a greater logic must exist

so

boolean Logic < (ultimate truth and ultimate knowledge) or (UK or UT)

so an ultimate knowledge and/or truth must logically exist

QED even the simplest forms of logic lead us closer to the truth.