Everything is done within a model

[moving finger]

Sorry, Rader, your last post made very little sense to me. Perhaps we are not speaking the same language.

Let’s try to keep this very simple, and see if we can make some progress.

Thus the Earth is flat is a fact and a true or false proposition depending on when you know that knowledge.

Are you saying here that the proposition “the Earth is flat” can simultaneously be both a fact and a false proposition?

If you are, how does this square with :

A fact is the state of affairs in reality that corresponds to a true proposition in a human language.

Best Regards

 

[Rader]

Sorry, Rader, your last post made very little sense to me. Perhaps we are not speaking the same language.

Let’s try to keep this very simple, and see if we can make some progress.

Are you saying here that the proposition “the Earth is flat” can simultaneously be both a fact and a false proposition?

If you are, how does this square with :

Originally Posted by Rader: A fact is the state of affairs in reality that corresponds to a true proposition in a human language.

Best Regards

Facts are not absolute truths. They are true propositions that can be falsified. Which means that they would have a truth value relative to what is known and when it is known. Yes the Earth is not flat to one who would know it is a sphere.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Rader

I cannot make sense out of your posts, they seem to be inconsistent.

Facts are not absolute truths.

A fact is the state of affairs in reality that corresponds to a true proposition in a human language.

Above you have said that a fact is a true proposition, and also you have said that a fact is not an absolute truth. This seems like a contradiction to me.

What do you mean by an “absolute truth”? In logic, something is either true or false, there is no distinction between “truth” and "absolute truth”.

They are true propositions that can be falsified.

A true proposition is a true proposition. Period. A true proposition cannot be falsified.
(If you think it can, then please give me an example of a proposition which is both true and can be falsified).

Which means that they would have a truth value relative to what is known and when it is known. Yes the Earth is not flat to one who would know it is a sphere.

One cannot “know the Earth is flat” if the proposition “the Earth is a sphere” is a true proposition. Knowledge entails truth.

If “the Earth is a sphere” is true, then it follows that one can know the Earth is a sphere, but one cannot know that the Earth is flat. One might believe the Earth is flat, but believing the Earth is flat is not knowing the Earth is flat.

Best Regards

 

[Rader]

Hi Rader

I cannot make sense out of your posts, they seem to be inconsistent.

MF, that has been my main point of interpretation of this whole thread. We think in models and interpret other models through our own models of interpretation of the facts. Thus no one really understands each other, only sometimes we say that we think we do and in this case we do not.

Above you have said that a fact is a true proposition, and also you have said that a fact is not an absolute truth. This seems like a contradiction to me.

What do you mean by an “absolute truth”? In logic, something is either true or false, there is no distinction between “truth” and "absolute truth”.

The contradiction lies in the interpretation that you do not think that facts are not absolute truths. Absolute truths are what epistemology can not define. It defines absolute values of which are true facts which can be falsified. Yes in logic something is true or false and why is it true or false? It is true because we have no other knowledge or facts to contradict it and when we have other new knowledge or facts those old facts which were true are now false. We do this by interpreting facts in a logically way in which the world makes sense.

A true proposition is a true proposition. Period. A true proposition cannot be falsified.
(If you think it can, then please give me an example of a proposition which is both true and can be falsified).

I did below. Why do you insist that you do not understand this? I understand that you believe that facts are absolutely true or false. You have not given me any reasons why you believe that and I have given you plenty why I do not. What makes you think we can know anything absolute?

One cannot “know the Earth is flat” if the proposition “the Earth is a sphere” is a true proposition. Knowledge entails truth.

If “the Earth is a sphere” is true, then it follows that one can know the Earth is a sphere, but one cannot know that the Earth is flat. One might believe the Earth is flat, but believing the Earth is flat is not knowing the Earth is flat.

Best Regards

Well I think I am getting closer to why I do not understand you, to understanding you. You now have given me a few clues. You say knowledge entails truths and true or false there is not distinction, so then the answer is an absolute value. You make a distinction between believing and knowing yet do not say what it is. Although belief and knowledge are two different words and you can give each your own meaning but you can also give them the same meaning. Is there a difference or do we just like to think so?

 

[moving finger]

The contradiction lies in the interpretation that you do not think that facts are not absolute truths.

Why on Earth use double negatives? Not to obfuscate, I hope?
But to humour you, I define a “fact” as a “true proposition”
It follows from this that it is not the case that a fact is not a true proposition.

Absolute truths are what epistemology can not define. It defines absolute values of which are true facts which can be falsified.

The above makes no sense to me.
What is a “true fact” as opposed to a “fact”? What is the difference? Are there such things as “false facts”?

Yes in logic something is true or false and why is it true or false? It is true because we have no other knowledge or facts to contradict it and when we have other new knowledge or facts those old facts which were true are now false.

If we acquire “new knowledge” as you put it, what this might do is to reveal to us that something we believed was true is not in fact true.

If it turns out that a proposition P which we thought at one time was true is now judged false because we have uncovered new information which shows that P is false, what this means is that P always was false (but we just did not know that). It is not the case (as you seem to be suggesting) that “P was at one time true, and now that we have new information, P is no longer true and it is instead false”.

It never was true that the Earth was flat, hence it never was a fact that the Earth was flat. People may have believed at one time that the Earth was flat, but belief does not entail truth, and a belief does not make something which is not true into a fact.

What makes you think we can know anything absolute? .

I have never said that we can “know anything absolute”, I am not even sure what you mean by this phrase.
Throughout this discussion, you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

You say knowledge entails truths

It is not that “I say” this. This is entailed by the accepted definition of knowledge. Of course, if you wish to have your private definition of knowledge such that one can know something which is false, that’s fine (but don’t expect others to understand what you are talking about).

You make a distinction between believing and knowing yet do not say what it is.

I have done exactly that. I have pointed out already that knowledge entails truth (one cannot know something which is false), whereas belief does not entail truth (one can believe something which is false). Therein lies the difference.

Although belief and knowledge are two different words and you can give each your own meaning but you can also give them the same meaning. Is there a difference or do we just like to think so? .

The meaning of a word is defined by the ways the word is used in a language. Meaning is convention, pure and simple. You may define words to mean something different to convention, but as pointed out above please do not expect other people to understand you if you do.

Best Regards

 

[Chronos]

There are no facts. Opinions, however, are rampant.

 

[Rader]

Why on Earth use double negatives? Not to obfuscate, I hope?
But to humour you, I define a “fact” as a “true proposition”
It follows from this that it is not the case that a fact is not a true proposition.

No just being colorful did not want to rattle your jeans. Let’s try and make some progress to understand each other

The above makes no sense to me.
What is a “true fact” as opposed to a “fact”? What is the difference? Are there such things as “false facts”?

I have come to believe that absolute concepts would have to entail “the facts”. Although we can not know what absolute actually is we can have an idea by knowing that what we know is in affect belief in this by a greater knowing of facts. A fact is true when you believe that it is. When we discover the newer facts its not that the old facts are totally false although we could interpret things in that way, it would be more correct to say that we know things in a more true way which is approaching an absolute knowing. So in answer to your question in a way that maybe you would interpret this, is that false facts are only less true facts in our way of knowing things.

If we acquire “new knowledge” as you put it, what this might do is to reveal to us that something we believed was true is not in fact true.

If it turns out that a proposition P which we thought at one time was true is now judged false because we have uncovered new information which shows that P is false, what this means is that P always was false (but we just did not know that). It is not the case (as you seem to be suggesting) that “P was at one time true, and now that we have new information, P is no longer true and it is instead false”.

It never was true that the Earth was flat, hence it never was a fact that the Earth was flat. People may have believed at one time that the Earth was flat, but belief does not entail truth, and a belief does not make something which is not true into a fact.

You can interpret this, the way you wrote it and its not that different from the way that I understand it but you must understand that when the Earth was believed to be flat they knew it was because that is all the knowledge that was available at that time. So true or false is only relative the way we know things not absolute. Our difference of interpretation lies only in that we do not know what absolute is.

I have never said that we can “know anything absolute”, I am not even sure what you mean by this phrase.
Throughout this discussion, you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

You have said that facts are true propositions, true propositions can not be falsified, what else can that mean except absolute? There is no confusion except the way you interpret my model of how we come to know things.

It is not that “I say” this. This is entailed by the accepted definition of knowledge. Of course, if you wish to have your private definition of knowledge such that one can know something which is false, that’s fine (but don’t expect others to understand what you are talking about).

MF, there is no accepted definition of anything, that’s what this whole thread is about. There are only meanings that we give to words that are packed "ad infinitum" inside of a model of anything that we want to interpret.

I have done exactly that. I have pointed out already that knowledge entails truth (one cannot know something which is false), whereas belief does not entail truth (one can believe something which is false). Therein lies the difference.

The only way that I can interpret this unless you can help me understand better, is that you know absolute truths. I maintain that there is no way of knowing anything absolute except that we have a hint of what it is because we seem to know more not less about nature.

The meaning of a word is defined by the ways the word is used in a language. Meaning is convention, pure and simple. You may define words to mean something different to convention, but as pointed out above please do not expect other people to understand you if you do.

Best Regards

Then you agree that no one knows what they are talking about just sometimes they say they do because they think they do.

 

[moving finger]

A fact is true when you believe that it is. .

Thus (according to you), if I believe that pixies live at the bottom of my garden, it then becomes a “true fact” that pixies live at the bottom of my garden?

When we discover the newer facts its not that the old facts are totally false although we could interpret things in that way, it would be more correct to say that we know things in a more true way which is approaching an absolute knowing.
We know things in a “more true way”? .

Are you sugggesting there are degrees of truth, that some things can be “more true” than other things?

false facts are only less true facts in our way of knowing things. .

Sorry, I don’t mean any offence, but this just seems totally absurd and nonsensical.

How “less true” does a fact need to become before it becomes a false fact? Are there totally neutral facts which are neither true nor false?

you must understand that when the Earth was believed to be flat they knew it was because that is all the knowledge that was available at that time. .

Nobody has ever “known” that the Earth is flat. If you refer to any good philsophical text on the subject of “knowledge” you will find that knowledge entails truth. People may have “believed that they knew the Earth was flat”, but they were mistaken. All they possessed was belief, not knowledge.

You may choose to define “knowledge” differently to the conventional meaning in philosophy, but having your own private language will make it very difficult for others to understand what you are talking about.

You have said that facts are true propositions, true propositions can not be falsified, what else can that mean except absolute? .

The word “absolute” is redundant in this context. A true proposition is simply that – a true proposition. Adding the qualifier “absolute” does not make it any more true.

there is no accepted definition of anything.

For two people to communicate to any significant degree, they must share a common language. To share a common language, it follows that they must also share common definitions of the words used in that language. Those shared common definitions are the “accepted definitions”. The whole reason why you and I are having trouble communicating is (with respect) because you seem to use some very strange (unconventional) definitions of words such as “fact”, “truth” and “knowledge”.

The only way that I can interpret this unless you can help me understand better, is that you know absolute truths. .

The word “absolute” is redundant in this context, because a proposition P is either true, or it is false. Adding the qualifier “absolute” does not make it any more true, or any more false.

Then you agree that no one knows what they are talking about just sometimes they say they do because they think they do.

Following the conventional philosophical definition of knowledge, if one justifiably believes that P, and P is true, then it follows that one knows that P.
Thus, if I justifiably believe what I am talking about, and it is also the case that what I am talking about is true, then it follows that I know what I am talking about.
If, however, what I am talking about is false, then it follows that I do not know what I am talking about.

According to your private definition of knowledge, it would seem that one could know what one was talking about simply by believing what one was talking about, even if what one was talking about was false. This perhaps applies in your own case in this thread, but it clearly leads to nonsensical situations.

Rader, I strongly recommend that you study some elementary epistemology, to give yourself a better grounding in these concepts, before we continue any further in this. Wikipedia is a good place to start :

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


Best Regards

 

[Rader]

Thus (according to you), if I believe that pixies live at the bottom of my garden, it then becomes a “true fact” that pixies live at the bottom of my garden?

Why clip and paste only part of my post, it only confuses anyone who is reading this thread. I told you before that meanings, that we give to words are only useful when they are examined in the context of every word that is used to try and explain anything. The answer to your pixies in your garden, whatever they are is: No matter whatever you or I believe is in your garden is irrelevant until you or I examine the facts what is in your garden and we know what is in it. Understand that even the knowing that we both now possesses tells us nothing more than what we think we know is in your garden. If we assume anything more we are badly mistaken into believing, we know something more that what we think we know.

Are you sugggesting there are degrees of truth, that some things can be “more true” than other things?

I am suggesting that nothing is true we just think it is temporarily. That is precisely what knowing is, anything more would be to claim to know absolute truths.

Sorry, I don’t mean any offence, but this just seems totally absurd and nonsensical.

How “less true” does a fact need to become before it becomes a false fact? Are there totally neutral facts which are neither true nor false?

All facts are true until proven false in which case those are just words to describe old facts in new ways. Knowing facts can not be neutral at least the way I interpret them. We can not think in between the facts only about the facts.

Nobody has ever “known” that the Earth is flat. If you refer to any good philsophical text on the subject of “knowledge” you will find that knowledge entails truth. People may have “believed that they knew the Earth was flat”, but they were mistaken. All they possessed was belief, not knowledge.

You may choose to define “knowledge” differently to the conventional meaning in philosophy, but having your own private language will make it very difficult for others to understand what you are talking about.

You think I have my own private language! I do not disagree that knowledge entails truth. What it does not entail is that knowledge is absolute truth. That’s why you can believe a fact and know it as a fact and latter discover that the interpretation was erroneous. I am not trying to be difficult, are you trying to tell me that all philosophers interpret the meanings of all words in the small way, come on.

The word “absolute” is redundant in this context. A true proposition is simply that – a true proposition. Adding the qualifier “absolute” does not make it any more true.

A true proposition is simply true because the time line of our interpretations of propositions points to a logical world if it did not all propositions would be false and we would live in a totally illogical world.

For two people to communicate to any significant degree, they must share a common language. To share a common language, it follows that they must also share common definitions of the words used in that language. Those shared common definitions are the “accepted definitions”. The whole reason why you and I are having trouble communicating is (with respect) because you seem to use some very strange (unconventional) definitions of words such as “fact”, “truth” and “knowledge”.

I understand this but do you not see that I could make the same claim. Who is the judge of these common shared definitions? The dictionary, yes I would not rewrite it, but add new meanings to it.
01- A fact is a true proposition that can be falsified only when we have new knowledge of old facts, which lead us to another true proposition.
02- Truth is what you think you know not what is absolutely true.
03- Knowledge is true facts about what you believe you know.

The word “absolute” is redundant in this context, because a proposition P is either true, or it is false. Adding the qualifier “absolute” does not make it any more true, or any more false.

So what is true and false to you, if it is neither absolute nor relative?

Following the conventional philosophical definition of knowledge, if one justifiably believes that P, and P is true, then it follows that one knows that P.
Thus, if I justifiably believe what I am talking about, and it is also the case that what I am talking about is true, then it follows that I know what I am talking about.
If, however, what I am talking about is false, then it follows that I do not know what I am talking about.

Who’s is the judge of that?

According to your private definition of knowledge, it would seem that one could know what one was talking about simply by believing what one was talking about, even if what one was talking about was false. This perhaps applies in your own case in this thread, but it clearly leads to nonsensical situations.

Rader, I strongly recommend that you study some elementary epistemology, to give yourself a better grounding in these concepts, before we continue any further in this. Wikipedia is a good place to start :

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

Best Regards

I am getting a little perplexed, so maybe you should follow your own advice.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree. Numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. There are many other issues about which scholars disagree. What sorts of things can properly be called true or false? What tests can establish a claim as being true? How do we know something to be true? Which truths, if any, are subjective, relative, objective, or absolute? Does truth, as a concept, have a rigorous definition, or is it unavoidably imprecise?

 

[moving finger]

I do not disagree that knowledge entails truth. What it does not entail is that knowledge is absolute truth.

Please define the difference between “truth” and “absolute truth”.

(before you do, read the Wikipedia reference on “truth” that you pasted into your last post – then tell me that “absolute truth” is meaningful)

For two people to communicate to any significant degree, they must share a common language. To share a common language, it follows that they must also share common definitions of the words used in that language. Those shared common definitions are the “accepted definitions”. The whole reason why you and I are having trouble communicating is (with respect) because you seem to use some very strange (unconventional) definitions of words such as “fact”, “truth” and “knowledge”.

Who is the judge of these common shared definitions? The dictionary, yes I would not rewrite it, but add new meanings to it.

No, not the dictionary. The “dictionary” is simply a book which tries to reflect the meaning of words, the “dictionary” does not “judge” the meaning of words. Words derive their meaning from convention.

01- A fact is a true proposition that can be falsified only when we have new knowledge of old facts, which lead us to another true proposition.

Which to me is nonsensical. A true proposition cannot be falsified. If a proposition is false then it is false, it cannot be true. Again you are mixing epistemology with ontology.

02- Truth is what you think you know not what is absolutely true.

You are mixing epistemology with ontology.
Truth does not entail knowledge (but knowledge entails truth).
I do not understand what you mean by “absolute truth” – can you explain?

03- Knowledge is true facts about what you believe you know.

Knowledge is justified true belief, which is relatively close to your above (but not quite the same).

What is a “true fact” as opposed to a “false fact”?

So what is true and false to you, if it is neither absolute nor relative?

All “truths” are either assumed (premises), or are inferred (by deductive or inductive argument). You have used the phrase “absolute truth”, but I do not know what you mean by this phrase.

Who’s is the judge of that?

Convention. As I have said several times already, meaing is convention, pure and simple. There is no “law” which says a word must be defined in a certain way, you are free to invent your own private language. But to have a meaningful conversation with someone requires shared meanings.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree. Numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. There are many other issues about which scholars disagree. What sorts of things can properly be called true or false? What tests can establish a claim as being true? How do we know something to be true? Which truths, if any, are subjective, relative, objective, or absolute? Does truth, as a concept, have a rigorous definition, or is it unavoidably imprecise?

Doesn’t this agree with what I have said above?

All “truths” are either assumed (premises), or are inferred (by deductive or inductive argument).

You are the one who keeps referring to “absolute truth”, but what do you mean by this?

Best Regards

 

[Rader]

Please define the difference between “truth” and “absolute truth”.

(before you do, read the Wikipedia reference on “truth” that you pasted into your last post – then tell me that “absolute truth” is meaningful)

Some forms of accord is convention? OK math is the most conventional. Well let’s do it this way, first. “Absolute truth” is a complete set A of all knowledge. What is known “truth” is a subset B of this complete set of all knowledge. Within the subset of B “known truths” are contained the sets of “subjective, relative, objective truths”. What is not in these sets is belief sets, when we test beliefs sets, they can enter the knowledge sets.

For two people to communicate to any significant degree, they must share a common language. To share a common language, it follows that they must also share common definitions of the words used in that language. Those shared common definitions are the “accepted definitions”. The whole reason why you and I are having trouble communicating is (with respect) because you seem to use some very strange (unconventional) definitions of words such as “fact”, “truth” and “knowledge”.

I do not disagree with you but understand that, while we share a common language English, conventional definitions change over time. My intention is to be dialectic. Look at the conventional definition of gravity for example over the centuries. Do you see what has happened to their conventional definitions they have now become unconventional. Do you now see what happens to the words belief and knowing? Its now nosnsensical the meanings of belief and knowing, do you not think?

No, not the dictionary. The “dictionary” is simply a book which tries to reflect the meaning of words, the “dictionary” does not “judge” the meaning of words. Words derive their meaning from convention.

And who is the convention except a consensus group of “I think I believe I know”? Do I need to give you a better example maybe a word that we do not have one of your conventional meanings for yet? The word consciousness, what is it? To claim that conventional thinking knows anything more than non-conventional thinking is naïve at best. Where do you think the knowing of new knowledge comes from then?
Non-conventional thinking is derived from non-conventional meanings which eventually become as you say conventional.

Which to me is nonsensical. A true proposition cannot be falsified. If a proposition is false then it is false, it cannot be true. Again you are mixing epistemology with ontology.

Why epistemology lays within ontology any truths that lies with the other lies within itself. Why is it nonsensical?

You are mixing epistemology with ontology.
Truth does not entail knowledge (but knowledge entails truth).
I do not understand what you mean by “absolute truth” – can you explain?

Then how can facts be true propositions always if nothing is known about them? You keep saying that tell me why?

Knowledge is justified true belief, which is relatively close to your above (but not quite the same).

What is a “true fact” as opposed to a “false fact”?

Mary lives on 911th street is a true fact. No it’s not, Mary lives on 116th street you looked at the number upside down, it is a false fact.

All “truths” are either assumed (premises), or are inferred (by deductive or inductive argument). You have used the phrase “absolute truth”, but I do not know what you mean by this phrase.

You said before that facts were true propositions. If the truth is now assumed not known this would seem to me, to be more like faith. What is it that true and false is to you? Subjective relative objective absolute? “Absolute truth” is all that is known of which we only have a hint of what it is, by what we know.

Convention. As I have said several times already, meaing is convention, pure and simple. There is no “law” which says a word must be defined in a certain way, you are free to invent your own private language. But to have a meaningful conversation with someone requires shared meanings.

You use this conventional knowing as if it was some mysterious alchemist type of knowing. Do you not see that it is nothing more that what they think they know? We have enough in common meanings to know what each is talking about. It seems to me that what is believed can not be known at the same time to you. You think that I think different and I do not.

Doesn’t this agree with what I have said above?

No, it does not; it says that there is disagreement and debate on everything. What it says is what I have been saying all along, only sometimes do we agree on anything and its only because we say we do and we have no way of knowing if we do.

You are the one who keeps referring to “absolute truth”, but what do you mean by this?
Best Regards

Quite frankly, I can only describe this to you from the meanings of words. I have never experienced it nor probably anyone else for that matter. It is an idea that I can have in my head and its assumption lays in the fact, that I know something. I can build a hypothesis and eventually a theory that I do not know how to test in any other way than to eventually know everything. This theory seems to be not falsifiable for the very fact that we seem to know more not less as time goes by.

 

[moving finger]

Hi Rader

As entertaining as this discussion is, we seem to be going round in circles. I cannot afford the time to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

I’ll just summarise below what I think are the important issues here :

“Absolute truth” is a complete set A of all knowledge. What is known “truth” is a subset B of this complete set of all knowledge.

Again you are mixing ontology with epistemology.
Truth does NOT entail knowledge. Something can be true without anybody knowing that it is true. To claim that “absolute truth is a complete set of all knowledge” is absurd.

Its now nosnsensical the meanings of belief and knowing, do you not think?

The conventional definition of knowledge in philosophical circles is knowledge = justified true belief. Neither truth nor belief entails knowledge, but knowledge certainly entails both truth and belief. There is nothing nonsensical in such definitions. As I have said many times already you are free to have your own private and different definitions of these words, but don’t expect others to understand what you are talking about if you do.

To claim that conventional thinking knows anything more than non-conventional thinking is naïve at best.

I am not claiming that conventional thinking “knows the definitions of words” better than non-conventional thinking. You miss the point. I am claiming that words derive their meaning simply by convention. Read Wittgenstein for more on this.

Where do you think the knowing of new knowledge comes from then?

What does this have to do with the meaning of the word knowledge?

A true proposition cannot be falsified. If a proposition is false then it is false, it cannot be true. Again you are mixing epistemology with ontology.

Why is it nonsensical?

A true proposition is true by definition of the word “true”. It cannot be false.
To say that a true proposition can be false is like saying “all bachelors are unmarried, but some bachelors are married”.

Then how can facts be true propositions always if nothing is known about them?

Because truth does not entail knowledge.

You keep saying that tell me why?

The following proposition is true : For any right-angled triangle in Euclidean space, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

This proposition reflects an eternal truth of Euclidean geometry, it was true before Pythagoras or anyone else knew it was true, and it will be true after homo sapiens has died out and there is no intelligence left in the universe to know it is true. Such a truth does not rest on any agent knowing it is true in order for it to be true. The proposition is timelessly true, independent of our knowledge of it.

What is a “true fact” as opposed to a “false fact”?

Mary lives on 911th street is a true fact. No it’s not, Mary lives on 116th street you looked at the number upside down, it is a false fact.

Here you are clearly contradicting yourself.
You have already agreed that a fact is defined as “state of affairs in reality that corresponds to a true proposition in a human language”. The proposition “Mary lives on 911th street” is NOT a true proposition (because Mary actually lives on 116th street). Therefore, by your own definition of “fact”, the proposition “Mary lives on 911th street” (being false) is not a fact.

All “truths” are either assumed (premises), or are inferred (by deductive or inductive argument). You have used the phrase “absolute truth”, but I do not know what you mean by this phrase.

You said before that facts were true propositions. If the truth is now assumed not known this would seem to me, to be more like faith.

Every argument in logic is based on premises. Premises are propositions which are assumed to be true, but cannot be proven to be true. If you like they could be considered as articles of faith, yes.

What is it that true and false is to you? Subjective relative objective absolute? “Absolute truth” is all that is known of which we only have a hint of what it is, by what we know.

See above. This confuses epistemology with ontology. Truth does not entail knowledge.

We have enough in common meanings to know what each is talking about.

Not in cases such as this, where you seem to have concepts such as “absolute truth” and “false facts”, and the notion that “truth entails knowledge”, which are concepts and notions nonsensical to me.

Rader – it seems that you and I define certain key words very differently. Therefore, with all due respect, to continue this discussion seems pointless. We’re not talking the same language. So please forgive me in advance if I say adieu at this point.

Best Regards

 

[Rader]

Hi Rader

As entertaining as this discussion is, we seem to be going round in circles. I cannot afford the time to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

I’ll just summarise below what I think are the important issues here :

Hola MF
Well yes very much entertaining, I will agree with you on that. I do not expect you to go in circles; I would have hoped that you might understand the meanings to my words.

Again you are mixing ontology with epistemology.
Truth does NOT entail knowledge. Something can be true without anybody knowing that it is true. To claim that “absolute truth is a complete set of all knowledge” is absurd.

I think I know why this is your meaning, you believe that what you think you know is an emergent property (ie conscious experience).

Think:
If a circle is absolute truth.
It is the complete set of truth.
Its circumference has then no diameter.

Subsets are the diameter of the complete set.
What we know are subsets in the circle.
Knowledge increases the diameter of the circle.

You can imagine in your mind the circle as infinite or finite depending on how you conceptualize the subsets filling the circle. You can build your circle in your head or do it in a laboratory.

Imagine a circle of no definite size, one that you can see in your head and imagine it so small that you can not and so large that you can not either. I am sure you can do this because I can. Imagine the circle containing absolute truth, the circle is the truth and the truth is the circle. We come to know how big it is by what we know. Now since we know that we know something we now know the circle has a size. We also know that knowing is a becoming of the circle larger but we also know something more. We know that in order to make the circle larger the parts of knowing would increase its diameter. Wait a minute we also know that what we know now once was not known the way we know it now, we called them beliefs because we thought they were knowledge. So is the diameter of the circle really any size at all, for it seems that what we thought we knew was nothing more than what we believe we thought we knew in the first place.

The conventional definition of knowledge in philosophical circles is knowledge = justified true belief. Neither truth nor belief entails knowledge, but knowledge certainly entails both truth and belief. There is nothing nonsensical in such definitions. As I have said many times already you are free to have your own private and different definitions of these words, but don’t expect others to understand what you are talking about if you do.

I understand the conventional meanings. I just do not agree with them. I would have hoped you understood why. I can not discuss what I think I know by using meanings that do not explain what I think I know.

I am not claiming that conventional thinking “knows the definitions of words” better than non-conventional thinking. You miss the point. I am claiming that words derive their meaning simply by convention. Read Wittgenstein for more on this.

Yes words derive there meaning simple by convention and since mine are not conventional, my interpretation does not reflect what you think you know. As I said before meanings of words do not reflect correctly what we are trying to explain, only in the context of all the words used and there relationship to each other expressed in a model, clearly interprets that.

What does this have to do with the meaning of the word knowledge?

I told you before that the knowing of old facts in a new way is knowledge.

A true proposition is true by definition of the word “true”. It cannot be false.
To say that a true proposition can be false is like saying “all bachelors are unmarried, but some bachelors are married”.

Your right we are just playing ping pong now. Do you not see my point we do not live in a fixed time zone. What we think we know changes over time. Of course some bachelors are married when they get married.

Because truth does not entail knowledge.

You realize that neither of us can prove if truth entails knowledge or not. I will come down to the fact, if what we think we know (ie conscious experience) is emergent or not.

The following proposition is true : For any right-angled triangle in Euclidean space, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

This proposition reflects an eternal truth of Euclidean geometry, it was true before Pythagoras or anyone else knew it was true, and it will be true after homo sapiens has died out and there is no intelligence left in the universe to know it is true. Such a truth does not rest on any agent knowing it is true in order for it to be true. The proposition is timelessly true, independent of our knowledge of it.

Your proposition is true, now place it on a sphere and you will understand my example of the Earth being flat.
You know, I am beginning to think that what I think I know is not so different that what you think you know, it all in the meanings. How can you say that about Euclidean geometry if it’s not out there in that absolute circle? You think math reflects eternal truths, I am believer also but do you not see that it is not the only reality, mind matter and mathematics all overlap each other when we interpret what we think we know. How else could we know that on quote “any right-angled triangle in Euclidean space, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides” is erroneous on the surface of a sphere. Yes Euclidean space is not a surface of a sphere but you must get my point.

Here you are clearly contradicting yourself.
You have already agreed that a fact is defined as “state of affairs in reality that corresponds to a true proposition in a human language”. The proposition “Mary lives on 911th street” is NOT a true proposition (because Mary actually lives on 116th street). Therefore, by your own definition of “fact”, the proposition “Mary lives on 911th street” (being false) is not a fact.

Please just tell me that you understand my view not that you agree before you buzz off.

Every argument in logic is based on premises. Premises are propositions which are assumed to be true, but cannot be proven to be true. If you like they could be considered as articles of faith, yes.

I would have hoped we could have made more progress than this.

See above. This confuses epistemology with ontology. Truth does not entail knowledge.

Well I guess that is our main difference, mind is not primordial to you

Not in cases such as this, where you seem to have concepts such as “absolute truth” and “false facts”, and the notion that “truth entails knowledge”, which are concepts and notions nonsensical to me.

Rader – it seems that you and I define certain key words very differently. Therefore, with all due respect, to continue this discussion seems pointless. We’re not talking the same language. So please forgive me in advance if I say adieu at this point.

Best Regards

Are my meanings really so alien to bringing us closer to the truth?

Well this has been a pleasure discussing all this with you.
Adios Rader