Thread: Discussion on Truth

Do you mean ''something that is both true and false at the same time'' or (what you wrote) ''something that is not both true and false at the same time? Because your question isn't possible.

True and false, according to whom or what? I see truth as relative, unless we are speaking mathematically, where things can be proven absolutely true and false. Not true, and not false would mean sometimes true, or sometimes false.

For example, if we consider all prime numbers over the integers, then I hypothesize "A prime number is divisible by two". That statement is not true, but that statement is not false. When we consider the prime number two, it is divisible by two. When we consider the prime number three, it is not divisible by two. It is neither true, nor false, only sometimes true.

I am.

Maybe this was an invitation to make us spin our heads in circles and end up with nothing.

Let's take a religion. Christianity, for example. It's not true to atheists, and not false to the believers. Whew, I'm done.

Everything I tell you is a lie. In fact I’m lying to you right now.

Originally posted by Distant Clone
I see truth as relative, unless we are speaking mathematically, where things can be proven absolutely true and false.

Depends on whether you're talking about the truth itself or people's perception of the truth.

The below sentence is false.
The above sentence is true.

Everything that is a part of this sentence is true.

"Everything... is true" is part of above sentence.

"Everything... is true" is false.

ok first take a look at what distant clone wrote about numbers.

Numbers are in fact exactly the same thing. There is not one number that is not identical to another number. Why? Because you can divide ALL numbers INFINITE times. That makes them the same number in a different form or degree.

1+1=2 is true.

BUT

1+1=2 is actually false aswel

because 1+1 can only equal 1. Since there can only be 1 number in existence. Divided infinite times.

Hence all mathematical equations are false and true at the same time.


next Peregrinus ses "I am"

This is true.

But it's also false aswel. You are not only "I am" You are also. "becoming"
there is not one moment where you do not change. You are never not changing. Scientifically....there is no such thing as non motion. All is in motion.

Hence you are not static. And therefore you are not really "being" anymore than you are "becoming"

So the statement "being"(eg "I am") It is true and it is also false at the same time.

Roller ses
"Depends on whether you're talking about the truth itself or people's perception of the truth."

what is the difference?

Everyone else has pretty much proved my point too.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
next Peregrinus ses "I am"

This is true.

But it's also false aswel. You are not only "I am" You are also. "becoming"
there is not one moment where you do not change. You are never not changing. Scientifically....there is no such thing as non motion. All is in motion.

"I am" declares only existence. It makes no claim of either motion or being static, and a statement declaring existence is in no way negated by anything else which might describe the nature of that existence. Descriptions modify and add to our understanding of the fundamental state, they do not negate it, as evidenced by the fact that you had to say "are also becoming". It is something additional and descriptive, not something exclusive.

And there is a smallest unit of time, btw. It's called the "Planck time". One cannot measure change in units smaller than the Planck time, and therefore, for the duration of the Planck time (~ 5.4x10^-44 seconds), a system can be considered static.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
Everyone else has pretty much proved my point too.

Not really... All you've shown is that different contexts produce different truths, i.e, truths are relative.

However, within the same context, the law of non-contradition states that it is not possible for something to be both true and false at the same time.

Example: My eyes require corrective lenses to see distant objects, and my eyes do not require corrective lenses to see distant objects cannot both be true at the same time.

But a statement such as My eyes require corrective lenses, and my eyes do not require corrective lenses can both be true because they are both a bit contextually ambiguous. If different contexts are considered, then it could be the case that I require corrective lenses to see distant objects but not to see close objects. However, both cannot be true at the same time in the same context.

If you wish to categorically deny the law of non-contradition, then you are free to do so, but I would ask why do you eat food when you get hungry, when, as you see it, not eating food would equally accomplish satisfying your hunger and replenishing energy? (and save some money too)

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div>

Example: My eyes require corrective lenses to see distant objects, and my eyes do not require corrective lenses to see distant objects cannot both be true at the same time.[/b]

Logically, everything is true or false. What about illogically? For every preposition, things are either true or false. We can gather all the true into one group, and gather all the false into the other. That's when the line is drawn correctly. However, what if we don't draw the line correctly. What if both groups have at least one true and one false? Then what?

<!--QuoteBegin-Ancient Of Days
Numbers are in fact exactly the same thing. There is not one number that is not identical to another number. Why? Because you can divide ALL numbers INFINITE times. That makes them the same number in a different form or degree.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by divide. Could you give an example? I don't think I agree either. If all numbers were the same, you would have a trivial group where the only operation that can be done is a¤a = a, where ¤ is composite.

Besides what if I want to say "true" is true and not false. Maybe I want to say 0 is true and not false. Divide any non-zero number by the biggest number you want as many times as you want, and it still will not equal zero. You can get it as close to zero as you want, but it's still not zero.

The reason why Ancient Of Days can find one thing that is true and one thing that is false in each proposition is because he is illogical.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I am.

DAMNIT. Haha. You beat me to it.

As soon as I read the opening post, my reply was going to be "We Exist."

I read further down and saw you were on the same page. Good answer.

I changed the name to discussion on truth it seems more relevant heading.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
"I am" declares only existence. It makes no claim of either motion or being static, and a statement declaring existence is in no way negated by anything else which might describe the nature of that existence. Descriptions modify and add to our understanding of the fundamental state, they do not negate it, as evidenced by the fact that you had to say "are also becoming". It is something additional and descriptive, not something exclusive.

And there is a smallest unit of time, btw. It's called the "Planck time". One cannot measure change in units smaller than the Planck time, and therefore, for the duration of the Planck time (~ 5.4x10^-44 seconds), a system can be considered static.

If you say "I am" declares existence. Then by that statement we must elaborate what existence is. In order to define wether it can be both true and false or not. Else the statement is useless to us.

I defined existence as "motion". Since motion is never static but always in movement. Motion can never "be" still. So it can never exist as anything. (we just label it motion to define it) So our only conclusion is that existence exists AS motion but motion isn't....Because it can't BE (still). Only move and change. So the statement has to be both true and false to say that existence is.

It may at first be obvious to say what is existence. But like you say, you cannot define it without concluding that it does not exist as much as it does. Or you are attributing labels to what you define as "existence"

(but existence is related to motion. Without motion there is no existence)

What you call "Planck time" has to be infinite. Just like in mathematics how infinite is a theoretical number that does not exist. So planck time is something describing that which you label the infinitely smallest measurement of time. But it does not actually exist since it is infinite. Since planck time has to be infinite. It can never be reached. Since it can never be reached. It can never be static.

LMAO. Peregrinus. I could challenge that one.

But in all reality anything could apply. All it takes is belief. Even if it is commonly a fact, if a person believes it otherwise then it is in one sense not true. Theoretically. No?

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape

The law of non-contradition states that it is not possible for something to be both true and false at the same time.

Nothing can ever exist as a contradiction. By the definition of "contradiction" such a thing is impossible. When you say the law of contradiction. You are refering to the law which states nothing can contradict itself.

The question is, is it a contradiction to say that something can exist as both "true and false"?It may at first apear to be a contradiction. But a closer inspection reveals that by nature for anything to exist. An opposite must exist for it. Otherwise it does not exist. This means that every opposite (or seeminly existent contradiction). Is in fact not a contradiction, but part of the same thing.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape
Example: My eyes require corrective lenses to see distant objects, and my eyes do not require corrective lenses to see distant objects cannot both be true at the same time.

To make the conclusion both things cannot be true and false about a thing at the same time. You must first define what that thing is. In this example you label it as "eyes" needing "corrective lenses". But what is "eyes"? What is "corrective lenses"

You are labeling things according to your perception. And as we both know. You cannot label a thing without making a choice. And a choice is a statement about what is true. And truth can be relative.

If truth is relative. By the definition of relative. Something can be true and false at the same time. So must ultimately exist as both. Since all that is needed is choice to make it true.

In addition my statement is also half false. If I say that "something can exist as both true and false" Then relative perception makes this statement just as false as any other statement. Hence all statements are true and false at the same time. Including this statement.

Originally posted by distant clone+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(distant clone)</div>

Logically, everything is true or false. What about illogically? For every preposition, things are either true or false. We can gather all the true into one group, and gather all the false into the other. That's when the line is drawn correctly. However, what if we don't draw the line correctly. What if both groups have at least one true and one false? Then what?[/b]

You cannot seperate anything. Everything must be correlated to exist according to the law of cause and effect. If you try and divide the line between true and false. You will start to realize that both are the same thing existing in different degrees of perceptions.


<!--QuoteBegin-distant clone

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by divide. Could you give an example? I don't think I agree either. If all numbers were the same, you would have a trivial group where the only operation that can be done is a¤a = a, where ¤ is composite.

Besides what if I want to say "true" is true and not false. Maybe I want to say 0 is true and not false. Divide any non-zero number by the biggest number you want as many times as you want, and it still will not equal zero. You can get it as close to zero as you want, but it's still not zero.

The reason why Ancient Of Days can find one thing that is true and one thing that is false in each proposition is because he is

By divide I mean that if you have a whole. You can divide it in half. But you will still have the same whole. Only now you have 2 "wholes" which you call "halfs". But they are part of the same thing. No matter how many times you cut it up or change it around. You cannot add or take away from it.

That you can never get to zero demonstrates the existence of the infinite. But at the same time. It demonstrates finite. because both is the same thing in different degrees.

Language is deceptive and divides these things up. But they cannot be divided. You are always half wrong about anything.

Is this an ontological argument?

I don't have a problem saying all things relative can be seen as true or false, depending on the observer. However, mathematics is absolute, not relative. They are clearly defined, not subject to one's perceptions. Numbers are not lumps of clay, you don't hold them in your hand. Are you familiar with the concept of a gestalt? Maybe you should look into countability too, which defines a finite type of infinity (countable) and and infinite type of infinity (uncountable).

The Law of Cause and Effect applies to events. A number is not an event, even though I might say "I'm going to #2 later today". I can separate things, it's what makes things useful. If everything is the same, it means nothing. But when I have prime numbers, instead of composite and prime numbers, there are interesting things I can do. Sets can have subsets...Sets can have supersets. Yes some things can be put back together, but that doesn't mean just because they can that they will.

You did just spawn an interesting idea that zero does not exist, except for in mathematics. Of course, someone could have zero money, couldn't they? They don't keep dividing their last dollar in half and maintain that it is a "whole" dollar. Besides, why don't you cut a dollar in half, put it back together and argue to a bank teller it's just as good.

A broken clock is still right twice a dayw h y c a n\' t y o u e v e n g e th al fw a yt h e r e?

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
If you say "I am" declares existence. Then by that statement we must elaborate what existence is.

ex·is·tence Pronunciation Key (g-zstns)
n.

1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
1. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
2. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.

Motion is not a requirement of existence. It is merely an attribute of many states of existence. And besides, if you really believe that existence requires motion, then the very statement "I am" should to you be synonymous with motion and therefore true. I declared my existence. What form that existence takes is irrelevant. If you want to prove my statement false, prove that I do not exist, that I am not real, that I did not type this.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
What you call "Planck time" has to be infinite.

5.4x10^-44 seconds is hardly infinite. To all man-made measuring devices, it is essentially zero. It is approximately the time it takes a photon of light to traverse a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is the same as its Compton wavelength. It is a very, very, very, very..... very small unit of time. The smallest, in fact.

Originally posted by Howetzer
But in all reality anything could apply. All it takes is belief. Even if it is commonly a fact, if a person believes it otherwise then it is in one sense not true. Theoretically. No?

So if I believe that the world is flat, that belief alone makes it so?

Originally posted by Distant Clone

I don't have a problem saying all things relative can be seen as true or false, depending on the observer. However, mathematics is absolute, not relative. They are clearly defined, not subject to one's perceptions. Numbers are not lumps of clay, you don't hold them in your hand. Are you familiar with the concept of a gestalt? Maybe you should look into countability too, which defines a finite type of infinity (countable) and and infinite type of infinity (uncountable).

You are correct. Numbers are absolute. They are also relative. Which number is a true number? And which is a false number? Is any number false? What is "a number".

It is false if you think it is false. 1+1=3 could be said to be false. However 1 and 3 are true numbers. (if you think they are) Since all numbers are part of the same number. (they have to be correlated) 1 and 3 is part of the same number. 1+1=3 is the same as saying 1+1=1. or 1+1=2.

Depending on how you look at it. Numbers are as relative as they are absolute.

Originally posted by distant clone

The Law of Cause and Effect applies to events. A number is not an event, even though I might say "I'm going to #2 later today". I can separate things, it's what makes things useful. If everything is the same, it means nothing.

A number is an event if the number is said to exist. Since we can say numbers are absolute, they exist. So they do apply to cause and effect. Mathematics follows the rules. And cause and effect basically defines those rules. You can seperate things. But can you refute that you never truly seperate anything at the same time? Yes but also No. Because both is the same thing.

Zero must exist. Because one exists. You cannot have something without it's opposite existing. However. If we say zero does not exist. Which is also true. We must say that 1 does not exist. Both these conclusions are true. But at the same time. They must also exist as false. Because something cannot be without it's opposite. And everything is correlated and exists because of it. Cause and effect.

Truth=False
False=Truth

Anything that is demonstrated as false. Is equally demonstrated as true. Thats because they are the same thing.

Originally posted by distant clone
w h y c a n' t y o u e v e n g e t h al f w a y t h e r e?

what are you saying here exactly. A hidden message. lol ???

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Motion is not a requirement of existence. It is merely an attribute of many states of existence. And besides, if you really believe that existence requires motion, then the very statement "I am" should to you be synonymous with motion and therefore true. I declared my existence. What form that existence takes is irrelevant. If you want to prove my statement false, prove that I do not exist, that I am not real, that I did not type this.

Peregrinus, How true you are my friend.

Now I would also add to this truth you have stated. That motion is a attribute of existence. Existence is true. I am in no way disputing that. However I am disputing that it is not also false. But I am not disputing those previous statements are not half wrong. As anything I say will be half wrong.

You say that you exist. And indeed you do. But what is existence? It is the same thing as non-existence. Because something cannot exist without it's opposite. And it's opposite is always the same thing. This is beacuse a contradiction cannot exist. (in the context that I am speaking now)

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

5.4x10^-44 seconds is hardly infinite. To all man-made measuring devices, it is essentially zero. It is approximately the time it takes a photon of light to traverse a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is the same as its Compton wavelength. It is a very, very, very, very..... very small unit of time. The smallest, in fact.[/b]

What is not the smallest? Soon as you say something is the smallest. There is to be recognized somethng else that is also the smallest. It is relative. You could also say it's the largest. What is the difference. It's just a matter of degree. There is always a larger number. Infinite is a label to describe a number that does and does not exist.

<!--QuoteBegin-peregrinus

So if I believe that the world is flat, that belief alone makes it so?

Yes it does. Go back to the time when they said it was flat. You were crazy to suggest it was round. Now the opposite is true. Today you are crazy if you say it's flat.

Guess what....both are true.

Alice and wonderland anyone?

we are all crazy here

I am going to truly hope here that your response was simply a joke, albeit one in poor taste. But in the depressing possibility that it wasn’t, I’ll respond anyway. However, if you continue in this nonsensical vein with future responses, I’m not even going to justify them with an answer. I have little patience for inanity.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ancient Of Days)</div>

But what is existence? It is the same thing as non-existence. Because something cannot exist without it's opposite. And it's opposite is always the same thing.[/b]

No. The opposite of something is not the same as the thing itself. It is in fact the antithesis of the thing itself. Since you seem to lack a dictionary, here is the definition of opposite.

op•po•site
adj.
1. Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
2. Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
3. Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.
4.
a. Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
b. Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.

The concept of existence cannot exist without the concept of nonexistence, but the two are in fact opposing states, as indicated by the prefix “non”. Give me a break, guy, even a child of five knows that existence and nonexistence are not the same thing, and are in fact opposites. A unicorn existing in the corner of my room is quite different from a unicorn not existing in the corner of my room. In one instance, there is a unicorn in my room; in the other, there is not. Clearly, there is a difference.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days@
What is not the smallest? Soon as you say something is the smallest. There is to be recognized somethng else that is also the smallest. It is relative. You could also say it's the largest. What is the difference. It's just a matter of degree.

Please, please tell me that you’re only acting this daft as a joke. If you’re not, I won’t know whether to laugh or cry. The Planck time is in no possible way the largest unit of time, nor is its duration in any way relative. It is well-defined at the value which I have provided. Twice. An hour is a larger unit of time than the Planck time, and since a unit exists which is larger than the Planck time, the Planck time cannot in any way be the “largest unit of time”. It’s not relative. And in case you want to bring the General Theory of Relativity into this, I am speaking of these time durations in the rest frame of any events which we might be measuring.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ancient Of Days
Yes it does. Go back to the time when they said it was flat. You were crazy to suggest it was round. Now the opposite is true. Today you are crazy if you say it's flat.

The fact that most laymans in ancient times thought that the world was flat did not make it flat. Observant and discerning people even back then knew that the world could not be a disk, since the masts of ships rose gradually above the horizon rather than simply appearing there as if out of the haze of distance. The world did not simply plump up into a distended sphere when people started believing that it was round. People realized it was round because since its formation, it has had that geometry, and as technology improved, human beings were able to collect the evidence that demonstrated it to be so.

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
n this example you label it as "eyes" needing "corrective lenses". But what is "eyes"? What is "corrective lenses"

You are labeling things according to your perception.

No, I am labeling things according to conventional language, without which, I might point out, this completely pointless conversation would not even be possible.

Good work....

I can see I have been proven wrong as expected particualy by Peregrinus. However he has equally proved himself wrong. A contradiction such as an opposite must be the same thing in different degrees else an impossibility (contradiction) can exist in reality.

A simple example is hot and cold. They are said to be opposites. But all hot and cold is, is different degrees of the same thing. Known as temperature.

Impossibility and possibility are also the same thing, as all duality must be in order to exist. Same thing in different degrees. So both can and do exist in reality at the same time. And they also don't.