A Distinction between Fact and Truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Whoever
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:25 am
@ACB,
How do we know that we actualize the structure of the world but do not create it from scratch?
 
memester
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:35 am
@ACB,
Does this mean we can sometimes successfully choose between marmalade or strawberry on toast, and actualize the application of chosen spread, sometimes, but we don't choose and actualize every condition that creates the choices or even our own ability to choose ?
 
ACB
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:52 am
@memester,
memester wrote:
Does this mean we can sometimes successfully choose between marmalade or strawberry on toast, and actualize the application of chosen spread, sometimes, but we don't choose and actualize every condition that creates the choices or even our own ability to choose ?


Yes, we can only conceptualize/actualize the raw material we are given. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for the fact that we all seem to experience the same world. If I see a tree and point to it, why do you see it also? Coincidence? Also, why would we experience our own suffering if we were not forced by external reality to do so?
 
memester
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:01 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Yes, we can only conceptualize/actualize the raw material we are given. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for the fact that we all seem to experience the same world.
We can choose and actualize more and more of raw materials through planting berry plant or orange tree, as an example.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 06:17 pm
@memester,
You are all assuming that there is such a thing as free will. If there is not, we cannot 'choose to suffer,' regardless of whether or not we 'create the world from scratch.' I would say that we do 'create the world from scratch', but in the manner in which we do; i.e. there is no possibility, probability, choice or free will in the event.

ACB,
Quote:
Would you agree with the following?

There are three possible states of the world:
1. Actual order, i.e. order created by man.
2. Potential order, i.e. a nature capable of being ordered by man.
3. Disorder, i.e. a nature incapable of being ordered by man.


Not exactly. I never consider potentialities because the concept of potentiality is meaningless; i.e. it is a means by which we think and communicate, not a fact of nature. Nothing 'can be'; things are.

That aside, I would divide the world into your #1 and #3. However, here is a problem. Kaos, as I used it, is not the lack of order. When we talk about the lack of order, we are talking about something whose order we do not understand, something exceedingly complex (e.g. the chinese butterfly's wing example from chaos theory). When I say disorder, I don't mean to imply this, a lack of clear order. I mean something quite different, something which is not of the same kind as order, not its opposite. In other words, the world without human interpretation. That world should not be viewed as disorder in the usual sense, because disorder only has meaning in relation to order: i.e. 'disorder' only has meaning in the anthropocentric world. When I said Kaos I was speaking exactly about that which cannnot be thought of, imagined, or known and nothing more. This sounds too vague perhaps, but it is the act of thinking about, imagining or knowing which gives order in my view. In the absence of that, we cannot call it disorder in the usual sense, because we can imagine disorder. Disorder is really just a mental inversion, partial or complete, of our concept of order. Kaos is all that lies outside all of our mental activities (we assume).
 
ACB
 
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 07:20 pm
@BrightNoon,
Thank you for clarifying your position. Your 'Kaos' seems similar to Kant's 'noumena'.

Now, I would like to know the following:

1. Why is the world the way it is, and not otherwise? Is it the only logically possible world?

2. Even if we have no free will, and must create the world in a particular way, it still does not quite explain why we all create it in the same way, i.e. why we all appear to be living in the same world. If you reject solipsism, you must believe that people are distinct real entities. What, then, explains the similarity of our experiences, if it is not some property of the external world?

3. If we all experience a particular tree at a particular time and place, it suggests to me that there is some property of external reality corresponding to the concept 'tree'. (I am not saying that such a property is itself necessarily tree-like, any more than the word 'tree' is tree-like. You could think of it more as a type of code.)
 
AaronAgassi phil
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 01:40 am
@Aphoric,
There is, indeed, absolute truth. Truth is precise and singular. The only question ever is if we know the truth. Truth, even howsoever constructed, is correspondence to reality. Ideas are true when they correspond to reality. Science is Empirical, not closed. But precisely what reality to questions of taste and esthetics pertain, much less correspond? Values, after all, are not Ontology. http://www.FoolQuest.com/atheism.htm#value
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 02:15 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your position. Your 'Kaos' seems similar to Kant's 'noumena'.

Now, I would like to know the following:

1. Why is the world the way it is, and not otherwise? Is it the only logically possible world?

2. Even if we have no free will, and must create the world in a particular way, it still does not quite explain why we all create it in the same way, i.e. why we all appear to be living in the same world. If you reject solipsism, you must believe that people are distinct real entities. What, then, explains the similarity of our experiences, if it is not some property of the external world?

3. If we all experience a particular tree at a particular time and place, it suggests to me that there is some property of external reality corresponding to the concept 'tree'. (I am not saying that such a property is itself necessarily tree-like, any more than the word 'tree' is tree-like. You could think of it more as a type of code.)


Alright, here we go. I'm just going to address your #1 for now. I'll get to the other two tommorow probably...getting late.

1. I don't want to imply a Panglossian "best of all possible world's" kind of idea when I say that the world must unfold as it does and not otherwise. First let me define the words I'm using. As with chaos v. Kaos, the meaning I'm meaning (haha) is very subtle I think.

The World: All, everything that exists, the experienced or human world in addition to the external world (assuming that the external world exists).

Here is my basic proposal: The world unfolds as it does and not otherwise; or, the world exists as it does and not otherwise; or, the world progresses in the path in does and not in another; or, the world consists of certain things and not others.

Let's consider each part (human reality and kaos) seperately.

Human reality is what we know it as, Yes? This sounds reasonable. It consists of what we experience and nothing more. It has a certain nature, certain characteristics and not others.

Kaos we know nothing about; that is the defining characteristic of Kaos. However, by assuming that it exists, we are assuming that it is something. Knowing only that it exists (assuming this of course), doesn't it follow that it must exist as it does, and not as it does not? (whatever that might be)

That sounds like tautology and I suppose it is, but there is no other way to deal with something that you know nothing about other than that it exists. Consider a more basic analogy. A toaster. The toaster exists as a toaster. A toaster is not an un-toaster. A toaster that is used to make 4 slices of toast every day is not also or possibly used to make 8 slices of toast. In short, 'it is what it is.'

In summary: the world is as it is, because otherwise, it would not be the world.

Imagine a cave man looking at some incomphrehensibly complex alien technology. He has no idea, not the faintest clue, what he is looking at. But he raises his finger, points at the thing and says 'Tuma-Bumo.' Whatever Tuma-Bumo is, it is what he is referring to, not something else.
 
ACB
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 09:23 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
In summary: the world is as it is, because otherwise, it would not be the world.


Yes, this is true by definition. But similarly, if you ask "Why does Saturn have rings?", I could reply "Because if it did not, it would not be Saturn, but something else. Having rings (at present) is part of the definition of Saturn". But that would not really explain why it has rings. It would be an 'analytic' answer, when a 'synthetic' one was needed. Or is that an unfair analogy?

Certainly, the world must be what it is. But couldn't there have been a different world instead? Maybe not; I don't know.
 
ACWaller
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 10:40 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Certainly, the world must be what it is. But couldn't there have been a different world instead? Maybe not; I don't know.

Is there such a thing as 'could'? One venerated old philosopher from Dagobah once said: 'is or is not, there is no 'could'. Or is that 'Do or do not, there is no try?'.Whatever.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 02:53 pm
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
Yes, this is true by definition. But similarly, if you ask "Why does Saturn have rings?", I could reply "Because if it did not, it would not be Saturn, but something else. Having rings (at present) is part of the definition of Saturn". But that would not really explain why it has rings. It would be an 'analytic' answer, when a 'synthetic' one was needed. Or is that an unfair analogy?

Certainly, the world must be what it is. But couldn't there have been a different world instead? Maybe not; I don't know.


That is a fair analogy and I think if we examine it, you'll see it demonstrates my point, or some point that dosen't contradict my own anyway. How could you ever answer the question, "why does saturn have rings?" It seems to me that, unless you want to invent a God or some such thing which 'desired' or 'intended' to create the rings of saturn, any answer to the question would just be a more specific definition.

For Example: Q: Why does saturn have rings? A: Because there are ring-shaped regions of particles, mostly dust and ice, orbiting around saturn.

Does that really explain 'why?' I would say it just defines 'ring' more specifically. If I knew anything about 'the world' specifically, I could produce a similiar sort of answer, but as I know nothing but that it exists, my defintion cannot become more specific.

Could there be another world? I respond to that question by asking, what does that mean? The subjunctive is a device we use to express a lack of knowledge. When I say, there could be two possible outcomes from this event (a race e.g.) that dosen't mean that both possibilities exist, but rathe that I do not know which course of action will be followed, though obviously it can only be one.

ACWaller has got it right. 'Could' is a word like 'should', it i useful for human communication, but does not express a fact of reality, so to speak, as does 'is' and 'is not'.
 
democritus
 
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 06:01 pm
@BrightNoon,
Aphoric says "A fact is a reality" [I agree] and he continues to say that "A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite." [opposite to reality is unreality or fiction and even Aphoric is probably not going defend that the truth is fiction.]

A good definition given by Whoever:
Whoever wrote:
I'd say a fact is what is the case and a truth is a fact which I know is a fact.
And AaronAgassi says: There is, indeed, absolute truth. Truth is precise and singular.

I may also add that, there are many opinions [claims, beliefs etc] but the truth [or fact for a given subject] is one and the job of the philosophers is finding out the truth.

Thanks,
democritus
 
Whoever
 
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:31 am
@Aphoric,
Quote:
ACWaller has got it right. 'Could' is a word like 'should', it i useful for human communication, but does not express a fact of reality, so to speak, as does 'is' and 'is not'.

Thanks for this useful thought.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 04:11 pm
@ACWaller,
ACWaller wrote:
Is there such a thing as 'could'? One venerated old philosopher from Dagobah once said: 'is or is not, there is no 'could'. Or is that 'Do or do not, there is no try?'.Whatever.



Why not? I not only could lift this magazine. I did, in fact, lift it. In one sense, "could" is the past tense of "can". What I can do now, I could do (and perhaps did do) a moment ago.

Another sense of "could" is a conditional. "I could have lifted this magazine, although I did not". Well, that could be a fact too. I am a big guy, and it is a little magazine. So, I could have lifted it, if I had chosen to. And that is true.
 
Whoever
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:33 am
@Aphoric,
I think you don't know whether you could have lifted it. You're assuming that you had a free choice but your choice may have been forced on you by deterministic forces, in which case you couldn't have lifted it even though you imagined you could. We cannot show there is such a thing as 'should' and 'could' unless we can show we have freewill, and we can't do this.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Why not? I not only could lift this magazine. I did, in fact, lift it. In one sense, "could" is the past tense of "can". What I can do now, I could do (and perhaps did do) a moment ago.

Another sense of "could" is a conditional. "I could have lifted this magazine, although I did not". Well, that could be a fact too. I am a big guy, and it is a little magazine. So, I could have lifted it, if I had chosen to. And that is true.


You prove the point with this example; it is lingual. I can show you 'something that is:' a tree e.g. Are you able to show me 'something that could?'
 
Joe
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:51 pm
@BrightNoon,
Indeed, I agree language and communication is the main culprit of "what is?".

To me truth(individual) creates the world we see and feel. Facts are produced as an easier understanding for social interaction and accomplishment. Neither will satisfy the needs of everyone as a whole. At least for now. Maybe trial and error over a couple thousand years will lead to something more substantial and universal. Until then we have Life, Love, and Death.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 08:04 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
You prove the point with this example; it is lingual. I can show you 'something that is:' a tree e.g. Are you able to show me 'something that could?'


Of course. I can show you a person who could lift a stone which weighs one pound. Me, for instance.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 11:44 am
@kennethamy,
Hello All!Smile

Facts you can be mistaken of, truth you cannot be mistaken of, truth is what your biology tells you is the condition, state, or situtation of object in relation to your body, the body can be mistaken about the condition, state, or situtation as a fact, but sensory impressions are true to the biology that interprets them, it cannot be otherwise--sensation, perception is always true to the biology that experiences it.
 
Kreist
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 06:49 am
@boagie,
if "truth" is simply something that is true, then a fact is true, is it not? i see facts simply as properties of reality. a rock, for instance, in reality is just a rock. but being hard, gray, round, and heavy are facts, or properties, of said rock. facts can also be used as axioms for further "true" statements: if the rock is heavy, then it will be difficult to lift; if the rock is round, then it can roll downhill; if the rock is hard, then i won't be able to bend it, etc.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 9.42 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 03:26:47