Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

nameless

Reply
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 11:55 pm

@Mutian,

Mutian;74165 wrote:

Can the truth be called truth without being proved?

Truth cannot be proven. Scientifically, nothing is ever 'proven', it is either disproven, refuted, or it remains, tentatively, as the best theory du jur (of the day).

Depending on your definition, truth is not 'falsifiable', hence 'truth'.

"In Silentum, Verum." ("In Silence, Truth!") - Book of Fudd (1:1)

kennethamy

Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 12:31 am

@Mutian,

Mutian;74677 wrote:

You said that, if the earth is not an orb, then its being an orb cannot be proved. But, it seems that the same logic cannot be applied to the situation of 1+1=2, do you think so? For we cannot say that 1+1must equal 2, otherwise we cannot prove 1+1=2. This sounds very absurd. What is your opinon?

No one can prove what is false. That is just a logical truth. So, if it is false that Earth is an orb, it cannot be proved that Earth is an orb.

Similarly, unless 1+1=2, we cannot prove that 1+1=2, since if 1+1 did not equal 2, then it would be false that 1+1=2, and therefore, we cannot prove 1+1=2.

So, although, it may sound absurd to you, it is true, nevertheless, that It must be that if we can prove 1+1=2, then 1+1=2. Otherwise, we could not prove it.

If course, we should not confuse that with saying that if 1+1=2, then we must be able prove it does equal 2. (Which you may be doing).

Mutian

Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 01:36 am

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74720 wrote:

No one can prove what is false. That is just a logical truth. So, if it is false that Earth is an orb, it cannot be proved that Earth is an orb.

Similarly, unless 1+1=2, we cannot prove that 1+1=2, since if 1+1 did not equal 2, then it would be false that 1+1=2, and therefore, we cannot prove 1+1=2.

So, although, it may sound absurd to you, it is true, nevertheless, that It must be that if we can prove 1+1=2, then 1+1=2. Otherwise, we could not prove it.

If course, we should not confuse that with saying that if 1+1=2, then we must be able prove it does equal 2. (Which you may be doing).

But, if it is so, there will be no creation. For what we create is something which is destined to be what it is, otherwise it will never be created if it is not what it is.

Let's talk about TV. How do we produce a TV. We must have the knowledge of each small hardware first, can we unite all hardwares into a whole to which what we call TV. For without the knowledge of each hardware we shall never make a TV. Then, acoording to your logic, even we do not know the knowledge of each electronic accessory, we can still make a TV, given that a TV exists independtly of our knowledge; and it must be what it is in order for us to make it. This is logically impossible, please allow me to say so.

Finally, there is a logical jump in your argument. There are not only people who try to prove why 1+1=2, but also people who tried to prove 1+1=? before they were capable of proving why 1+1=2. For without proving 1+1=?, no one can prove why 1+1=2, given that why 1+1=2 is a consequent study based on the study of 1+1=?.

kennethamy

Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:12 am

@Mutian,

Mutian;74728 wrote:

But, if it is so, there will be no creation. For what we create is something which is destined to be what it is, otherwise it will never be created if it is not what it is.

Let's talk about TV. How do we produce a TV. We must have the knowledge of each small hardware first, can we unite all hardwares into a whole to which what we call TV. For without the knowledge of each hardware we shall never make a TV. Then, acoording to your logic, even we do not know the knowledge of each electronic accessory, we can still make a TV, given that a TV exists independtly of our knowledge; and it must be what it is in order for us to make it. This is logically impossible, please allow me to say so.

Finally, there is a logical jump in your argument. There are not only people who try to prove why 1+1=2, but also people who tried to prove 1+1=? before they were capable of proving why 1+1=2. For without proving 1+1=?, no one can prove why 1+1=2, given that why 1+1=2 is a consequent study based on the study of 1+1=?.

People can

I do not understand your first paragraphy about the TV., nor your first paragraph about creation. But it seems to have nothing to do with what we were talking about. It seems clear to me that before we can prove that a proposition is true, the proposition has to be true, otherwise, there would be nothing to prove. No proposition becomes true by our proving it is true. But, of course, a proposition may come to be

Mutian

Reply
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:56 pm

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74750 wrote:

People cantryto prove what is false. They just cannot succeed. But no one can prove what is false, since we can prove only what is true.

I do not understand your first paragraphy about the TV., nor your first paragraph about creation. But it seems to have nothing to do with what we were talking about. It seems clear to me that before we can prove that a proposition is true, the proposition has to be true, otherwise, there would be nothing to prove. No proposition becomes true by our proving it is true. But, of course, a proposition may come to beknowntrue, by our proving it.

Ok, for the sake of clarity, let us back to the 1+1=2 question.

Your claim: 1+1 must equal 2, otherwise we cannot prove it.

My claim: there could be someone who "willed" the answer of 1+1 which was 2. But 2 was not the answer of 1+1 by nature.

Therefore, I think, the answer 2 is based on a sort of human will to truth, but not the truth in itself.

My final conclusion of this mathematic problem is, we cannot get an answer about whether 1+1=2 is true by nature or is true in itself, or it is only an artificial product of will. Then, if the answer is stemed from will, it will not be the case that 1+1=2 must be true before we can prove it; it is merely the outgrowth of our ambition of dominating truth, for what we call truth is only a way of interpreting what we will it to be.

---------- Post added 07-04-2009 at 09:01 PM ----------

kennethamy;74750 wrote:

People cantryto prove what is false. They just cannot succeed. But no one can prove what is false, since we can prove only what is true.

I do not understand your first paragraphy about the TV., nor your first paragraph about creation. But it seems to have nothing to do with what we were talking about. It seems clear to me that before we can prove that a proposition is true, the proposition has to be true, otherwise, there would be nothing to prove. No proposition becomes true by our proving it is true. But, of course, a proposition may come to beknowntrue, by our proving it.

I am not a clever student, so would you please explain again your proposition that "falsity cannot be proved" with ample demonstration and conciseness. I appreciate it.

kennethamy

Reply
Sun 5 Jul, 2009 08:26 am

@Mutian,

Mutian;74894 wrote:

Ok, for the sake of clarity, let us back to the 1+1=2 question.

Your claim: 1+1 must equal 2, otherwise we cannot prove it.

My claim: there could be someone who "willed" the answer of 1+1 which was 2. But 2 was not the answer of 1+1 by nature.

Therefore, I think, the answer 2 is based on a sort of human will to truth, but not the truth in itself.

My final conclusion of this mathematic problem is, we cannot get an answer about whether 1+1=2 is true by nature or is true in itself, or it is only an artificial product of will. Then, if the answer is stemed from will, it will not be the case that 1+1=2 must be true before we can prove it; it is merely the outgrowth of our ambition of dominating truth, for what we call truth is only a way of interpreting what we will it to be.

---------- Post added 07-04-2009 at 09:01 PM ----------

I am not a clever student, so would you please explain again your proposition that "falsity cannot be proved" with ample demonstration and conciseness. I appreciate it.

Someone, my parents, willed my first name. But that does not mean that it is not true that my first name is my first name, is it? Suppose my first name is "William". That was because my parents "willed" my name to be, "William". That does not matter, does it?

1. We can prove only true statements.

2. Therefore, we cannot prove false statements.

1. is true by virtue of the meaning of the word, "prove". "Prove" means, to establish as true.

2. follows from 1. What follows from a true statement is a true statement.

Mutian

Reply
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 07:45 am

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;75069 wrote:

Someone, my parents, willed my first name. But that does not mean that it is not true that my first name is my first name, is it? Suppose my first name is "William". That was because my parents "willed" my name to be, "William". That does not matter, does it?

1. We can prove only true statements.

2. Therefore, we cannot prove false statements.

1. is true by virtue of the meaning of the word, "prove". "Prove" means, to establish as true.

2. follows from 1. What follows from a true statement is a true statement.

It does matter, sir.

This case is surely distinct from the case of elephant. For elephant's existence doesn't depend on our knowledge or will, but your name was undoubtdelly willed by your parents, thereby cannot be said as existing independently of your parents' knowledge.

It was because your parents who gave the name to you, could your name be proved as "William." But, if truth preceded knowledge, you would be called William anyway. And this is logically absurd and impossible. So, in this case, according to my logic, truth depends on knowledge or will.

kennethamy

Reply
Mon 6 Jul, 2009 08:23 am

@Mutian,

Mutian;75312 wrote:

It does matter, sir.

This case is surely distinct from the case of elephant. For elephant's existence doesn't depend on our knowledge or will, but your name was undoubtdelly willed by your parents, thereby cannot be said as existing independently of your parents' knowledge.

It was because your parents who gave the name to you, could your name be proved as "William." But, if truth preceded knowledge, you would be called William anyway. And this is logically absurd and impossible. So, in this case, according to my logic, truth depends on knowledge or will.

But, no matter how I got my name, it is still

It is true that the game of chess (like all other games) was invented by human beings. But, even so, it is true that there is a game of chess, however it came into existence.

No one can know that my name is "William" unless it is true that my name is "William". Thus, the existence of my name, proceeded the knowledge of my name. As truth always proceeds knowledge. No one could have known my name before it was my name, for then, there would be nothing to know.

Greta phil

Reply
Wed 2 Jun, 2010 03:57 am

@kennethamy,

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:05 PM -------------------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:08 PM ----------

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:09 PM ----------

I am sure this man often goes to the toilet. For us to believe that you know this - you would need to be quite precise in your description and you would need to have someone (preferably him) confirm this. You would need to give the time, location - how he looked (how did he look by he way?). You will also need to tell us by what means you recieve this information - are you the toilet paper holder? Do you work there? Are you a spy? And even so - why would you choose to watch him (or anyone) go to the toilet?

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------

kennethamy;74189 wrote:

I did not say I know Barack Obama is in the bathroom without being able to prove it.I said that I can believe it is true that Barack Obama is in the bathroom without being able to prove it. And it is certaintly true that Barack Obama may be in the bathroom without anyone being able to prove it, including Barack Obama. Obama's being in the bathroom does not depend on whether anyone can prove he is in the bathroom. Just as there being an unknown planet does not depend on anyone being able to prove there is such a planet. Truth does not depend on knowledge of the truth, although knowledge of the truth does depend on truth. There cannot be knowledge without truth, but there can be (and is) truth without knowledge of the truth. Before today, I did not know you existed, but that did not matter did it. You did exist even if I did not know you existed.

To say that some proposition is self-evident is exactly to say that it is known without proof, for if it could be known only with proof it would not be self-evident. So the question is not whether it can be proved that something is self-evident, since if we prove it, it is not self-evident. However, your question is different; it is whether we can prove that something is self-evident. I suppose we can. We can ask people whether they know that a proposition is true. And when they say they do, we can then ask them how they know it is true. Several may say that the proposition is self-evident, and that may be evidence that the proposition is, in fact, self-evident. Of course, from the fact that people say that a proposition is self-evident, it does not follow that the proposition is self-evident.

I am sure this man often goes to the toilet. For us to believe that you know this - you would need to be quite precise in your description and you would need to have someone (preferably him) confirm this. You would need to give the time, location - how he looked (how did he look by he way?). You will also need to tell us by what means you recieve this information - are you the toilet paper holder? Do you work there? Are you a spy? And even so - why would you choose to watch him (or anyone) go to the toilet?

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:16 PM ----------

You saw OBAMA go to the toilet?? O BUMMER!!!!....why did you watch? can you also see me go to the toilet? If so I would like a full desription to conform or maybe just confirm your correctness!! Because I am not necesarily going to be what you say I am.

Krumple

Reply
Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:08 pm

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;172335 wrote:

What is proof? Is this not a crucial question?

Proof is the backing or basis of a claim which can be verified through some method and repeated. The more the method is repeated the more legitimate the proof is.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof needs to be.

Last weekend I went camping and I woke up early Sunday morning thinking there was some small animal rummaging through some things that had been left out. At first I thought it was a bear until my surprise when it stood up and walked on two feet. I know a bear can walk on two feet, but not very far. Not only that but a side profile of a bear reveals that it has a long snout nose, which this thing did not have. It had a much more flat feature similar to a human profile. This couldn't have been a man in a suit either because once it stood up it was probably around nine or ten feet tall. I was shocked and fixated on it, not sure what to do so I just watched it rummage through the camp while the others slept not knowing anything.

I thought I was well hidden but obviously not when it looked directly at me. I guess it had sensed me watching it. Making eye contact with it made the hairs on my body stand up. I was pretty convinced that it could easily attack me if it wanted to and I had nothing to defend myself with except a sleeping bag. How dumb is that right? Go camping and not have anything to protect myself with? So I did the one thing that I thought anyone else would do in that situation. I got out of my tent, walked over to the cooler and grabbed out a beer and offered it to the Sasquatch. Yeah you do strange things when put into an awkward position. But surprisingly it didn't want it, but instead it asked, "Have you seen my car keys? I think I lost them here yesterday while I was savagely mauling the park ranger."

True story.

thack45

Reply
Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:51 pm

@Mutian,

Quote:

Can the truth be called truth without being proved?

Reconstructo

Reply
Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:20 pm

@Krumple,

Krumple;172342 wrote:

Proof is the backing or basis of a claim which can be verified through some method and repeated. The more the method is repeated the more legitimate the proof is.

I generally agree. I suppose I just don't see how proof is of a different

guigus

Reply
Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:49 am

@Mutian,

Hi, I have just registered, and I would like to comment on your proposition that "there is no truth." If you are right, then there still must be something you know by the word "truth" so as to be able to deny any existence to it. What is it? What do you mean by "truth"? What is this you deny any existence to?
Greta phil

Reply
Thu 3 Jun, 2010 09:53 pm

@Mutian,

Truth is the only thing that exists. If you can't proove something exisit - may be you also do not exist. You are not the truth.I on the otherhand am more truth than anyone. And I have proven it!!

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 04:00 PM ----------

But what about incorrectness? Now that exists everywere. But only on the surface. The truth lies well below the surface. That is where you need to look. Beyond words, beyond actions. Anything on the surface is simply a small piece of any truth. The more related factors taken into consideration - the stronger and more accurate your answer will be.

guigus

Reply
Fri 4 Jun, 2010 05:00 am

@Greta phil,

Hi,I appreciate your enthusiasm However, truth has some, say, idiosyncrasies. For example, you say that maybe I am "not the truth." It happens: we sometimes find out that whatever was once true happens to be untrue. Hence, if there is something we can say about truth, it is this:

If any truth were untrue, then it would not be a truth: every truth must be true.

Despite seemingly redundant, this is in fact a very serious piece of information, as also a tricky one: what could possibly be this "necessary truth of any truth"? And how could a truth be untrue, if it is a truth? I have an answer: when we say something, it "needs" to be true, internally. Any assertion implicitly asserts its own truth (I am not the first to say this). In that sense you can say that it is "necessarily" true. And, if you think about it, you will see that it is only because of this that whatever you say can be false. If it did not contain this "inner urge" to be true, it could never be false. You can verify this in two ways: 1) Imagine a truth with no need to be true, and you will notice it cannot be false: if it were not necessarily true, it would not be falsifiable. 2) You can imagine a false assertion, and you will notice that its "needing" still cannot be taken away: even a false assertion "needs" to be true, or it cannot remain false. Whatever there is in common between a truth and a falsehood, it is this: both are necessarily true. Some will say that this "needing" does not have the rigorous meaning that necessity has in logic. However, if you really try (hard) to remove the needing to be true from both a true and a false assertion, you will eventually realize that this "necessity" is, in fact, even more "rigorous" than the one logicians usually refer to.

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/01/2024 at 07:17:45