Can the truth be called truth without being proved?

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).

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 try to 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 be known true, by our proving it.

People can try to 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 be known true, 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 ----------



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.

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.

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.

What is proof? Is this not a crucial question?

Can the truth be called truth without being proved?

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.