@Fido,

Fido;7065 wrote:I did not enjoy.

A shame that you can't discover that you don't enjoy the food before sampling!

As far as 'truth' and 'lying', if we have no 'free-will/choice', logically, the common prideful egoic labelling of one concept 'true' and another 'false' is no more than ego masturbation. Funny that it is most often 'we' that are 'true' and the other person (that is not saying what we want to hear; something to validate our ricketty world-view, our insecurity) is 'lying'!

The only 'solution/perspective' to the quandry, is to 'believe' nothing and 'tentatively entertain' (be comfortable with) all as-it-is.

At least those who 'believe' nothing do not find this dualism 'problem' to be relevent.

Sorry that you didnt like the link, Fido, here's a bone I hope that you can appreciate. Unfortunately, I do not recall the actual author, the words are not mine;

*The a b c proposition*

Consider this standard proposition:

Given three objects a, b, and c.

If a = b and a = c, then b = c.

For real objects (the objects exist in what we call the physical universe):

Each of the three objects is declared by the proposition to be unique. How? Each is identifiable (somehow) as separate and distinct from the other two. Note that if the objects are declared to be the same object, the proposition is trivial, since there will be only one object.

An object’s existence (in the physical universe), or presence, is expressed by the object’s interactions with its surroundings. An object interacts with its surroundings by a change in state. The state of an object includes the object’s position relative to its surroundings. Thus, even if all other aspects of the objects’ states are the same, the three objects will not have exactly the same state (including position) at exactly the same time. Note that for the (imaginary) case where there are only the three objects in their universe, and their relative positions do not uniquely identify them, there can be no observer to initiate or confirm the proposition (i.e., the proposition is not presented).

This example is for discrete objects (objects that cannot occupy the same place at the same time). For non-discrete objects (currently only theorized) to retain their identity when collocated, there must be some aspect of their state (not currently defined) that will provide that identity, and that unique identity of each will make them not equal.

So, for real objects, we see that objects will not be equal (have the same state at the same time) and not only does the proposition fail, but the basic postulate (of equality) is incorrect.

For objects in logic:

The proposition declares that one object is equal to two others. In the fantasy of logic one may attempt to define objects, their possible states and surroundings in such a way as to allow this to be true. In order to have even fantasy objects as identifiable, they must have some property that will make each unique, and therefore not equal to any other object.

Ultimately a rigorous examination (proof) should show that the construction of the fantasy is flawed. Then either the logic will have to be abandoned or the proposition declared self-evident, a priori, or something else that needs no proof. In other words, the logic may be accepted even though it is demonstrated to be false.

For objects in mathematics:

Any sort of mathematics that involves something other than real objects is logic. The manipulation of the quantities of fantasy objects does not change the objects. The logic remains flawed.

For mathematics involving real objects, the proposition reduces to each of the three objects representing a quantity of a real object. Just as for fantasy objects, manipulation of the quantities of the real objects does not change the objects. The objects are not equal.

The case in which the objects may be seen as only numbers is trivial. Numbers have no meaning when not associated with (e.g., indicating the quantity of) an object. Manipulating numbers alone is meaningless aside from demonstrating the rules of the particular mathematics.

For ourselves:

The proposition fails for real objects, logic and mathematics. Still, we teach it and use it for solving real problems and even for developing theories of how our universe works. This sort of not thinking is probably at least a part of why so many are so confused by so many others about so much.