The various theories of truth are mental constructions.

The situations that we would describe as true or false, do exist without mind but, we cannot express them because there is no 'we'.

If we know, we can show.

I think this hinges on the problem of being. What is it to be? Is consciousness an essential element of being? Are both consciousness and its object the co-creators of being? Or is "being" a hopelessly vague word, just like "existence"?

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:51 PM ----------



I enjoyed your post. I do see a difficulty thought. What sort of statement is the sentence above? How can this verification principle itself be verified? I think this statement could be elaborated on. I offer you this from Wiki- what do you think?

It is frequently argued that the verification principle is self-refuting, in that its axioms are neither empirically verifiable nor tautologous.
Verificationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:54 PM ----------


I agree. I also think that truth is a property of sentences.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:55 PM ----------


This is a good point. There are things we assume that can be verified that are not worth the effort.

1. I agree. Truth is a ("mobsolete"?) adjective applied sentences.

Counting the number of grains of sand would provide a method of showing that the number of grains of san is even or odd, is true or false, if it could be done.

Future tense statements cannot be shown to be the case or not until the time referred to arrives. Future tense statements are not decidable propositions at all.

Truth, language and logic/mathematics etc., are constructions of mind not of the world.

Certainly, the world (states of affairs) remain when there are no minds but there is no possible means of expressing truth or falsity without mind.

How could it be known that 1+1=2, without mind??

There cannot be 'eternal truths'.

That the moon existed before mind, is a belief not knowledge.

The moon is spherical implies the moon exists, iff, there are minds present to interpret and understand the statement.
Otherwise 'The moon is spherical implies the moon exists' is mere scribbles.

It is a belief. I also think it's justified - backed by thousands of scientists, within various fields. And I think it is true. You don't think it is true that the moon existed before mind?

Do you think that we cannot know things which have happened before we were born? I know that John Locke was born, and his being born happened way before my mind ever existed. Do you think this is just a belief, and not knowledge?



Sure, the proposition, "The moon is spherical implies the moon exists" wouldn't be interpreted if we were not here. But this does not mean the moon isn't spherical, or that the moon doesn't exist.

Future tense statements cannot be shown to be the case or not until the time referred to arrives. Future tense statements are not decidable propositions at all.

1. Nothing exists that hasn't been processed by the human mine (mind (mined?)).

I will die some day in the future.

I will have a mother next week.

I will be older next month.

Aren't these future tense statements? You don't think these statements are true, you don't think these are decidable propositions? So, you think there's a chance I won't have a mother next week, or that I won't age a month from now?

But isn't there a chance you won't have a mother next week, or that you will not age a month from now? Or even that you won't die sometime in the future?

Therefore, if, as I think, we can know that future contingents are true, it cannot be that it is because there is no chance that they are false.

I meant by having a mother next week, not that she would necessarily be alive next week, but that it would still be true that I had had a mother at some point in time.

I think I always get older.

And I think I will die sometime in the future. Based on the fact that we know all humans eventually die.

If you mean that it is logically possible that any of these things aren't true in some way or another, sure. But I was hinting at plausibility. And I still believe all of these things are true, mainly based on other propositions I believe to be true, but I could be mistaken. But because I could be mistaken is no reason to think I am mistaken, and I certainly don't think I'm mistaken.




Perhaps the implausibility can simply be a justification for our beliefs that some future contingents are true. I think you are right, though, that it is not the reason they are true. No matter our certainty or uncertainty, or our justification or lack of justification, it does not change what is true and what is false.

IMO,

Truth is that which can be shown to be the case.

Both empirical truth and logical truth apply.

Factual truth is decided by scientific methods.

Analytic truths are decided by logical methods.

Truth is relative to the system that decides it.

There is no absolute truth because there is no system of decision that is absolute.

No system of decision contains all truths.

To know is to show.

Truth exists iff there are minds.

There are no 'eternal' truths.

What we show when we prove a proposition is its truth.

Consciousness is not an essential element of being at all.

This rock is hard implies this rock exists, is true.

I think the existence question is a matter of usage. I don't mind how a person prefers to use it, but I must object to limiting its application to the objective.
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzist\
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Latin exsistere to come into being, exist, from ex- + sistere to stand, stop; akin to Latin stare to stand - more at stand
Date: circa 1568
1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist> b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
2 : to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
3 a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen> b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>

I've got nothing against axioms. I think we all live on them. I suppose I like to emphasize the necessity of the axioms and metaphors that ground our thinking as a counterweight to formal logic and positivism which neglect perhaps the significance of this.

But as the term "exist" is actually used, having properties is both a sufficient and necessary condition of existing. So, X is hard does imply that X exists. Nothing can have a property unless it exists.

I agree. Existence is like a predicate behind all other predicates. "Being discloses beings." But that's only if we don't make it clear in context that "exist" is applied in the objective sense. And I think we usually know from the context what is expected.

Well, existence is not a property of objects, not really. But what is it? Is it just the confusion of grammar, a bewitchment of language? What is it to be? Yes, it's a strange question, perhaps a poet's question. But Heidegger was like that, it seems. I myself find the issue fascinating. As a child it suddenly occurs to one: why does any of this exist at all? Big Bang and evolution are not really the answer we want. We want something behind all that. Even if it's an unpractical question, it stirs the mind. Heidegger said "thinking is thanking." Does the problem of being help us take our existence for granted less?

Right, but what do you think about being? Don't you find it strange? A core concept?