defining truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

north
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:51 pm
@Fido,
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:02 pm
@north,
north;143156 wrote:
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
Thruth can also depend on Authority. If the Supreme Court Rules, people ussually listen. If the CIA says... When the President speeches you tend to believe him.

Well in Holland Prime Ministers and Members of the Kabinet lie profoundly. They go to Church on Sunday's, hypo-cratic Rulers we have here. I can't say this abou\t our Head of State; but I will say so a'bout Her servants. Our servants since we elected Them.
:poke-eye:

Pepino
[/CENTER]
 
north
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:11 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[QUOTE]Thruth can also depend on Authority. If the Supreme Court Rules, people ussually listen. If the CIA says... When the President speeches you tend to believe him.

Well in Holland Prime Ministers and Members of the Kabinet lie profoundly. They go to Church on Sunday's, hypo-cratic Rulers we have here. I can't say this abou\t our Head of State; but I will say so a'bout Her servants. Our servants since we elected Them.
:poke-eye:

Pepino[/quote]
[/CENTER]

your example is based on social truths

but my example is based objects , rocks , trees water etc ..

my fault for the confussion I should have specifiyed this , oops ...Very Happy
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:26 pm
@north,
north;143167 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]

your example is based on social truths

but my example is based objects , rocks , trees water etc ..

my fault for the confussion I should have specifiyed this , oops ...Very Happy
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]


Do you agree social thruth is more hard to grasp than a material object ? Is an - other level of abstraction in our thinking not where we aim for ? I enjoy people working, developping new materials & produce sufficient food and dairy to feed the planet. I am just not so happy with the polution.

One of the things should be an absolute bann on transportantion of uranium iso=thopes. Not as rockets, not as fuel, not as waste. You want nuclueair ? Keep your waste on own territory !

:poke-eye:

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

 
north
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:39 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by north [URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif[/URL]
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]

your example is based on social truths

but my example is based objects , rocks , trees water etc ..

my fault for the confussion I should have specifiyed this , oops ...Very Happy




Quote:
Pepijn Sweep;143175 wrote:
Do you agree social thruth is more hard to grasp than a material object ?


yes but no



Quote:
Is an - other level of abstraction in our thinking not where we aim for ?


future ?

Quote:
I enjoy people working, developping new materials & produce sufficient food and dairy to feed the planet. I am just not so happy with the polution.


agreed

Quote:
One of the things should be an absolute bann on transportantion of uranium iso=thopes. Not as rockets, not as fuel, not as waste. You want nuclueair ? Keep your waste on own territory !


agreed

but does the uranium waste benifit you though , electrical power for example


---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

[QUOTE]


Space Ship Magma Mater


we will pay in the end , a heavy price[/COLOR]
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:55 pm
@north,
north;143183 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are



your example is based on social truths

but my example is based objects , rocks , trees water etc ..

my fault for the confussion I should have specifiyed this , oops ...Very Happy




Quote:


[CENTER] yes but no; why not tka the leap in Faith that solutions for future problems have to be solved in the social field ? More modified corn is not my preferred way.
[/CENTER]

future ? YES

agreed

agreed

but does the uranium waste benifit you though , electrical power for example > the benefits are there, but outweighted by unexceptional long period of waste storage. In Germany it leaks all-ready.
Does Canada produce, import or both ?
Laughing:devilish:


---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------


we will pay in the end , a heavy price
WE should starting to pay now, financial crises or not. Eat the rich !
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:50 pm
@north,
north;143156 wrote:
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are

You are not defining truth, but reality...Reality is a subset, the knowable part of existence, and truth is a subset of reality, of positive statements we can make with certainty about the condition of reality...Mostly, the truth is simply a social form, always a form, and as such, a form of relationship... Truth is something we share.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 03:55 pm
@Fido,
north;143183 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]

your example is based on social truths

but my example is based objects , rocks , trees water etc ..

my fault for the confussion I should have specifiyed this , oops ...Very Happy




Quote:


yes but no





future ?



agreed



agreed

but does the uranium waste benifit you though , electrical power for example


---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------



we will pay in the end , a heavy price
Fido;143236 wrote:
You are not defining truth, but reality...


Not reality even, but a frozen state in Time. Lifeless, soul-less, dead materials.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:52 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;143242 wrote:
north;143183 wrote:
Quote:



Not reality even, but a frozen state in Time. Lifeless, soul-less, dead materials.

So; you can tell no truth about a horse race, or an earth quake??? Since life is change, even when we state the state of a state, change is a given... Time is one of those parameters in which reality can be seen as a constant, just as space is...Everything happens some place and some time even while the event horizon progresses through both... Something must be considered as a constant for anything to be considered clearly, and to be considered clearly is to be seen truthfully.. Does that mean that time and space and reality in general do not go on apace just because we have snapped a shot of it??? Every truth is a lie, but no lie is the truth, and that is a lie...
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:29 pm
@Fido,
Fido;143298 wrote:
Pepijn Sweep;143242 wrote:

[CENTER] So; you can tell no truth about a horse race, or an earth quake??? Since life is change, even when we state the state of a state, change is a given... Time is one of those parameters in which reality can be seen as a constant, just as space is...Everything happens some place and some time even while the event horizon progresses through both...
Quote:


I can tell U about a big Earth-quake near LA soon, but so can Discovery Channel or National Geografic. No details however.

Science, as far as I could grasp, has no clue how things really relate. Only in abstract science we have formula's like T-3, indicating 3 bits of something before an Event takes/took place. No connection with spatial dimensions mentioned.

Time is re-defined numerous times. From moon-movements, Solar months, combinations still in USE. Pentagon house 17 (I believe) Cesium clocks; does that mean they take an average ? I sincerly hope your administration is more accurate. We still count on US intelligence !

Thruth is IMO more than science. I really believe to be a composite of layers of thinking. Primitive, animal-like, in-spired by peoples culture, soothed by religeon and narcotics. Rationality is hard to find. Thrut is a goal, a direction. I do feel like Mozes; Truth after dead,if you choose so.

Personaly I work hard on being more empathic; nasty confrontations with other believes I have. I learned however to combine, select and correct with the help of others. And vice versa !

Pepijn Sweep
Magister IQU
:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]
 
north
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 07:17 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
defining Truth is about understanding first of all what truths are

truths should be based on what doesn't change and what something cannot be

things are what they are





Fido;143236 wrote:
You are not defining truth, but reality...


I'm doing both , reality and the truth of reality go hand in hand


Quote:
Reality is a subset, the knowable part of existence, and truth is a subset of reality, of positive statements we can make with certainty about the condition of reality...


above




Quote:
Mostly, the truth is simply a social form, always a form, and as such, a form of relationship... Truth is something we share.


not really
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:53 am
@Holiday20310401,
Truth and reality are not the same... Reality and existence are not the same...Reality is a subset of existence, and truth is a subset of reality...We do not know all of reality, and cannot say we know anything of existence... Truth is that part of reality of which we can know and do know...Knowledge is truth, and if you tell a lie, you do not communicate knowledge, but confusion, or uncertainty...

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 07:55 AM ----------

north;145364 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif





not really

Oh! Really........

Truth is mostly a social form... As an infinite it can bear no better definition than that...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:59 am
@Fido,
Fido;142928 wrote:
As said else where: Numbers are abstractions, and the truth is an abstraction, and one cannot use one abstraction to define another...



Why would that be? The number 5 is an abstraction, and 2+3 is an abstraction, but I can use the latter to define the former.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 10:37 am
@kennethamy,
Defining (absolute) Thrut is impossible. Facts even change, due to tyo westeuropean Rhein is 100 km shorter.

Pepijn Sweep

Magister KY:bigsmile:
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:10 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;145622 wrote:
Defining (absolute) Thrut is impossible. Facts even change, due to tyo westeuropean Rhein is 100 km shorter.


Is it an absolute truth that facts sometimes change?
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;145574 wrote:
Why would that be? The number 5 is an abstraction, and 2+3 is an abstraction, but I can use the latter to define the former.


All numbers are based upon one, in ratio with one, so they are signs following from an original concept.. I would agree that the operations based upon the abstract of one are themselves abstactions, but not all the numbers are abstractions...
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:20 am
@PappasNick,
Pepijn Sweep;145622 wrote:
Defining (absolute) Thrut is impossible. Facts even change, due to tyo westeuropean Rhein is 100 km shorter.

Pepijn Sweep

Magister KY:bigsmile:


PappasNick;145700 wrote:
Is it an absolute truth that facts sometimes change?
[/QUOTE]


It might not be the fact that is changing. I mean, you could say that the original fact was actually just an inference of a fact which is incomplete when brought over to a language.

For example, if I say that there is an apple on the table, and the next day I want to eat an apple so I infer the fact that there is an apple for me to take. I find out that the apple is no longer there. I do not say that my fact has changed from there being one apple on the table to there being no apples on the table. The fact hasn't changed, it's just that the fact was incomplete to begin with. There is one apple on the table on day 1. There are no apples on the table on day 2. I go to eat an apple on day 2, and therefore I will find no apples on the table.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:25 am
@Holiday20310401,
That facts change does not mean that what was a fact, was not a fact.

It was sunny yesterday, and today it is raining. But that does not mean it was not sunny yesterday, does it? That remains true even if it is not sunny today.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146156 wrote:
That facts change does not mean that what was a fact, was a fact.

It was sunny yesterday, and today it is raining. But that does not mean it was not sunny yesterday, does it? That remains true even if it is not sunny today.


I should be more precise. Due to errors we preceive data as facts and build upon them our theories. My example from the Rhein (one of the busiest rivers in the World) was caused by a typing mistake. What I just wonder is that no-body notices ! We talk about 100 kilometer busy riverbody !

Much of what we see as fact, is no fact. With all the help of equipment and computers we still not sure about facts in the natural world. To present proof as facts in abstrat enviroment is easier I think.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 04:03 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;146155 wrote:



It might not be the fact that is changing. I mean, you could say that the original fact was actually just an inference of a fact which is incomplete when brought over to a language.

For example, if I say that there is an apple on the table, and the next day I want to eat an apple so I infer the fact that there is an apple for me to take. I find out that the apple is no longer there. I do not say that my fact has changed from there being one apple on the table to there being no apples on the table. The fact hasn't changed, it's just that the fact was incomplete to begin with. There is one apple on the table on day 1. There are no apples on the table on day 2. I go to eat an apple on day 2, and therefore I will find no apples on the table.


That's an interesting approach to the question. Are all facts incomplete in this sense? If so, are facts complete only at a sort of absolute moment? What would that moment be like?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2020 at 01:16:56