Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Curious George]

I'm sorry. I've read that several times and still can't extract any useful meaning from it. People in the same apparent language group don't always speak the same language, you know.

How could one of them 'assert their definition without identifying that relationship'? Can you give an example/ How would George assert his belief in a square moon 'without identifying that relationship'?



Sorry, man. I just can't follow any of that. But thanks for offering it.

Yes. If George says the moon is square, this is different than George saying I believe the moon is square. One statement expresses a relational definition between George and the moon, while the other fails to identify the relational subjects.

 

[Curious George]

By 'objective truth' do you mean 'atoms, in a particular configuration'?

Or do you mean something more?

Much more, but objective truth could apply to atoms also.

 

[Curious George]

.







So you think that if a statement is labelled as 'true', then it is a 'truth'?

Your assumption is that 'truth' always means 'a proposition to which I assent'?

But what if you were like me and never gave full assent to any proposition but only assigned percentages of assent to propositions?

Would you still believe in 'truth' if you thought as I do about propositions?

No, I am saying that believing something is true while saying it is not true sounds indicative of a lie.

whether you give only partial assent or full assent cannot change the other objective truths about something, this is because more than you exists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sure he can. All he has to do with cast one or both non-literal.

One, but not both. If both words are used in the same sense (i.e. not equivocating), then it is indeed a contradiction. Now, perhaps he's an accomplished poker player and can maintain a straight face while asserting a self-refuting self-contradiction, I don't know; but it is nevertheless a self-contradiction. This vague plea "language is a tool" doesn't help.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes. If George says the moon is square, this is different than George saying I believe the moon is square. One statement expresses a relational definition between George and the moon, while the other fails to identify the relational subjects.

OK. I'm not sure what profit there is in talking of it that way, but I assume you wouldn't use it if not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Much more, but objective truth could apply to atoms also.

I consider it a critically important question, so I'd like to press you a bit on it.

What else other than phyical objects make up 'objective reality'? Can you discuss that and list various examples?

Also there's one other question which you haven't addressed, and I'd love to hear your reaction to it.

I am both an atheist and a theist. And neither.

How do you feel about that claim?

 

[Curious George]

OK. I'm not sure what profit there is in talking of it that way, but I assume you wouldn't use it if not.

I am suggesting their is a difference which corresponds with reality between the two statements "I believe the moon is square" and "the moon is square"

I am also suggesting that without identifying subjective relations concepts can produce contradictions which do not exist when the subjective relations are identified.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, I am saying that believing something is true while saying it is not true sounds indicative of a lie.

OK. But why would someone do that? I don't understand where you're coming from. To me, it really does seem that we're having two different conversations.

whether you give only partial assent or full assent cannot change the other objective truths about something, this is because more than you exists.

If 'truth' equals 'my assent to a proposition'... then I'm afraid I really don't know what you are saying now. For something to be a truth, don't I have to assent to a proposition? That seemed to be what you were saying.

But if I don't assent to a proposition but only opine that it may or may not be true... then where is the truth?

Anyway, I don't think I have a chance of understanding your position unless you'll address various of the questions I've asked. But as you please.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am suggesting their is a difference which corresponds with reality between the two statements "I believe the moon is square" and "the moon is square"

Wow. That startles me. Surely you aren't claiming that the shape of the moon changes depending on whether I claim it exists or only claim to believe it exists.

Surely not. So I have no idea what you are claiming here. Are you saying that the statements themselves differ? If so, that seems clear. They are made up of different words. Are you saying that reality differs? To me, it seems you are claiming that I can make the moon square by asserting that it is square rather than asserting that I believe it to be square.

Isn't it so amazing how language can come between us.

I am also suggesting that without identifying subjective relations concepts can produce contradictions which do not exist when the subjective relations are identified.

Oh, yes. I'm completely lost. Now you sound like you're claiming that we contradict ourselves if we claim that Jesus was the son of God, rather than claiming that we believe Jesus was the son of God.

I'm really sorry. I just can't understand you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Try to think of language as your tool, not your master.

Hehe... Its amusing how you lean on these hollow refrains and one-liners in lieu of actual substance.

If you see another person write a bit of seemingly contradictory prose, don't assert that it is contradictory. Instead, probe the mind of that person to see whether he can defend his prose.

Right, by assigning meaning to his words such that the contradiction disappears. As in the bank is not a bank example.

The (non)contradiction is in his mind, not in his words.

Sure, I covered the extent to which this is accurate.

Good question. Would you agree that the following sentence is contradictory?

Meekbots exist, but meekbots do not exist.

I think most people would see it as an example of contradiction, even with no idea of the nature of meekbots.

It would indeed appear to be contradictory- and unless "meekbot" is being used differently in these two cases, it is. And you didn't answer the question (par for the course, unfortunately).

That's a comforting belief, I know. Some nights I stare up at the (apparent) moon and think, "What if it's all illusion?" and a chill starts to creep over me. Soon my mind is flying in all sorts of directions, every kind of imagining. I visit wild places, frightening places.

And when it finally gets too scary, I say to myself, "Stop, AG. Stop your worry. Just pretend that it's all real. Settle. You're a brilliant logician. Settle for that. Focus on those little hard, real squiggles that we have learned to put on paper. Embrace the 1s and the 0s. Manipulate 'the moon' as others do -- the ones who don't even wonder about its reality anymore."

Then I am fine again and can go to sleep.

More irrelevant rhetoric. Less smoke, more fire please.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why do you imply magic?

Rhetoric. It takes the place of an argument.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

More irrelevant rhetoric. Less smoke, more fire please.

If questions frighten us, we are not ready to defend our worldviews. That's how it seems to me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If questions frighten us, we are not ready to defend our worldviews.

And yet MORE irrelevant rhetoric. You have this nonsense on tap, don't you? As I said, less smoke and more fire, please. This bluster doesn't help your case- which could sure use some help right about now from the looks of it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If questions frighten us, we are not ready to defend our worldviews. That's how it seems to me.

Or maybe I mistake you; was this meant to explain why you've avoided virtually every question I've posed to you on this thread?

 

[Curious George]

I consider it a critically important question, so I'd like to press you a bit on it.

What else other than phyical objects make up 'objective reality'? Can you discuss that and list various examples?

Also there's one other question which you haven't addressed, and I'd love to hear your reaction to it.

I am both an atheist and a theist. And neither.

How do you feel about that claim?

Yes. Belief or reliance is a non physical thing which describes a relationship. Such beliefs are objectively true. Time is another non physical relation which can be used objectively.

as far as your atheist, theist, and neither: I would suggest that you are defining the terms as not mutually exclusive, or you are excluding the law of non-contradiction to create a system where such contradiction is possible. Or you are using a system which omits the law of the excluded middle and allowing for the value of "unknown." You would then treat yourself as all of the possibilities because the truth or failure of any one of these three cannot be established. Or there is another reason for which I do not know.

 

[Curious George]

Wow. That startles me. Surely you aren't claiming that the shape of the moon changes depending on whether I claim it exists or only claim to believe it exists.

Surely not. So I have no idea what you are claiming here. Are you saying that the statements themselves differ? If so, that seems clear. They are made up of different words. Are you saying that reality differs? To me, it seems you are claiming that I can make the moon square by asserting that it is square rather than asserting that I believe it to be square.

Isn't it so amazing how language can come between us.



Oh, yes. I'm completely lost. Now you sound like you're claiming that we contradict ourselves if we claim that Jesus was the son of God, rather than claiming that we believe Jesus was the son of God.

I'm really sorry. I just can't understand you.

No I am not stating that how you frame your sentence changes reality, only that one frame corresponds to objective reality and the other to subjective reality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No I am not stating that how you frame your sentence changes reality, only that one frame corresponds to objective reality and the other to subjective reality.

OK. So if I declare that 'The moon is square,' that means that the moon's squareness corresponds to objective reality?

Or are you merely saying that one statement (I believe it is.) is expressed as more of a personal opinion than the other one (It is.)?

I will confess a powerful bias for short and simple language when discussing matters like these. It's hard enough for me to understand it with simple language.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes. Belief or reliance is a non physical thing which describes a relationship. Such beliefs are objectively true.

Beliefs are objectively true? So if I believe X and you believe not-X, then our beliefs are objectively true?

George, let me make a confession. I don't even have a firm grip on what a 'belief' actually is. As best I can determine, it's something like an assent to some proposition. But what is an assent exactly? Is it the two physical words 'I agree'? Or is it some kind of electrical arc in our brains?

Whatever a belief might be, I really can't imagine thinking of all beliefs as objectively true. I just can't.

Time is another non physical relation which can be used objectively.

So time, atoms and beliefs are three items which you consider to be objectively true?

OK.

...as far as your atheist, theist, and neither: I would suggest that you are defining the terms as not mutually exclusive, or you are excluding the law of non-contradiction to create a system where such contradiction is possible. Or you are using a system which omits the law of the excluded middle and allowing for the value of "unknown." You would then treat yourself as all of the possibilities because the truth or failure of any one of these three cannot be established. Or there is another reason for which I do not know.

Thanks. But just to keep it simple, do you agree or disagree that I can be both theist and atheist at once?

 

[Curious George]

OK. So if I declare that 'The moon is square,' that means that the moon's squareness corresponds to objective reality?

Or are you merely saying that one statement (I believe it is.) is expressed as more of a personal opinion than the other one (It is.)?

I will confess a powerful bias for short and simple language when discussing matters like these. It's hard enough for me to understand it with simple language.

I am saying that the sentence "I believe the moon is square" corresponds to objective reality whereas the statement the moon is square, in this case does not.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks. But just to keep it simple, do you agree or disagree that I can be both theist and atheist at once?

It depends on the definitions we use and the system of validation.