Truth is not constant.

[ppp]

I mean...2+2=4 is a constant truth...in a base 10 number system.

It's not true in base 3.

Perhaps the OP is talking about expanded knowledge leading to alternative 'truths'?
I honestly don't know.

You are confusing the map for the territory. It is true in base three. Base three just represents that same concept differently. 1 + 10 = 11. Consider base three and base 10 to be two different languages that use the same symbols.

 

[sayak83]

Truth change according to what level of wisdom a person has achieved.
It means two people do not see the same truth, because no person hold the exact same wisdom level.
Relative truth and conditional truth are two different truths, but they are both true.

It is better to say that efficacious models that appx. truth to a certain degree to be instrumentally useful are not constant. The truths that these models attempt to appx. are themselves unchanging.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are confusing the map for the territory. It is true in base three. Base three just represents that same concept differently. 1 + 10 = 11. Consider base three and base 10 to be two different languages that use the same symbols.

Yep, it was a clumsy example.
I mean only that the truth of something can be contextual, or relative.
I still have no clue if that's what the OP meant though!

 

[rational experiences]

Life is present, not constant.

Constant historically means what exists naturally held and it was given by hands of time as God.

God in theme as one is MASS O, a circle remains constant for it has no beginning and no end. Science relativity.

Mass is constant by fusion he said, presence.

Mass therefore owns presence, but in our life it is not present...meaning now.

We are time owners for we belong to counting, and age as a process of counting. Counting in a natural light, seeing O the Earth owns it first. Stone created it own atmosphere, that was clear and not burning, Sun de evolved Earth gases/spirit Heavens so then it existed sacrifice.

So the sacrifice was first owned only by the Earth body. Relativity in science.

As we live by light and also time, we age. Aging is a constant cause of living in a radiating natural light atmosphere.

Reason we do not all just completely perish instantly in light conditions, radiating is a subject of teaching.

The void/spatial vacuum cooling mechanism, natural.
Cold gases also present in the same mass.
Water.

Relativity.

In science, they void mass by removing it.....so if they conclude evidence that it is spatially correct, they personally do not own oblivion. A non numbered fact that does not own any factor addition or minus, the vacuum is constant only, nothing, so science relativity teaching said no Number is real.

Addition in mass is first to imply falsely that mass owns a calculation, numbered to then remove those numbers.

Numbers in natural time, never existed rationally, for we live the cycle of 12.

As stated. 12 natural light that is an Age. 12 months of one year, O a cycle and a circle, an Age.

Relativity in natural life was taught as an Age.

The reason age was taught as relative so that science would not be enabled to be supported lying as an occult condition, is to lie.

For science was first invented upon lies. Therefore truth in science was to advise and tell science that it is lying.

 

[Altfish]

I mean...2+2=4 is a constant truth...in a base 10 number system.

It's not true in base 3.

Perhaps the OP is talking about expanded knowledge leading to alternative 'truths'?
I honestly don't know.

It's obviously not in base 3 because there is a "4" in the equation.

But, who knows what the OP was on about - 'alternative truth' is a made up phrase from the alt-right lexicon. There cannot be an alternate truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But in that case, what truth can we say we have, ever?

Enough to make sure we're undertaking our current task to the best of our ability at the time. I think all that is attempting to be relayed here is that some information we have come to is pretty darn reliable compared to some other information. Things like mathematical constants are useful and reliable to an extremely high degree to anyone who uses them in the contexts in which they apply. When you share this type of information with someone, you can be sure you are telling them something correct to the purpose, and the only possibility can be that they one-up you by giving you something that is as correct in an even more encompassing context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have already been down this road, Mikkel. I said that truth is that which corresponds to reality. You said that there are problems with the theory of correspondence, and stopped there. No elaboration or explanation.

Take 2:
You have 2 humans, which each declares that what truth is as objective. I.e. it doesn't depends on the subjective, but is so for all humans.
One claims that it is correspondence and another claims it is coherence. Now that amounts to a contradiction, because in effect truth is that it corresponds and not corresponds and has coherence and doesn't have coherence.
That is no different than 2 contradictory claims about God. One of them must be false.

I learned that one from your side; the non-religious ones. I just apply it both to truth and God.
So what is the problem with the correspondence theory of truth? It is possible to believe differently and get away with it. It means that correspondence can't be true as you claim, because it is possible to do it differently, but according to you it is not possible, because truth is what corresponds to reality.

So truth is not different than God. Some people believe in it and just as with God, they believe differently, hence it is subjective. Now I have learn not to believe in truth, if that suits me and believe, if it suits me. Just as I have learn to believe and not believe in God, deepening on what is at play.

Regards
Mikkel

PS: We can if you like nitpick truth, but it ends in that truth is not different than God. It is a first person idea, that makes sense or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Enough to make sure we're undertaking our current task to the best of our ability at the time. I think all that is attempting to be relayed here is that some information we have come to is pretty darn reliable compared to some other information. Things like mathematical constants are useful and reliable to an extremely high degree to anyone who uses them in the contexts in which they apply. When you share this type of information with someone, you can be sure you are telling them something correct to the purpose, and the only possibility can be that they one-up you by giving you something that is as correct in an even more encompassing context.

The problem is that your "we" is not in the strong sense objective as say gravity. So behind all this jazz about what truth is, is the idea that some people as a result of biology and psychology rely on. All truth to be true must be true for us. The joke is this claim is not true for us, it is only true for those, who subjectively believe in it.

Strip away the particulars and you believe in a "we", I don't believe in. But is true for you that you can act based on your belief and it is true that I can act differently. That is the end game.

 

[blü 2]

Truth change according to what level of wisdom a person has achieved.
It means two people do not see the same truth, because no person hold the exact same wisdom level.
Relative truth and conditional truth are two different truths, but they are both true.

Truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. But our understanding of that reality changes, and truth with it,

Once it was true that the world is flat and the sun moon and stars go round it (as any fool could see for himself). Now it's not. Once it was true that gravity operated over distance instantly; that light propagates in the lumeniferous ether; that time is constant throughout the universe; that the earth's crust is unitary and fixed; and now it's not.

 

[Polymath257]

I mean...2+2=4 is a constant truth...in a base 10 number system.

It's not true in base 3.

Perhaps the OP is talking about expanded knowledge leading to alternative 'truths'?
I honestly don't know.

Once again, yes, it *is* true in base 3. It is just written as 2+2=11. In base 2, it is 10+10=100. In base 4 it is 2+2=10.

All of these say exactly the same thing.

Don't confuse the underlying truth about natural numbers and the specific representation of those numbers used.

Hmmm....maybe that could be a general principle.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The problem is that your "we" is not in the strong sense objective as say gravity. So behind all this jazz about what truth is, is the idea that some people as a result of biology and psychology rely on. All truth to be true must be true for us. The joke is this claim is not true for us, it is only true for those, who subjectively believe in it.

Strip away the particulars and you believe in a "we", I don't believe in. But is true for you that you can act based on your belief and it is true that I can act differently. That is the end game.

Unfortunately for you, when I say that two objects of a particular type, placed next to two more objects of that type yields a total count of four objects of that type - this is true for EVERYONE - regardless what differences there are in what they call "two" or "four" - the basic principle holds no matter who is observing the objects. THIS is the type of "truth" that I was referring to that can be relied upon to an extremely high degree. As we get further from those types of truths, we will, of course, find ourselves in the territory you're speaking of, where much of it breaks down to nothing more than subjectivity and he said/she said. Like religion. Religion is very much that latter stuff that has absolutely no degree of reliable "truth" to it whatsoever.

 

[Polymath257]

Unfortunately for you, when I say that two objects of a particular type, placed next to two more objects of that type yields a total count of four objects of that type - this is true for EVERYONE - regardless what differences there are in what they call "two" or "four" - the basic principle holds no matter who is observing the objects. THIS is the type of "truth" that I was referring to that can be relied upon to an extremely high degree. As we get further from those types of truths, we will, of course, find ourselves in the territory you're speaking of, where much of it breaks down to nothing more than subjectivity and he said/she said. Like religion. Religion is very much that latter stuff that has absolutely no degree of reliable "truth" to it whatsoever.

One subtlety about this is that even your 'placement' requires a background of certain laws of physics, say solid state theory. In contexts where everything is liquid or gaseous, you will have trouble even stating the conditions in which 2+2=4 will work.

In essence, you are proposing a physical law: the conservation of 'objects' under certain conditions. But when that law applies and when it fails (objects interact?) is something that is not a priori and needs to be tested. The math is useful for stating the proposed conservation law, but does not prove said law is valid.

 

[ChristineM]

and some believe the Carpenter walked on water

Magic is so cool in the bible isn't it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately for you, when I say that two objects of a particular type, placed next to two more objects of that type yields a total count of four objects of that type - this is true for EVERYONE - regardless what differences there are in what they call "two" or "four" - the basic principle holds no matter who is observing the objects. ...

No, because if that was the case you couldn't have this: Dyscalculia.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, because if that was the case you couldn't have this: Dyscalculia.

This doesn't matter to the purposes of the ultimate reality or "truth" of a proposed arrangement of objects. A subjective experience of something does not change the actual reality of that thing.

 

[ppp]

Take 2:
You have 2 humans, which each declares that what truth is as objective. I.e. it doesn't depends on the subjective, but is so for all humans.

IOk.

One claims that it is correspondence and another claims it is coherence. Now that amounts to a contradiction, because in effect truth is that it corresponds and not corresponds and has coherence and doesn't have coherence.
That is no different than 2 contradictory claims about God. One of them must be false.

Or they can both be false. But yes, at least one position must be false.

I learned that one from your side; the non-religious ones. I just apply it both to truth and God.

I don't know what that means. Is it relevant to your argument, or just an aside?
Also, you have not warranted the addition of "God". You have just tossed it in. I reject that.

QUOTE="mikkel_the_dane, post: 6780008, member: 65569"
So what is the problem with the correspondence theory of truth? It is possible to believe differently and get away with it. It means that correspondence can't be true as you claim, because it is possible to do it differently, but according to you it is not possible, because truth is what corresponds to reality.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be jumping to come unsubstantiated conclusions. There is nothing of which I am aware about correspondence that precludes it from being "possible to believe differently and get away with it."

So truth is not different than God. Some people believe in it and just as with God, they believe differently, hence it is subjective. Now I have learn not to believe in truth, if that suits me and believe, if it suits me. Just as I have learn to believe and not believe in God, deepening on what is at play.

Since I do not accept your premises, I will hold off on commenting on your conclusion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

One subtlety about this is that even your 'placement' requires a background of certain laws of physics, say solid state theory. In contexts where everything is liquid or gaseous, you will have trouble even stating the conditions in which 2+2=4 will work.

In essence, you are proposing a physical law: the conservation of 'objects' under certain conditions. But when that law applies and when it fails (objects interact?) is something that is not a priori and needs to be tested. The math is useful for stating the proposed conservation law, but does not prove said law is valid.

I get where you're coming from. Sort of like two drops of water placed right next two more two drops of water may just become one bigger pooling of water. I was going more for the effect of an "object" being a distinct thing unto itself that remains that way under relatively normal (with respect to our human experience) conditions. In the end, if I changed it to "2 groupings of 2 apples" that should clear up any messiness of the type you're describing I would think. And, of course, I would also propose that we're observing these groupings under fairly "normal" human conditions... not within the center of the sun or something else that would dash even that example.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This doesn't matter to the purposes of the ultimate reality or "truth" of a proposed arrangement of objects. A subjective experience of something does not change the actual reality of that thing.

But 2+2=4 is not a thing. Now it gets funny. If we have four apples, are there 4 four apples, if there were no humans? Would there be a proposed arrangement without humans?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But 2+2=4 is not a thing. Now it gets funny. If we have four apples, are there 4 four apples, if there were no humans? Would there be a proposed arrangement without humans?

There would still be a certain count of apples - an "arrangement", if you will, yes. Regardless whether there was anyone there to count them or not, or recogonize their separation from one another or not. The objects we (as of now) call "apples" would exist there, in the same state, in the same separation. That doesn't change. When someone came along who devised a numbering/counting system, then they could put a name/label to it. But even without the label, the fundamental reality of the situation remains unchanged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Or they can both be false. But yes, at least one position must be false.

Then that is all I need, people can talk about truth, though it can be false.

So know you need to show with meta-truth, how your truth is true and the other versions are false. Because you can't assume that your version is true and use that to show it is true. That is begging the question. Hence you need a meta-truth.