Fun with Abstractions

Create an abstraction that best describes your idea of truth and what it is. A simple definition of truth in my opinion is what actually is, but to encompass how it works I like to think of what is called a boolean value. A boolean is used when programming to determine a condition that is either true or false, and if it is true normally a loop or code block of some kind will run. In the case of a while loop the loop runs until the condition is evaluated to false. The thing I like about this comparison it shows us the nature of the question what is true? When we ask this about a certain topic we should realize that something can never be both true and false at the same time. For example, when we write a condition for a while loop their is no way for a single argument to evaluate both true and false at the same time. Its simply impossible. I think this shows that truth is very either or when it comes to most questions though it might not always be immediately apparent.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Is "nothing" true ? Is it possible for a nothing to exist ? Where does nothing exist ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Is "nothing" true?
I am not sure what you mean by that, try asking it a different way.
Is it possible for a nothing to exist ?
Nothing in my opinion is no thing. If there is no thing, or the absence of all things then there is nothing. Since there is something I assume there cannot be a nothing. If I were to give an abstraction to nothing it would be what rocks dream about.
Where does nothing exist ?
This is not a question that can be said about nothing. The absence of things does not have locality as that would be space and space is something.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sometimes I dream of nothing .Am I a rock ? Sometimes I try to make something work but nothing happens >) Shouldn't truth have a effect ? a action associated with it ?

Truth?

I describe it this way:

There is a fight in the halls of a school. The principal rounds up the two combatants, four witnesses and later on gets the hallway security footage of the incident.

Each combatant and each witness can tell their own honest version of events without intending to lie, and each will tell the same story but it will be slightly different. The camera version will again be different.

I would say the camera version is closest to the unvarnished truth, but none of the other versions are untrue either.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any true or false proposition made about "what actually is" occurs after the fact, or preceding fact, in language. After the fact is not the same as the fact, and both truth and falsity have their origins in the language, which can be "true" and "false" at the same time.

Truth can only ever be "what actually was" or "whatever actually will be".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't sound like there is a middle ground (is) in your statement . is is the present and that is true but the future to be true ,has to first happen in a future present time and then move into the past . i think .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That sounds right. The sun will rise tomorrow if and only when the sun will rise tomorrow sounds like a true statement about the future. As the OP said, very either or. But something can't happen before it does, nor after. Truth is a condition of language.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sometimes I dream of nothing

If you dream of nothing then you have made it something, a dream and therefore it would not be nothing. If there were no dreams that is simply the absence of dreams not the absence of all things.

Sometimes I try to make something work but nothing happens

Again nothing as I define it, is no thing. Just because something doesn't do its intended effect doesn't make it nothing it makes it something thats broken.

Shouldn't truth have a effect ? a action associated with it ?

Not necessarily. I show you a handful of coins, and then say "there are four coins." That condition is either true or false. Truth is describes what actually is. It may describe an action, but I don't think it is necessary.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I used to think at one time that the English language was some kind of a curse because of the ambiguity in the words when thought about in abstract ways .Thinking like something being not true or partially true and even considering truth to be a absolute when we seem to have varying degrees of it .

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Truth can only ever be "what actually was" or "whatever actually will be".

This seems like a good modification, but I am not entirely convinced that "both truth and falsity have their origins in the language, which can be "true" and "false" at the same time. " The concept of truth doesn't require language it seems to transcend. For example, regardless if we are able to talk about it, it would be true that 2+2=4. Truth would remain it just wouldn't be discussed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The sun will rise tomorrow if and only when the sun will rise tomorrow sounds like a true statement about the future.

Ah what an interesting statement. As you said this sounds like a true statement, but I believe that if we examine it further we would see that this statement falls into a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning via problem of induction in fact Bertrand Russell uses a very similar analogy. Why is it logical to assume the statement the sun will rise tomorrow is true? Most people respond to this by saying because it always has, but you see this is circular reasoning. Why does the sun rise? Because the sun has always risen.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is a fight in the halls of a school. The principal rounds up the two combatants, four witnesses and later on gets the hallway security footage of the incident.

Each combatant and each witness can tell their own honest version of events without intending to lie, and each will tell the same story but it will be slightly different. The camera version will again be different.

I would say the camera version is closest to the unvarnished truth, but none of the other versions are untrue either.

This seems to be a dangerous way to think about truth. There is a fight in the hallways, but just because there is a video doesn't mean the video encapsulates the human emotions that go on nor does it mean the video portrays the event in the most honest light. For example, What if it was self defense on one man's part, but the camera makes it appears as though he attacked first? What if no eye witness saw the beginning of the fight? Would we reach a verdict that is true? Would everything each witness be actually true or would it some of it only be believed to be true?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What about this idea of the wave particle ? We are told that it can be a particle and therefor not a wave but it can also be a wave and there for not a particle or at least in the way it acts . both are true and false . It can be here but it can be every where which seems to suggest a true and false at the same time .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

What about this idea of the wave particle ? We are told that it can be a particle and therefor not a wave but it can also be a wave and there for not a particle or at least in the way it acts . both are true and false . It can be here but it can be every where which seems to suggest a true and false at the same time .

A good place to look for a loophole, so kudos. So I'll first start off by saying it doesn't suggest both true and false AT THE SAME TIME though it does suggest true sometimes and false at other times. When thinking about the idea of a wave particle it act either as particle or it acts like a wave. It does not however act like both a wave and a particle at the same time. The way it acts depends on its state of observation. The same is true with its locality. Either the particle is in super-positioning or it has gained locality due to being measured.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Seeing it has a option of being one or the other would suggest that it can be neither at some point between the two states .Or like a glass half full or half empty .Both are true and false at the same time .maybe .could be .is or is not .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

If you add in the idea of quantum entanglement then the idea of a point in between goes away in my opinion. Quantum entanglement is instantaneous. No time lapse. Your here and then your there. You in super-positioning until your not.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That's why I said unvarnished truth. The plain facts with no bias or emotion behind it. In reconstructing the truth, it is often most useful to operate first from the facts you can establish before going to the rest.

Otherwise, which account is most true? Do you believe one person's account over another? Is that fair?

Take the Gospels. All describe the same account of Christ's life and ministries and none are lies, but none are the same either. So is one more true? I would submit not. So is there a truth in them? Yes, and that's why we study them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Otherwise, which account is most true? Do you believe one person's account over another? Is that fair?

As I said in the OP something is either true or false just like a boolean value in computer programming. An account can't be more or less true. It can have more or less detail, but the facts mentioned in an account are either true or false.

All describe the same account of Christ's life and ministries and none are lies, but none are the same either.

Just because two perspectives are slightly different doesn't make either of them false. One includes certain details that are true and others include other details that are true and combine them together to get a better picture.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So ok I just seen something that is either true or false but it would have to be both for this to exist . Venus is said to be closer to the Sun then Earth is .....true or false ? ... In the night shy we can see a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus ....true or false ? .... Now observe that ,if you draw a line from Jupiter to Venus and then keep the line going it comes to Earth .Continue the line through the Earth and continue it to the Sun which is on the other side of the Earth . How is it possible for Venus to be closer to the Sun seeing a straight line from Jupiter to the Sun passes through the Earth and Venus is between Earth and Jupiter .