[luke warm]

uday is correct, the agw thread had devolved into a series of hijackings (and i was as guilty as anyone)... but i do think an interesting discussion was brewing, so here's the last post in that thread

Winstonm, on May 7 2010, 10:45 PM, in a reply to Lobowolf, said:

Unlike some who post here, it doesn't bother me if you chose to use your own definition of a word.  I admire that you have considered it deeply enough to have an opinion about the meaning. 

I still disagree, though.

you're the only one i've seen posting here who has admitted that definitions aren't important (unless, i suppose, they're yours)

Quote

You [Lobowolf] advanced this axiom: a postulate or its negation must be true.  All this really does is provide a basis to create a system of logic, an argument (a priori) based upon that system, that produces a conclusion that follows and is a logical necessity.

no winston, that is *not* "all this really does"... the statement (axiom) itself is true, do you agree? you see winston, to be consistent you have to say that lobo's statement is only *believed* to be true without proof, not that it actually *is* true... wherever you are at the very moment you're reading this, are you also physically some place else? is it the truth that you are not some place else? prove it... the usefulness of such things as the disjunctive syllogism, or the law of excluded middle, lies in the fact that truth can be arrived at by their use

Quote

The decision is in what realm does the word truth reside?  If it is a concept, then it lives in logic and you are right.  If it resides in reality, if truth is fact, then it is derived from emperical [sic] evidence and then I am right.

as i said in an earlier post, you seem to be separating 'truth' into categories determined by you... you have also defined 'truth' as it applies to these (winston-created) categories... a statement either is or is not true...

Quote

I am willing to grant you the phrase "logical necessity" - but truth is a result of empirical investigation; truth does not make predictions.

as with axiom, your understanding of the word truth is insufficient... a proposition is either true or it isn't... lobo's posts should be reread - unproven truth is in no way, shape, or form an oxymoron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
your argument is: truth must be derived from empirical evidence

where is the empirical evidence necessary for the truth of this statement? you are on the horns of a dilemma...

[Winstonm]

And here is what I was going to post in response:

Quote

the statement (axiom) itself is true, do you agree?

No, unless you use the word "fact" to express what I am saying. If you mean true a priori then I would say yes.

Quote

you see winston, to be consistent you have to say that lobo's statement is only *believed* to be true without proof, not that it actually *is* true...

But that is exactly what I am saying - it is believed (reasoned) to be true. It must be believed (reasoned) to be true because there is no possible way known to prove it empirically as fact. Therefore, it must remain in the world of concept only (a priori), and not the physical world. Production of a concept requires a biological brain, yet the physical world does have this requirement. (We can see light that was produced before biological brains existed.) The conceptual cannot prove existence - you cannot reason a cumquat salad onto my plate. In the same manner, you cannot reason truth into existence - and if it cannot be resolved to a physical object in the world it is only a construct of the mind, and no different in nature than fairies or giant flying dragons.

Quote

no winston, that is *not* "all this really does"... the statement (axiom) itself is true, do you agree? you see winston, to be consistent you have to say that lobo's statement is only *believed* to be true without proof, not that it actually *is* true... wherever you are at the very moment you're reading this, are you also physically some place else? is it the truth that you are not some place else? prove it... one usefulness of such things as the disjunctive syllogism lies in the fact that truth can be arrived at by their (its) use

No, Jimmy. You do not grasp. Neither popularity contests, votes, claims of faith healers, nor universally held beliefs prove truth. (Unless you specifically mean a priori truth, which is not absolute IMO) You talk about these truths as if they were an *absolute* - but whether an idea (which is all axiom expresses) continues to be considered absolutely true depends on it not being disproven.

Let's examine some other "absolute" truths from earlier times: the world is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; the Saints will never win the Superbowl.

Oops.

You see, no matter the vote, an axiom can only be considered true while it cannot be or has not been disproven by empirical evidence, i.e., as long as it remains in the realm of a priori. But if a priori is not consistent with a posteriori, a priori is invalidated. A posteriori trumps a priori. (See results 2010 Superbowl)

This is the point where our discussions always break down, as you refuse to acknowledge anything other than the world of a priori. It is silly for me to continue to discuss these issues with you only within the realm of reasoning and with only your logic-based definitions.

It would be akin to the advice a young man once received from his dad before his first trip alone to the city: "Son, if a man comes up to you and wants to bet you twenty dollars that he can make the Ace of Spades jump out of a pack of cards and spit in your ear, don't make that bet - you'll end up with a lighter wallet and a wet ear."

[PassedOut]

As Lobowolf wrote, it is absolutely true that either no god exists or at least one god exists. Independent of proof, one of those propositions must be true and one must be false.

Recognizing that fact gets you no closer to establishing which proposition is true. Nor will any amount of logic, by itself, do so.

[Winstonm]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/ax...oms/node27.html

Quote

For a long time - that would be thousands of years - after the invention of axiomatic reasoning, this was the way the world worked. Philosophers (and a whole lot of mathematicians) continued to think of axioms as self-evident truths, laws of logic and mathematics, as it were, and a hundred-odd generations of students derived Euclid's theorems about triangle congruence without ever thinking too deeply about them. Even the belated discovery that there could be different axioms that led to different theorems left the sanctity of axiomatic and logical reasoning itself untouched, seducing many a philosopher to continue using the essentially classical reasoning processes that follow, in fact, from using a number of self-evident axioms that were rarely to never openly acknowledged and which were all unprovable assumptions, every one

Quote

It is that philosophical arguments should begin by stating the axioms from which their conclusions are derived and should either be viewed as conditional truth that can be doubted and judged in accordance with those stated axioms or shown to be conclusions that are invariant with respect to classes of motion in ``axiom space''

Rather than simply rely on this appeal to authority, let me ask how is it - if axioms are self-evident truths - that the axioms of the logic of quantum mechanics state that something can be and not be at the same time?

As I have said, axioms are only assumed truths upon which a model is developed that is then a logical necessity, i.e., an assumed necessity.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/ax...oms/node27.html

Quote

For a long time - that would be thousands of years - after the invention of axiomatic reasoning, this was the way the world worked. Philosophers (and a whole lot of mathematicians) continued to think of axioms as self-evident truths, laws of logic and mathematics, as it were, and a hundred-odd generations of students derived Euclid's theorems about triangle congruence without ever thinking too deeply about them. Even the belated discovery that there could be different axioms that led to different theorems left the sanctity of axiomatic and logical reasoning itself untouched, seducing many a philosopher to continue using the essentially classical reasoning processes that follow, in fact, from using a number of self-evident axioms that were rarely to never openly acknowledged and which were all unprovable assumptions, every one

.

It's unfortunate that the last thread was deleted; I posted a reply.

Anyway, I think you're conflating two separate things - truth and knowledge. You seem to keep returning to this notion of using an unproven truth as an axiom or as a premise in an argument to further prove something else. I'm not saying that an unproven truth is USEFUL; clearly, an argument is only as good as its weakest premise.

You said in your last post (or almost your last post) in the previous thread that truth is the result of empirical investigation. This is inaccurate; the truth PRECEDES empirical investigation. The result of investigation is not truth; it's knowledge. The truth is already there.

Imagine a world identical to our own, but in which everyone were 100% color-blind. Monochrome. (For the sake of this discussion, you're going to have to assume that somehow, they all knew what color was despite being color blind. Maybe they all went color-blind simultaneously, before anyone on the planet saw a canary or a bluebird).

On the Monochrome Bridge Forums one day, one person says that canaries and bluebirds are the same color. One person says they're not. There's no evidence in either case; the species were discovered after color-blindness took effect. They just each have these unsupported beliefs. The person who said they're not the same color has made a true statement. The truth of the state of affairs has nothing to do with investigation; they're different colors. Light reflects off of them at different wavelengths, whether it can be perceived, proven, or otherwise demonstrated to anyone. They don't have knowledge, because they don't have verifiability. Any argument that starts with "Canaries and bluebirds are different colors" (or it's negation) is only as strong as an wholly unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion - not very strong at all (or, as the logical positivists might say, "meaningless," or at least irrational). Nevertheless, the statement is still true.

As PassedOut points out, that doesn't get you any closer to establishing which of the statements is true, and as you point out, it's logically pointless, since they can't know which statement true. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Some truths are unknown (unknowable, even).

The earth didn't start revolving around the sun when it was proven - the truth preceded the science. Physics didn't make it true - physics made it knowledge - demonstrable, verifiable truth that can usefully used as a premise in a subsequent argument.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

The conceptual cannot prove existence - you cannot reason a cumquat salad onto my plate.

And I'm pretty sure nobody would try. But if all conscious being perished after it were placed on your plate, it will still be true that it's there.

The earth is flat a great example, btw. Before the proof arrived, it was absolutely true that the world was in fact non-flat. The fact that some people believe to be true some unproven things that are false does not imply that no unproven things are true.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Anyway, I think you're conflating two separate things - truth and knowledge.

It certainly is dissolving into a debate over definitions - I see your point and I do not disagree with your point from your perspective as to the meaning of "true", which is a priori in your definition. Perhaps the word I should use is "fact" in the context of a posteriori definitions?

Like I said before, we can know the "fact" that the universe existed before mankind had a mind to conceptualize it because we can observe the light that was produced eons before mankind evolved - but prior to mankind walking the face of the planet the "truth" (as you define it) of the existence of the universe itself did not itself exist, as that truth relies upon a bilological brain to produce it. (It requires a mind to conceptualize, a priori.) So if the concept of "truth" existed prior to the development of a biological brain to imagine it, show me where it resolved to an object in the universe. As to pre-human truth, what was its size, weight, height, color, and where in the universe was it located? Where is the "fact" that truth pre-dated the biological mind other than in the mind itself as an axiom? Isn't that a tautology? I can envision eternal truth therefore truth has always existed?

This is really the basic debate of all philosophy - the defining of reality. It is a debate where both sides lose (a lot of sleep with nothing accomplished.)

Edit:

Quote

The earth is flat a great example, btw. Before the proof arrived, it was absolutely true that the world was in fact non-flat.

Btw, doesn't this negate the philosophical argument that reality is conceived? If the axiom was that the earth was flat, then the earth was philosophically flat, was it not? A priori=flat. A posteriori=non-flat.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Like I said before, we can know the "fact" that the universe existed before mankind had a mind to conceptualize it because we can observe the light that was produced eons before mankind evolved - but prior to mankind walking the face of the planet the "truth" (as you define it) of the existence of the universe itself did not itself exist, as that truth relies upon a bilological brain to produce it. (It requires a mind to conceptualize, a priori.)

I agree that we're essentially debating definitions, but for the purpose of clarifying my point...

The truth of the existence of the universe most certainly DID exist prior to mankind. I understood it to be yourposition that it didn't, i.e. truth requires proof or verifiability, which wasn't around until man.

My position is that proof, verification, etc., have nothing to do with whether a thing is true or not. Truth does not require a biological brain (though knowledge does).

[Winstonm]

Quote

I understood it to be yourposition that it didn't, i.e. truth requires proof or verifiability, which wasn't around until man.

Quite right about my position, but only in accordance with the definition I provided (which was the first defintion found on the web, btw) for "truth".

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Quote

I understood it to be yourposition that it didn't, i.e. truth requires proof or verifiability, which wasn't around until man.

Quite right about my position, but only in accordance with the definition I provided (which was the first defintion found on the web, btw) for "truth".

The first definition(s) I find don't pertain to consciousness, proof, or verifiability. e.g.

"the true or actual state of a matter." That's circular (truth ----> true) but the example is interesting - "He tried to find out the truth." i.e. The truth pre-exists the mind that will apprehend it.

The second definition is "conforming with fact or reality."

It's not until the third definition ("a verified or indisputable fact") that the notion of proof is brought in.

[Winstonm]

Speaking of assumptions of axiomatic "truth", consider:

The Law of Contradiction tells us that any given statement cannot be true and false at the same time.
The Law of Excluded Middle tells us that any given statement must be true or false.
The following question is false.
The preceding statement is true.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The first definition(s) I find don't pertain to consciousness, proof, or verifiability. e.g.

Which dictionary, what number, and in what language are all truly irrelevant - the only relevance is which definiton is agreed upon to use in a particular debate.

I understand for some those definitions come from a study of logic or philosophy, but as that is not my home course, and I don't know if the green on #2 really breaks toward the creek or if it is only optical illusion, I have to look it up, and that means the definitions I use may not always be consistent with the exact meanings taught in a philosophy or logic classes - so at times I miss the damn putt!

[helene_t]

Maybe for the purpose of some discussions it is best to deny that "the truth is out there". If it is impossible to establish whether all birds are the same color or not then we could say that the question is meaningless, ie neither true nor false. And further, if we don't know whether all birds are the same color, it may be meaningless to discus whether we could have known. And if some of us claim to know that all birds are the same color but some dispute it, then apparently it isn't known to the group that discusses it. With that use of terminology, only mathematical conjectures can be true since they are the only assertions that can proven.

But for the purpose of most discussions I would agree with Lobowolf. I think that is the way the word "truth" is used in most contexts, and the most fruitful way of using it.

Intuitively I see the semantic question: "what do I mean when I use the word "truth"? " as distinct from the metaphysical question of whether there is an absolute truth. But when I read the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth it strikes me that there is no such distinction. Maybe this means that the metaphysical question is more or less the same as a semantic discussion about how the word should be used for the purpose of metaphysical discussions. And how the word is used in a more agricultural setting is not interesting to philosophers, I suppose.

I guess I would be more excited about a linguist's take than a philosopher's take. But to each his own.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

And here is what I was going to post in response:

Quote

the statement (axiom) itself is true, do you agree?

No, unless you use the word "fact" to express what I am saying. If you mean true a priori then I would say yes.

ok then, you do not agree that what lobo stated, a or ~a, is true ... i'll let others try to analyze your belief why "something exists or something does not exist" is not a true statement

Quote

Let's examine some other "absolute" truths from earlier times: the world is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; the Saints will never win the Superbowl.

those were not true, winston... they were *believed* to be true, which is your definition (but that of nobody else) of an axiom

Quote

You see, no matter the vote, an axiom can only be considered true while it cannot be or has not been disproven by empirical evidence, i.e., as long as it remains in the realm of a priori.

you are defining truth in a manner that begs the question...

- a thing is only true if shown to be so empirically
- an axiom is true (by definition)
therefore an axiom has been shown to be true empirically

however, you conveniently forget that axiom is *defined* as a self-evident truth needing no proof... not only that, your first premise is merely an assertion in need of argument... i believe you are confusing things which are supposed to be true with those that are actually true... an axiom, by definition, is true... once again,

ax·i·om /ˈæksiəm –noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

Speaking of assumptions of axiomatic "truth", consider:

The following question is false.
The preceding statement is true.

that is simply an example of the card paradox (or some similar paradox, such as the liar paradox)... there are many refutations to it, some simple some not

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on May 8 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

The truth of the existence of the universe most certainly DID exist prior to mankind. I understood it to be yourposition that it didn't, i.e. truth requires proof or verifiability, which wasn't around until man.

My position is that proof, verification, etc., have nothing to do with whether a thing is true or not. Truth does not require a biological brain (though knowledge does).

what is your take on this? i was in a discussion on these forums concerning something similar... i stated that the laws of logic existed before man was around to name them (ie., the law of non-contradiction existed before man named it such)

[Winstonm]

Quote

ok, then you do not agree that what lobo stated, a or ~a, is true ... i'll let others try to analyze your belief why "something exists or something does not exist" is not a true statement

It appears you have neither read nor cared to try to understand anything I have said. One last time: I agree with Lobowolf, provided we are using his (and seemingly your) definition of "true". But both of you then need to agree that the meaning you apply is a priori.

You keep restating the same claims based on your humanities education. Granted, you seem to know it well. But what you state as fact is refuted by the Duke University link I posted: instead of reiterating your position, read that and then explain to me where it is wrong and you are right, because frankly the information provided in the link makes sense to me in that it shows a reason for its conclusions other than "it is true because it is true", which you keep repeating.

Repeated for conveniece: http://www.phy.duke....oms/node27.html

I really don't quibble about the definition of "true", only that there then must be some word (I'll pick "fact" this time) that expresses a posteriori "knowledge" rather than a priori "knowledge", as I contend that how we know alters "truth" into a known "fact".

[Winstonm]

Quote

i stated that the laws of logic existed before man was around to name them (ie., the law of non-contradiction existed before man named it such)

I know you asked this of Lobo, but this might help. I don't know how it can be explained any clearer.

Quote

For many years some of the brightest of physicists rejected the formulation of quantum mechanics even though it worked and nothing else did simply because it appeared to be a description of a system's state that permitted things to ``be and not be'' and hence seemed as if it might lead to the possibility of real paradoxes in our experimental view of nature.

Quote

Quantum theory can therefore easily appear to be illogical to an untrained observer (and of course it is, from a classical point of view) but the lesson we learn from its success and from mathematical investigations of things such as curved space geometry and alternative logical systems is that the Laws of Thought, however useful in certain contexts, may not in fact be ``universal self-evident truths''.

Obviously, if the Laws of Thought are not universal self-evident truths, then the question of them pre-dating man is moot.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Quote

ok, then you do not agree that what lobo stated, a or ~a, is true ... i'll let others try to analyze your belief why "something exists or something does not exist" is not a true statement

It appears you have neither read nor cared to try to understand anything I have said. One last time: I agree with Lobowolf, provided we are using his (and seemingly your) definition of "true". But both of you then need to agree that the meaning you apply is a priori.

why do we need to agree with that? you are the only one arguing about the definition of truth

Quote

You keep restating the same claims based on your humanities education.  Granted, you seem to know it well.  But what you state as fact is refuted by the Duke University link I posted: instead of reiterating your position, read that and then explain to me where it is wrong and you are right, because frankly the information provided in the link makes sense to me in that it shows a reason for its conclusions other than "it is true because it is true", which you keep repeating.

you are again revising history... you offered what was an ill-conceived definition of 'axiom' that suited your ideas... all i, and others, did was show you your error... yet instead of simply cutting your losses you continued defining the terms as you saw fit

Quote

Repeated for conveniece: http://www.phy.duke....oms/node27.html

this link did not work for me.. edit: i found the original link, will read it and will give my opinion on whether or not the duke philosophy dept. has yet caught up with princeton's

Quote

I really don't quibble about the definition of "true", only that there then must be some word (I'll pick "fact" this time) that expresses a posteriori "knowledge" rather than a priori "knowledge", as I contend that how we know alters "truth" into a known "fact".

of course you quibbled about it... in any case, i'm sure there are words whose definitions fit whatever point you are trying to make... it would save everyone a lot of trouble if you'd just use those words the first time

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

Quote

Quantum theory can therefore easily appear to be illogical to an untrained observer (and of course it is, from a classical point of view) but the lesson we learn from its success and from mathematical investigations of things such as curved space geometry and alternative logical systems is that the Laws of Thought, however useful in certain contexts, may not in fact be ``universal self-evident truths''.

Obviously, if the Laws of Thought are not universal self-evident truths, then the question of them pre-dating man is moot.

if true, why is it obviously moot? btw, is this a true statement? either quantum theory is true or quantum theory is not true

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 8 2010, 06:15 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Quote

ok, then you do not agree that what lobo stated, a or ~a, is true ... i'll let others try to analyze your belief why "something exists or something does not exist" is not a true statement

It appears you have neither read nor cared to try to understand anything I have said. One last time: I agree with Lobowolf, provided we are using his (and seemingly your) definition of "true". But both of you then need to agree that the meaning you apply is a priori.

why do we need to agree with that? you are the only one arguing about the definition of truth

Quote

You keep restating the same claims based on your humanities education.  Granted, you seem to know it well.  But what you state as fact is refuted by the Duke University link I posted: instead of reiterating your position, read that and then explain to me where it is wrong and you are right, because frankly the information provided in the link makes sense to me in that it shows a reason for its conclusions other than "it is true because it is true", which you keep repeating.

you are again revising history... you offered what was an ill-conceived definition of 'axiom' that suited your ideas... all i, and others, did was show you your error... yet instead of simply cutting your losses you continued defining the terms as you saw fit

Quote

Repeated for conveniece: http://www.phy.duke....oms/node27.html

this link did not work for me.. edit: i found the original link, will read it and will give my opinion on whether or not the duke philosophy dept. has yet caught up with princeton's

Quote

I really don't quibble about the definition of "true", only that there then must be some word (I'll pick "fact" this time) that expresses a posteriori "knowledge" rather than a priori "knowledge", as I contend that how we know alters "truth" into a known "fact".

of course you quibbled about it... in any case, i'm sure there are words whose definitions fit whatever point you are trying to make... it would save everyone a lot of trouble if you'd just use those words the first time

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

Quote

Quantum theory can therefore easily appear to be illogical to an untrained observer (and of course it is, from a classical point of view) but the lesson we learn from its success and from mathematical investigations of things such as curved space geometry and alternative logical systems is that the Laws of Thought, however useful in certain contexts, may not in fact be ``universal self-evident truths''.

Obviously, if the Laws of Thought are not universal self-evident truths, then the question of them pre-dating man is moot.

if true, why is it obviously moot? btw, is this a true statement? either quantum theory is true or quantum theory is not true

There is no reason to extend this further - it is nonsense.

[luke warm]

i have read your link... i don't know who the author is (maybe i could find out but i'm not up to it at the moment), but s/he did not do that which s/he set out to do... s/he took exception with this definition of axiom:

Quote

A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, "The whole is greater than a part;'' "A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.''

s/he never showed that this definition is incorrect; the very most s/he could be said to have shown is that either:

• that which was formerly thought to be an axiom is now known to have been merely an opinion; or,
  
  
  
• axioms are dependent upon the discipline of thought in which one is involved

in other words, that which is axiomatic in euclid geometry need not be axiomatic of quantum mechanics... this does not negate the definition; rather it clarifies and expands it... s/he makes this incredible statement

Quote

Consequently, every philosphical [sic] argument ever made that relies on an implicit temporal ordering of events or that is implicitly independent of the relative viewpoint of the observer (and there are arguments aplenty in this category, given the implicit ordering in modus ponens, if A then at least has to be reexamined and probably is just plain "wrong'', if one has a criterion for correctness that includes using logic intended to apply to reality that is not egregiously inconsistent with the logic revealed in empirical observations of reality

what s/he is saying, of course, is that no such thing as a universal truth (or absolute truth) exists - or at least that no philosophical argument has ever been made showing the universal truth of a proposition... perhaps s/he has the necessary skins on the wall to warrant such arrogance - even so, warranted or not s/he would be wrong

Winstonm, on May 8 2010, 06:57 PM, said:

There is no reason to extend this further - it is nonsense.

as an opinion, this is excellent... it fails as an axiom, however