many people in this country have an easy, "meaningless" , and largely empty life in which they do whatever they want and nobody can tell them theyre wrong like children...so they project and think that everyone else's life must be like theirs
All scientific "truth" is relative to the function of time and space ...and subject to change. God's word is the only eternal absolute truth.
Absolute truth is that only our Maker is able to be our Savior because no one else can be. His word makes sense.
Ordered functions in life forms prove there is a Maker. The fabric of time and space has ordered functions that require an eternal Maker not made of matter that He stretched out.
Mutations can only change existing orders, not order anything.
This guy know's how to play with words. How ever we live in a world that needs facts screw truth what about hard facts. Just because a book says all sorts of stuff doesn't mean its true. if i read harry potter is it true?
This is a way of jumping around any arguments of fact. In stead of answering a question straight forward they dodge around it such as christians and all people of faith
Go ahead and be skeptical of skepticism, i see nothing wrong with that. Proving whether or not absolute truth exists still doesn't necessarily prove that the bible is true. It could just prove the bible is absolutely false.
@ncello740 No one claim that the idea of absolute truth proves the bible. This is a critique of relativism and scepticism. So your comment is quite irrelevant.
Empirical truth describes what we percieve true. It requires a system of proof.
Tautologous truths describe what is true by way of analysis alone. It requires a system of proof.
No other truth types exist. We only have perception and conception.
All truths are systemic, requiring proof that they are true. If no proof, then no truth. If proof, then a system. No truth is true, prior to being proven true, thus no truth CAN be absolute.
Absolute truth is an archiac and dangerous concept.
churches seem to think that if you choose to believe in god thats better than being open to life and really searching for truth no matter what that might be. that way they can brain wash you to think what they think and if you come up with a logical objection they can just spew out bull to shut you up. i'm a christian and i can't stand this nonsense. truth is relative because people understand things differently. two people could have the same view but different reasons for believing it
"truth is relative because people understand things differently"
False. Truth is relative to a system of proof, not to individual perspective. What you describe is subjectivity, yet truth (and 2 of the 3 belief types) are objective.
"two people could have the same view but different reasons for believing it"
@gklr so then name one thing thats actually true thats not just a belief held by faith? gravity is true for everyone plus you have proof until you get into space and realize there is a bigger perspective. everyone use their perspective to understand what they know so how is the idea of truth not dependent on your interpretation? umm so how do you know 100% for sure when you are right and not just 99.9999% right? you just talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point..
@jetset808, "so then name one thing thats actually true thats not just a belief held by faith?" There are 5 propositional types. 2 truth types: Empirical truths. eg: the earth exists Tautologous truths. eg: it is raining out or it is not raining out And 3 belief types: Inductive logic (assumption) subjective belief (opinion) myths (fiction) You attempt to reduce affirmations to 1 type when there are 5. 2 of the 3 belief types are not subjective, they are objective.
Gravity is not true for anyone. The only things that are true or false, or believed... are propositions. Statements ABOUT gravity are true or false, or are believed. Gravity is never "true".
"plus you have proof until you get into space and realize there is a bigger perspective"
Gravity exists in space, it is what keeps the earth in orbit around the sun and what keeps the sun moving with the milky way and what keeps the milky way in motion. Even so, simply because I move to China doesn't mean it is not true that Canada exists. Your argument needs work.
"talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point"
Then your problem is with propositional logic, not with me. If you haven't heard that assumptions, myths, tautologous truths, and empirical truths are not opinions.... then now you know why saying so is false.
Your own argument defeated itself. That is why it needs work. I suggest you find out why opinions are subjective, and why empirical truths, tautologous truths, assumption and myths are objective.
"haha needs work? sorry what does the milky way in orbit around?"
I didn't say the milky way was in orbit.
When you say things like "gravity is true, to everyone"... then you are making false claims and your argument needs work. What baby understands gravity?
Since when CAN 'gravity' be true at all? Statements ABOUT gravity are true, gravity is not true or false, it is not a proposition.
"haha needs work?"
Oh fuck ya. You have no idea about this topic whatsoever.
@gklr babies don't understand gravity but what person really understands it either.. when can you say you fully understand it and how would you even know if you didn't know. .. you said the milky way was in motion because of gravity wtf are you talking about? the big bang was gravity that is pushing the galaxies apart? i said gravity is true for everyone because everyone is effected by it now your all going straw man .. let me guess you went to school and took some class..
"babies don't understand gravity but what person really understands it either.."
The issue was that you said "gravity is true" when it isn't. Only propositions are true, gravity is not a proposition. That no-one fully understands gravity undermines your contention that there is nothing true about gravity. The issue here is truth, not gravity.
"you said the milky way was in motion because of gravity wtf are you talking about?"
The MW moves. The sun moves within the milky way. What holds the milky way together? Gravity. What force keeps the stars moving within the milky way? Gravity. The milky way has shape, what shapes the milky way? Gravity. What holds these stars in motion? Gravity.
Your comment said there is no gravity in space when gravity is curved space.
@gklr k what hold the galaxy together is dark matter which is another way of saying they don't fucking know .. because there isn't enough matter to create gravity to hold the galaxy together.. and i didn't mean to imply that gravity doesn't exists in space but that it's affects you completely differently for example when you got up into space you would float..
" k what hold the galaxy together is dark matter which is another way of saying they don't fucking know"
I'd agree with that, but I am not a scientist and see no concern for me anyway. I am a philosopher, not a scientist.
"and i didn't mean to imply that gravity doesn't exists in space but that it's affects you completely differently for example when you got up into space you would float."
The issue here is truth, and that would be a truth about gravity.
"i said gravity is true for everyone because everyone is effected by it now your all going straw man "
Hardly. Gravity is never true. Saying so is not a strawman. Babies don't understanding propositions about gravity, so even if you improved your comment to read "everyone knows propositions about gravity are true", you'd still be wrong... babies don't. Strawman? Logical fallacies must be shown true, which undermines your first stance that all claims are beliefs.
@gklr babies don't need to understand gravity to be effected by it and i wouldn't say "everyone knows propositions about gravity are true", because of my stance that all truths are just peoples beliefs ..
"because of my stance that all truths are just peoples beliefs .. "
Beliefs must be possibly true AND possibly false, at the same time.
It is not possibly false that "it is raining out or it is not raining out". This is a tautologous truth and is not possibly false. There is no such logical possibility.
If you can think, it is not possible that you do not exist. This is an empirical truth and is not possibly false.
No truth is a belief. Beliefs can't be proven true.
"let me guess you went to school and took some class"
Never. I was raised by a philosopher. My dad debated Bertrand Russell twice. I've never taken a class on any of this. I was raised on it and now I am 50 in 3 months. I hated these topics as a youth and had unwanted lectures often. I tried my best to block it out and preached that people should plant crops instead and be productive. Wait... I still do argue that. Well... you get the drift.
"everyone use their perspective to understand what they know so how is the idea of truth not dependent on your interpretation?"
You need to interpet the language the truth is stated in or the statement means nothing at all. 1+1=2 isn't true to be a baby, it is meaningless then. That doesn't mean 1+1=2 is not true. It means a person can't decipher what was said. Say "one plus one equals two" to any nonenglish speaking person and see if they agree with you.
"how do you know 100% for sure when you are right and not just 99.9999% right?"
Verifiability. For empirical truths we have the 5 senses to verify facts about physical objects. Empirical truths are CONTINGENT on facts, never necessary. Tautologous truths are logically NECESSARY and never contingent on facts. eg: it is raining out or it is not raining out. P or not P, is true for every P, where P is a proposition, by logical necessity. Each is systemic, neither is absolute.
The largest mistake in this discussion is to suggest "relative truth" is "relative to individual perspective". The religious make this error and have an excuse, they are constantly concerned with and read a lot on behaviour, right and wrong... and challenge what modern ethics has to say... which is that morality is relative (meaning subjective, a belief).
Relative truth however is objective, not subjective.
If you are not religious, then you fell for their misunderstanding.
"you just talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point"
Your own comments refuted themselves. You claimed beliefs exist, we have proof of gravity, spaces exists, that there is a bigger perspective, that perspective exists, that understanding exists, that interpetation exists, that percentage exists, that big talk exists....are all true, or else all you had to say on it may not be true. What is the possibility that you do not exist, while you read this reply?
@gklr go watch the matrix again.. you can say all those things are true.. but really how the fuck do i know if space is real i've never been? or gravity i just take peoples word for it and it seems to make sense with the way they explain it.. but it could work completely different ... how would i know if i was just a person in your dream so am i real? how would i know or would i even know or can i even know. no matter what i'm filtering it thru my perspective just like you do..
All truths require axioms. Axioms must be assumed true to say anything at all. That doesn't change that things are true or false, it only means that for every truth we require beliefs to get there. Beliefs are seperate from truths in that belief statements are possibly true and possibly false, wheras given a set of axioms (which are also neeeded for beliefs) no truth is possibly false. If it is possibly false, it is not true at all.
" actually agree with this .. when i say truth is relative i mean that it's relative to the person not that it doesn't exist at all .. "
Truth is relative to a system of proof. Truth is not relative to individual perspective. What is relative to individual perspective is known as SUBJECTIVE, which is like opinion or dreams. Truth is always objective and so too are assumptions and myths, 2 of the 3 belief types
Relative to the person is subjectivity. Truth isn't subjective.
"what about the double slit test? is matter waves of potential or like marbles .. "
You think "test" meant something prior to the word "test" existing? Why?
If no languages existed, no truths could.
Were the tuths of these tests, true.... before they were proven true? What made them true? Nothing?
A proposition that is not proven true or false is a belief, not a truth. Calling beliefs "absolute truth" is the domain of religion and it violates logic quite seriously.
@gklr it's kinda complicated but theres a short video on youtube explaining it it type in double slit test if you want.. basically they showed that they don't even know what matter is and that it acts differently when it is observed in other words 1+1= what ever.. and if matter is affected by thought.. then what is proper proof to believe in something, when thinking it can make it true.. if it was false before and now true because you think it how can you then truly comprehend any truth?
Anyone even asking if matter is affected by thought, misunderstands both matter and thought.
1+1=2 only when we assume the rules of inference, and the values of 1, 2, + and =. Then it is necessarily true, a matter of mental analysis, a thought only. It is not true forever and ever amen. It could not be true if mind or if language did not exist and I see no evidence either did prior to the earth existing.
@gklr the whole point of the test was to see if matter works as waves or as a field of potential.. they fired two electrons at a screen thru double slits lets say and they would get either an interference pattern or particles when it should be one or the other everytime.. the thing that determined which one it was... was an observer.. what am i misunderstanding?
@gklr like you said your not a science guy .. .. so i'll break it down like this .. you say observing something is truth but that test shows that observing something changes it so you don't see what is normally there only what is there when you look at it.. because the observation is subjective so is the truth because of your perspective.. how does that not apply now to everything that is an observable truth? and to what degree does it change if at all.. bottom line is you don't know forsure
Observing things is how we verify an empirical truth. The truth is the statement about the state of affairs. We don't observe any truths. We verify empirical truths by way of observation.
@gklr " Observing things is how we verify an empirical truth." yeah thats what i mean ... so if i keep saying to myself hey i'm here and have memory of doing that theres nothing possibly subjective about that? how do i know it's not a false memory?
No truth is subjective. Subjective refers to 1 of the 3 belief types. Opinions are subjective, they are dependent on the subject. Dreams are subjective. Beliefs like that tommorow you will exist is not subjective, it is inductive.
" basically they showed that they don't even know what matter is and that it acts differently when it is observed "
Then it exists, is true. The topic is truth right?
"in other words 1+1= what ever"
1+1=2 has nothing to do with matter. Logical truths are not material things. They are conceptions in our mind solely and refer to things like 1, or + that are also conceptions of mind. Empirical truths talk about matter.
@gklr when i said 1+1= whatever i mean that in the contexts of matter..one electron plus one electron = a wave or two particles .. at the quantum level things act differently .. thats why there is no unified theory in physics "..Then it exists, is true. The topic is truth right?" maybe i'm actually really sure it is true.. but i don't know .. it makes sense
If one truth is invalid under a different model, then each truth is valid under it's own system.
1+1=2 is not true in binary. 2 has no value in binary.
I think fans of QM want to violate the law of noncontradiction.... say something is true at the same time as it is not true.... and I think it proves QM fans need to go back to the drawing board.
I know QM scientists who deny QM violates the law of noncontradiction.
"then what is proper proof to believe in something, when thinking it can make it true"
Proof only belongs to truth. No belief is proven true. Beliefs must be possibly true and possibly false.
Tautologies are true by way of thinking alone, because all logical possibilities have been taken into consideration. It is true for example that "you exist, or you don't exist", by way of logic. Finding out if you exist or not doesn't alter the truth that you are or are not existent.
"if it was false before and now true because you think it how can you then truly comprehend any truth?"
If it was false before, then it is not true now. If it is true now and was thought to be false before, they whoever thought it was false was wrong. They believed it was true, they did not know. eg: the earth was flat.
"you can say all those things are true.. but really how the fuck do i know if space is real i've never been?"
You can't. You trust what you've been told, you apply inductive logic to say space is real or the bottom of the sea exists. What makes it true and not a belief is that it is verifiable, which means it is possible for you to verify it by going. The minute you come back, you need belief to say you even went.
"or gravity i just take peoples word for it and it seems to make sense with the way they explain it"
Correct. You use inductive logic, assumption.... assuming they actually went there, assuming they know what they are talking about, assuming you heard right, assuming many things..... then you can say space (as in outer space) exists. If you were in space you could verify it is true.
@gklr my point is that you can't know if something is true 100% you act as if people are reliable to each other or even to themselves.. if you went on space mtn and told some kid it was really space and he believed you is that true? well earth is in space so depending on your perspective it could be..
"how would i know if i was just a person in your dream so am i real?"
That you think proves that. I think, therefore I am. It cannot be true that I think, if I do not exist.
I pee, therefore I am. I eat, therefore I am. I cannot eat, cannot pee, if I do not exist.
You write on youtube, therefore you exist. If you drop dead as soon as you wrote your last comment, then we wouldn't see any more comments by you. I assume you exist. You can prove you do is true.
@gklr i think therefore i am is just an assumption .. if a holo deck were real like on star trek and you programed a person with past memories would they be real even thou they thought so?
@gklr ok so cuz you don't consider that a holograph thinks? no holographic people exist so how would you know what fictional people would do or could do.. it's called AI by the way.. artificial intelligence .... they would be a real holograph but if they thought they were a real human what they actually think would be really wrong.. there for it is subjective because of perspective.
"how would i know or would i even know or can i even know"
You can know that you are not a character in my dream many ways, that you think, is just one. The characters in my dreams do not think. You do.
"i'm filtering it thru my perspective"
So what? If you do not exist and have no perspective and others did exist, they could still show why "it is raining out or it is not raining out" is true, independent of anyones perspective, independent of it raining out or not.
@gklr they had two sequels already it was a trilogy that ended.. anyways i don't buy the whole i think there for i am .. i think wrong there for i might not even be..
@gklr how do you know the characters in your dreams don't think? and everyone believing something doesn't make it true for example the earth is not flat anymore right?
This video asks "how can it be true that there is no truth?"
That is not what relative truth implies. Truth is relative to a system of proof, not relative to personal perspective. What is relative to personal perspective is subjective belief or opinion.
Truth must be proven true or nothing makes it true. If proof exists, then the truth is dependent on that proof, relative to the proof. If no proof, then no truth exists.
@gklr I'm sorry but relativist truth is defined as the individual perspective of the truth.
By this i mean that relativist truth bases itself on the fact that everyone's statement is true independently. Absolute truth claims that there is a correct truth which negates the incorrect statement, relative truth implies that what you've written is truth but my statement is correct as well.
Relative truth is one of the few fields where relativism fails, because there is an absolute truth.
@gklr I am responding on what you wrote earlier, do you think this video holds the correct information? Are you basing yourself only on this video? Because there are plenty of sites that describe what relativism is.
My mistake. I thought your first comment to me was a reply to my own video on this topic. I need no instruction thanks on what relative truth means. It is a mistake of the religious to equate it with how relative is meant in ethics, which is as you say individual perspective. Not with relative truth. Relative truth is always objective. That is the mistake being made in this video and in my haste I didn't even see which video these comments were being applied to. Again, my error.
This video errs in mistaking what relative truth is or even means. They make a common mistake in this regard. The reason why is that theologens are concerned a lot with ethics, where "relative" means subjective.
The word relative means something different in logic than in ethics than in phsyics than in geneology.
Truth is always objective and always relative to a system of proof.
@gklr Truth without proof is possible. You do not have to know it and you do not have to prove it, yet it's truth, an absolute truth. Plato sustained a similar thing in regards to the matter, but truth does not rely solely on proof for something to be true does not need us to know it.
If you have not proven a proposition is true, it may not be true at all. All tuths must be proven true or the proposition might be false. Propositions that might be true and might be false are beliefs, not truths.
If I put a ball on the table, it is true there is a ball on the table. It was not always true. No truth is eternal or can be eternal.
Language did not always exist and truth itself is a part of language.
@gklr Apparent proofs might not be able to show truth. An example can well be when the police investigates and they happen to find "proof" that leads to the capture of an innocent person. It does happen, it is not uncommon, as proof itself can be misleading. Thus, proof does not always lead to truth but falsity.
Not before it is proven true no. Not before math exists no.
Truth only exist in the now, no truth exists for the past or for the future. 1 truth about a thing, proves that thing exists and the future and past do not exist so they have no truths for them.
@gklr So in 500,000BC, 1 + 1 does not equal to 2? Are you serious?
Listen, we express truth in language BUT truth doesn't need to be expressed in order for it to be truth.
Truth only exist in the now; I agree! But so is everything else in the universe. The now is eternal; it's always the now. You can't go to the past or the future. Therefore, to say truth only exist in the now is to say truth is eternal.
P.S. There are many ways to attack religions; you are using the most ridiculous one.
500,000 BC does not exist. There is no such thing.
Absolute truth requires an eternal mind/god. Absolute truth is impossible, all truths are systemic, relative to a system of proof. No proof? Then no truth.
" There are many ways to attack religions; you are using the most ridiculous one."
@gklr Truths are not systemic. We use different systems to express truths. The system is confined by the truth/reality, not the other way around.
Proof only validates a truth, it doesn't affect the truth as true in any way or form. Ex. Even though we didn't know the Earth is round in 2000BC, it was still the case at the time; we just didn't know it.
The fact that we didn't know didn't affect the truth (i.e. reality).
False. All truths are expressions called propositions that speak about things.
"Expression of truth =/= truth
"Apple" =/= apple"
If that is an analogy it is a poor one. Apples are physical things, resolved to exist via perception. Truth is concieved and not percieved. An apple does not equate anything. Equals only applies to concepts. Equals is itself a concept.
"Even though we didn't know the Earth is round in 2000BC, it was still the case at the time; we just didn't know it."
All truths are known. If a proposition is not known to be true or false it is a belief. You espouse your beliefs as truths and each time you do you are wrong. All statements about 2000 BC are belief statements.
All statements for 1 second ago are belief statements by logical necessity.
"If a proposition is not known to be true or false it is a belief."
Great, now tell me: what's 1 + 1 in 5,000,000 BC?"
Number did not exist in 500,000 BC so it was gibberish then nad had no meaning.... and you missed the point of the argument anyway because that wasn't what I was talking about. The "truth" in question is whether NOW "tomorrow 1+1=2" is true, when it clearly is not. It is a belief to say "tommorow 1+1=2".
Newsflash: Tommorow doesn't exist. All truths require deduction and we cannot deduct for what is not there. Inductive logic is assumption in action. Belief is not truth.
Camping says truth is absolute, much closer to you than to me.Anyways you are blocked for talking like an asshole to me. Manners you learned in church no doubt.
Tomorrow doesn't exist; I agree! Only now exists. But when is it not now?
1+1 still = 2 when all minds are dead. Your twisted logic doesn't work in reality. I'm so sorry. What's reality? Reality is a word, but it's more than a word. Again, use/mention distinction; learn it.
I'm being an asshole? Really? But I'm about twice as nice as you. What does that make you?
I think what gklr is saying that since the common approach to truth is of correspondence it is the relation between truthbearers and truthmakers, not truthmakers (aka objects) themselves. To quote Searle (if I remember correctly) 'there were facts in the jurrasic era, but there werent any true statements.'
We believe there were facts in the Jurrasic era. All statements about the past or about the future are beliefs, not truths. Thus there are no absolute truths.
There are many reasons why there are no absolute truths. Truth must be proven is one. Truth is mind/language dependent for two. Truth didn't always exist for another.
Yep. And all apparently due to that you have been shown wrong. So here come the insults.
You don't even watch videos you attempt to criticize, and in sheer ignorance you insult people who happen to know more than you do. Childish, immature, and an asshole. Grow the fuck up.
"If absolute truth = statement that's true in all circumstances. Then your statement, "there's no absolute truth" is self refuting."
False. It is not true when no truths existed, prior to mind existing or prior to language existing. No true before it was proven true. Not true outside of now.
But you could have already realized that by watching my video.
Show me the logic course that says truth is magical and always existed. The bible and koran are not logic books.
@gklr You can either say "absolute truth exists" or say nothing.
Given absolute truth = statement that's true in all circumstances
You said your statement, "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not an absolute truth = "absolute truth doesn't exist" is false in some circumstances = absolute truth exists in some circumstances = self refuting.
What you are going at is the subject–object problem; it's more of a metaphysics issue, not really an argument in logic.
There is no circumstance where absolute truth CAN exist. All truths, including "there are no absolute truths", are relative to a system of proof. It is not self refuting at all.
It is a violation of formal logic to say truth is absolute, as there are no absolute systems of proof.
Truth is tautologous or empirical, each of those are systemic and none of those truth types existed at all prior to mind or prior to language.
Even if I take your stance that truth didn't exist prior to the existence of mind, absolute truth still makes sense because absolute truth is true as long as my mind exists. As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute".
Therefore, I can always depend on it as long as I exist, which is all anyone can ask for.
Why do you care what's going on when no mind existed? You can never find proof to prove it anyway. You're trying to find nothingness. Let it go.
"Even if I take your stance that truth didn't exist prior to the existence of mind, absolute truth still makes sense"
If a truth is not true for every possible circumstance, it is not an absolute truth. Absolute truth must be true "forever and ever amen", always true... and does not exist.
"As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute"."
Nothing was true prior to mind or language existing. Truth is a thought about a proposition. Thoughts with no mind?
"As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute"."
Even prior to language? How is a proposition "true" when it does not exist?
"Therefore, I can always depend on it as long as I exist, which is all anyone can ask for." --- which has nothing to do with being absolute truth. There is no such thing as a truth, that is not a thought
Truth only applies to now, there are no truths for the past or the future. Absolute truths claim to be forever. No possibility of that
"Why do you care what's going on when no mind existed? "
I am showing a possible circumstance, where no truths exist at all. Thus no truth is "true for every possible circumstance", which absolute truth claims to be.
All truths must be proven. There is no such thing as an unproven truth. If a proposition is not proven true and not proven false (where it must be true that it is false), it is a belief. Until proven true, no truth is true, thus no eternal truth is possible.
All truths are propositions. Show me the proposition that existed when no languages existed.
Contradictions are proof of what does not exist. Absolute truth is contradictory.
@gklr You cannot prove there exists a time where no minds exist. Email me when an absolute truth *IS* false. I couldn't care less of what happens when all minds die. You're wasting your time.
"You cannot prove there exists a time where no minds exist."
It is a possible circumstance and absolute truths must be true for every possible circumstance. Show it is impossible that minds did not always exist. We show what is logically impossible by showing a contradiction. Contradictions are expressed as "P and not P, at the same time" where P is a proposition.
It is not possible that any truth is true prior to being proven true, thus absolute truth is impossible.
@gklr No, you have to show me how it's possible. That's like asking you to show me how God is impossible.
Even if truth didn't exist prior to minds, so what? Absolute truth is still always truth. You cannot experience nonexistence. You cannot perceive in a time where no minds exist.
The only minds shown to exist are biological and earth bound. It is possible and even widely agreed that the earth did not always exist, let alone biological brains on earth.
We have no propositions that were not formed by earth bound critters. All truths are propositions.
It is quite possible no minds existed, and quite unlikely that language always existed. You need to show and prove both to just start towards any absolute.
"Show me a time where an absolute truth IS false. You can't..."
I can't show you "an absolute truth" that is false, because there is no such thing as an absolute truth.
If I have a ball on the table, it is true the ball is on the table. It is not always true. It is not an absolute truth. I can take the ball off the table and then "the ball is on the table" is not true.
Empirical truths and tautologous truths are both systemic, relative to a system.
That isn't what I am claiming. I am showing there is a possible circumstance when no minds exist, when 1+1=2 didn't exist.... prior to mind, prior to language. When 1+1=2 did not exist, it was not a truth.
Not true, does not equate false.
Existence is a word with meaning and has no meaning outside what it means. Prior to language existing there was no such word and "existence" didn't exist, and meant nothing.
"Why can't you learn the use/mention function of a word? I'm talking about the meaning of "existence", not the word itself."
The word is it's meaning. That is all it ever is. You have meanings, when no meanings exist? Prior to language existing, no meanings to words existed. No propositions existed. All truths are propositions.
Absolute truth is a magical kind of nonsense. There is no room for it in the modern world or in modern logic. It violates logic as much as it can be.
@gklr Prior to language existing, what the words *represent* existed. We use words to represent something, that *something* still exist even when there's no word representing it.
"Prior to language existing, what the words *represent* existed. We use words to represent something, that *something* still exist even when there's no word representing it."
Truths apply to propositions only. Only propositions are true or false, or believed.
All statements about the past are belief statements. To say you existed 1 second ago is a belief statement. No truth is always true, as no truth is true for 1 second ago.
@gklr "Truths prove what exists. 1 second ago doesn't"
Then why are you keep talking about truth of the past when the past doesn't exist?
The past doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, only the now exists. Therefore it's always the now. Absolute truth is what's always true in the now.
You said truth didn't existed in the past, but the past is also nonexistent. You can't say anything about what doesn't exist.
g: "Truths prove what exists. 1 second ago doesn't"
f: Then why are you keep talking about truth of the past when the past doesn't exist?
I'm not. I offer a possible circumstance. Saying it is a possible circumstance allows for that circumstance to be false.
You need to show that truth is true before it is proven true, and to prove that mind and language always exists, just to begin any absolute truth. Good luck with that. I won't be holding my breath.
@gklr "I'm not. I offer a possible circumstance. Saying it is a possible circumstance allows for that circumstance to be false."
It's impossible to be in the past, or in the future, because it IS, not was or will.
Therefore, absolute truth *IS* always true. Absolute truth didn't exist and will not exist, but you can't make that statement because those times don't exist.
"Therefore, absolute truth *IS* always true. Absolute truth didn't exist and will not exist, but you can't make that statement because those times don't exist."
No truths exist unless mind and language exists. To show an absolute truth, you need to show an eternal mind exists, an eternal language exists, and that truths are true before being proven true (which violates logic)
Your beliefs are not truths
Every truth is systemic. No exceptions exist. Thus no truth is absolute
@gklr "No truths exist unless mind and language exists. To show an absolute truth, you need to show an eternal mind exists, an eternal language exists, and that truths are true before being proven true (which violates logic)"
I don't need to prove anything. Because 1 + 1 = 2, always. Except in the past or in the future, but those are beliefs, not truth. The truth is now. Absolute truth is true now, always. That's all I need to know. Chasing for more is being fetish.
I prove the past doesn't exist, and one reason why no truth is absolute.
Absolute truths must be true forever. Eternal truth. Religious nonsense written at a time prior to mankind understanding how truth works... that it is systemic, must be proven and so on.
The religious texts who propogate that truth is absolute where written in a primitive time. Bronze age for the bible. Logic has come a long way since then.
"The truth is now. Absolute truth is true now, always"
It was not always now. 1 second ago is not "now".
"That's all I need to know."
What is shown true now, is relative to a system of proof. Not absolute. You just denied truth is absolute, and falsely claimed what is true now is absolute when to be absolute requires it was always true.
You can't say what is true now, is absolute.... it is contradictory. Absolute truth is what is always true.
Absolute truth must be true eternally, not just for now.
What is true now is systemic, the opposite of absolute.
It is not always now. 1 second ago is not "now". An absolute truth must be true for 1 second ago and all of time. No such possibility and you seem to realize why. Truth only applies to now.
@gklr "Absolute truth must be true eternally, not just for now."
But you just said the past doesn't exist, which means absolute truth doesn't need to be true in the past in order to be true eternally. Since now is all there is, absolute truth is possible.
"But you just said the past doesn't exist, which means absolute truth doesn't need to be true in the past in order to be true eternally. Since now is all there is, absolute truth is possible."
The past doesn't exist, nor does the future. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future, eternally. Absolute truth is impossible.
But what? There is no conflict in anything I said.
All past tense and all future tense statements are beliefs that require inductive logic.
@gklr "The past doesn't exist, nor does the future. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future, eternally. Absolute truth is impossible."
Right! Except for the conclusion. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future in order to be true eternally. But since the past and the future don't exist, "eternal" no longer applies to the past and future, only the now. Therefore, absolute truth only needs to be true now in order for it to be true eternally.
Now, by the way, is not a time at all. Now is a concept that describes present tense circumstances.
1+1=2 is not true for 1 second ago. It is believed to be true for 1 second ago via inductive logic. We cannot apply deductive logic to things that do not exist. All truths require deductive logic (and yet another reason that no truth is absolute). Deductive logic must exist first.
The further away from us in time or space, the more inductive logic is required.
""Now, by the way, is not a time at all. Now is a concept that describes present tense circumstances."
Yes, and it's always the present tense. Agree? When is it not now?"
So long as minds exist, so long as language exists, so long as in that language we have the term "now" then as time progresses we can say it is "now". We couldn't do that when no minds existed.
Always in the context of absolute truth means for all of time, past present and future.
"present = always" is contradictory and denies time, change, mass, space, distance and truth all exist. Truth is system dependent, the system must come first. Truth is proof dependent, time dependent, nothing is true prior to being proven true.
No, it does not. You experienced everything in the now. You can't do anything in the past nor future, you can only do it in the now. Therefore it's always now.
A=B, if and only if... all that is true for A is also true for B.
The present refers to what is now. Always does not refer solely to now. Therefore they are different and do not equate. I can say something true for present, that is false for always.
You'd need to deny time exists altogether, as well as mass, space, distance, speed and truth.... to say time does not exist. Time = distance/speed and nothing else.
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction, which is expressed as P and not P, at the same time.
When we refer to what exists, we refer to the present tense. Not what did exist, not what will exist.
It is a contradiction to say that the past is now, then we contradict ourselves in saying what is past tense is not what is past tense.... P and not P, at the same time. We mean something different with past tense than we do by present tense. Again, see Liebniz.
Not at all. It is not "always the present tense". Always refers to all of the past and all of the future as well as the present tense. To say "it is always now" is clearly false, it was not now 1 second ago. It was not now when you were not born yet.
When is it not now? 1 second ago.
Time exists, change exists. 1 second ago does not exist, but we must assume it did to say change, speed, distance, mass, time all exist.
@gklr "It did exist and we must assume so to say the past existed. We can't prove it did."
Obviously you hate logic a lot; you're trying to say logic cannot prove anything and it's a waste of time to do so. You have a huge issue on yourself.
Obviously you are a poor psychic. Telling me what I love or hate, a matter of subjectivity, has no bearing on logic or truth. How do you expect to read peoples minds for their likes and dislikes?
Worth what I paid for it. When you think you have ESP ability, I start laughing. Giving me a psychic reading will be about as effective as saying truth is absolute when I know otherwise.
All truths must be proven. No truth is true until proven.
Obviously I was assuming, not sensing that you hate it. And obviously you used it as a chance to mock me for believing to have ESP ability. You have daddy issues.
I was thinking youtube had simply been slow in emailing me your replies. Nope. You were already blocked.
And no fucking wonder why either. Look at what you write!
Troll someone else. Obviously you have issues with me, earning 2 blocks.
I should have realized when I didn't get any updates in email you were trolling and blocked. Next time that happens I will be quicker on the draw. You don't deserve replies from me. Fuck off
many people in this country have an easy, "meaningless" , and largely empty life in which they do whatever they want and nobody can tell them theyre wrong like children...so they project and think that everyone else's life must be like theirs
patriciacarrasco 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@exPastor1 i can't tell if your joking or not? " Observing things is how we verify an empirical truth."
i observed God last nite in my back yard. therefore God exists is true. and there is everyones proof.
.. < thats a joke right?
jetset808 5 months ago
you don't have to know what truth is in order to know something isn't true. For example is somebody said to me that 879,983 timex 346,987 is -2
then I would know they're wrong even though i don't know what the correct (true) answer is.
Aphex217Twin 5 months ago
All scientific "truth" is relative to the function of time and space ...and subject to change. God's word is the only eternal absolute truth.
Absolute truth is that only our Maker is able to be our Savior because no one else can be. His word makes sense.
Ordered functions in life forms prove there is a Maker. The fabric of time and space has ordered functions that require an eternal Maker not made of matter that He stretched out.
Mutations can only change existing orders, not order anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This guy know's how to play with words. How ever we live in a world that needs facts screw truth what about hard facts. Just because a book says all sorts of stuff doesn't mean its true. if i read harry potter is it true?
This is a way of jumping around any arguments of fact. In stead of answering a question straight forward they dodge around it such as christians and all people of faith
jetslimo 6 months ago
Go ahead and be skeptical of skepticism, i see nothing wrong with that. Proving whether or not absolute truth exists still doesn't necessarily prove that the bible is true. It could just prove the bible is absolutely false.
ncello740 7 months ago
@ncello740 No one claim that the idea of absolute truth proves the bible. This is a critique of relativism and scepticism. So your comment is quite irrelevant.
leidenhag 7 months ago
Empirical truth describes what we percieve true. It requires a system of proof.
Tautologous truths describe what is true by way of analysis alone. It requires a system of proof.
No other truth types exist. We only have perception and conception.
All truths are systemic, requiring proof that they are true. If no proof, then no truth. If proof, then a system. No truth is true, prior to being proven true, thus no truth CAN be absolute.
Absolute truth is an archiac and dangerous concept.
gklr 7 months ago
churches seem to think that if you choose to believe in god thats better than being open to life and really searching for truth no matter what that might be. that way they can brain wash you to think what they think and if you come up with a logical objection they can just spew out bull to shut you up. i'm a christian and i can't stand this nonsense. truth is relative because people understand things differently. two people could have the same view but different reasons for believing it
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"truth is relative because people understand things differently"
False. Truth is relative to a system of proof, not to individual perspective. What you describe is subjectivity, yet truth (and 2 of the 3 belief types) are objective.
"two people could have the same view but different reasons for believing it"
We are talking about truths, not beliefs.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr so then name one thing thats actually true thats not just a belief held by faith? gravity is true for everyone plus you have proof until you get into space and realize there is a bigger perspective. everyone use their perspective to understand what they know so how is the idea of truth not dependent on your interpretation? umm so how do you know 100% for sure when you are right and not just 99.9999% right? you just talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point..
jetset808 7 months ago
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"gravity is true for everyone"
Gravity is not true for anyone. The only things that are true or false, or believed... are propositions. Statements ABOUT gravity are true or false, or are believed. Gravity is never "true".
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"plus you have proof until you get into space and realize there is a bigger perspective"
Gravity exists in space, it is what keeps the earth in orbit around the sun and what keeps the sun moving with the milky way and what keeps the milky way in motion. Even so, simply because I move to China doesn't mean it is not true that Canada exists. Your argument needs work.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr haha needs work? sorry what does the milky way in orbit around?
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point"
Then your problem is with propositional logic, not with me. If you haven't heard that assumptions, myths, tautologous truths, and empirical truths are not opinions.... then now you know why saying so is false.
Your own argument defeated itself. That is why it needs work. I suggest you find out why opinions are subjective, and why empirical truths, tautologous truths, assumption and myths are objective.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"haha needs work? sorry what does the milky way in orbit around?"
I didn't say the milky way was in orbit.
When you say things like "gravity is true, to everyone"... then you are making false claims and your argument needs work. What baby understands gravity?
Since when CAN 'gravity' be true at all? Statements ABOUT gravity are true, gravity is not true or false, it is not a proposition.
"haha needs work?"
Oh fuck ya. You have no idea about this topic whatsoever.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr babies don't understand gravity but what person really understands it either.. when can you say you fully understand it and how would you even know if you didn't know. .. you said the milky way was in motion because of gravity wtf are you talking about? the big bang was gravity that is pushing the galaxies apart? i said gravity is true for everyone because everyone is effected by it now your all going straw man .. let me guess you went to school and took some class..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"babies don't understand gravity but what person really understands it either.."
The issue was that you said "gravity is true" when it isn't. Only propositions are true, gravity is not a proposition. That no-one fully understands gravity undermines your contention that there is nothing true about gravity. The issue here is truth, not gravity.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"you said the milky way was in motion because of gravity wtf are you talking about?"
The MW moves. The sun moves within the milky way. What holds the milky way together? Gravity. What force keeps the stars moving within the milky way? Gravity. The milky way has shape, what shapes the milky way? Gravity. What holds these stars in motion? Gravity.
Your comment said there is no gravity in space when gravity is curved space.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr k what hold the galaxy together is dark matter which is another way of saying they don't fucking know .. because there isn't enough matter to create gravity to hold the galaxy together.. and i didn't mean to imply that gravity doesn't exists in space but that it's affects you completely differently for example when you got up into space you would float..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
" k what hold the galaxy together is dark matter which is another way of saying they don't fucking know"
I'd agree with that, but I am not a scientist and see no concern for me anyway. I am a philosopher, not a scientist.
"and i didn't mean to imply that gravity doesn't exists in space but that it's affects you completely differently for example when you got up into space you would float."
The issue here is truth, and that would be a truth about gravity.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "The issue here is truth, and that would be a truth about gravity." it's actually just my opinion i could be wrong i don't know
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"i said gravity is true for everyone because everyone is effected by it now your all going straw man "
Hardly. Gravity is never true. Saying so is not a strawman. Babies don't understanding propositions about gravity, so even if you improved your comment to read "everyone knows propositions about gravity are true", you'd still be wrong... babies don't. Strawman? Logical fallacies must be shown true, which undermines your first stance that all claims are beliefs.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr babies don't need to understand gravity to be effected by it and i wouldn't say "everyone knows propositions about gravity are true", because of my stance that all truths are just peoples beliefs ..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"because of my stance that all truths are just peoples beliefs .. "
Beliefs must be possibly true AND possibly false, at the same time.
It is not possibly false that "it is raining out or it is not raining out". This is a tautologous truth and is not possibly false. There is no such logical possibility.
If you can think, it is not possible that you do not exist. This is an empirical truth and is not possibly false.
No truth is a belief. Beliefs can't be proven true.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"let me guess you went to school and took some class"
Never. I was raised by a philosopher. My dad debated Bertrand Russell twice. I've never taken a class on any of this. I was raised on it and now I am 50 in 3 months. I hated these topics as a youth and had unwanted lectures often. I tried my best to block it out and preached that people should plant crops instead and be productive. Wait... I still do argue that. Well... you get the drift.
I am no elitist.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
"everyone use their perspective to understand what they know so how is the idea of truth not dependent on your interpretation?"
You need to interpet the language the truth is stated in or the statement means nothing at all. 1+1=2 isn't true to be a baby, it is meaningless then. That doesn't mean 1+1=2 is not true. It means a person can't decipher what was said. Say "one plus one equals two" to any nonenglish speaking person and see if they agree with you.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"how do you know 100% for sure when you are right and not just 99.9999% right?"
Verifiability. For empirical truths we have the 5 senses to verify facts about physical objects. Empirical truths are CONTINGENT on facts, never necessary. Tautologous truths are logically NECESSARY and never contingent on facts. eg: it is raining out or it is not raining out. P or not P, is true for every P, where P is a proposition, by logical necessity. Each is systemic, neither is absolute.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr ."Each is systemic, neither is absolute". wait so you agree with me then? truth is relative ..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"."Each is systemic, neither is absolute". wait so you agree with me then? truth is relative .."
Truth is relative to a system of proof. You misused relative to mean what relative means in ethics, which is subjective.
Relative is objective when referencing relative truth. Saying truth is relative is not saying truth is a belief as you were saying.
Relative means something different in ethics than in physics than in logic than in geneology.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
The largest mistake in this discussion is to suggest "relative truth" is "relative to individual perspective". The religious make this error and have an excuse, they are constantly concerned with and read a lot on behaviour, right and wrong... and challenge what modern ethics has to say... which is that morality is relative (meaning subjective, a belief).
Relative truth however is objective, not subjective.
If you are not religious, then you fell for their misunderstanding.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"you just talk big but it's just your opinion which was actually my point"
Your own comments refuted themselves. You claimed beliefs exist, we have proof of gravity, spaces exists, that there is a bigger perspective, that perspective exists, that understanding exists, that interpetation exists, that percentage exists, that big talk exists....are all true, or else all you had to say on it may not be true. What is the possibility that you do not exist, while you read this reply?
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr go watch the matrix again.. you can say all those things are true.. but really how the fuck do i know if space is real i've never been? or gravity i just take peoples word for it and it seems to make sense with the way they explain it.. but it could work completely different ... how would i know if i was just a person in your dream so am i real? how would i know or would i even know or can i even know. no matter what i'm filtering it thru my perspective just like you do..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"go watch the matrix again.. "
All truths require axioms. Axioms must be assumed true to say anything at all. That doesn't change that things are true or false, it only means that for every truth we require beliefs to get there. Beliefs are seperate from truths in that belief statements are possibly true and possibly false, wheras given a set of axioms (which are also neeeded for beliefs) no truth is possibly false. If it is possibly false, it is not true at all.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr i actually agree with this .. when i say truth is relative i mean that it's relative to the person not that it doesn't exist at all ..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
" actually agree with this .. when i say truth is relative i mean that it's relative to the person not that it doesn't exist at all .. "
Truth is relative to a system of proof. Truth is not relative to individual perspective. What is relative to individual perspective is known as SUBJECTIVE, which is like opinion or dreams. Truth is always objective and so too are assumptions and myths, 2 of the 3 belief types
Relative to the person is subjectivity. Truth isn't subjective.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr " Truth is not relative to individual perspective. " it is if you believe it
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
Beliefs are not truths. Beliefs must be possibly true and possibly false. No truth is possibly false.
See the Law of Noncontradiction. Nothing can be true and false at the same time.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr what about the double slit test? is matter waves of potential or like marbles ..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"what about the double slit test? is matter waves of potential or like marbles .. "
You think "test" meant something prior to the word "test" existing? Why?
If no languages existed, no truths could.
Were the tuths of these tests, true.... before they were proven true? What made them true? Nothing?
A proposition that is not proven true or false is a belief, not a truth. Calling beliefs "absolute truth" is the domain of religion and it violates logic quite seriously.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr it's kinda complicated but theres a short video on youtube explaining it it type in double slit test if you want.. basically they showed that they don't even know what matter is and that it acts differently when it is observed in other words 1+1= what ever.. and if matter is affected by thought.. then what is proper proof to believe in something, when thinking it can make it true.. if it was false before and now true because you think it how can you then truly comprehend any truth?
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
Anyone even asking if matter is affected by thought, misunderstands both matter and thought.
1+1=2 only when we assume the rules of inference, and the values of 1, 2, + and =. Then it is necessarily true, a matter of mental analysis, a thought only. It is not true forever and ever amen. It could not be true if mind or if language did not exist and I see no evidence either did prior to the earth existing.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr the whole point of the test was to see if matter works as waves or as a field of potential.. they fired two electrons at a screen thru double slits lets say and they would get either an interference pattern or particles when it should be one or the other everytime.. the thing that determined which one it was... was an observer.. what am i misunderstanding?
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"what am i misunderstanding?"
That there is any application to this discussion.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr like you said your not a science guy .. .. so i'll break it down like this .. you say observing something is truth but that test shows that observing something changes it so you don't see what is normally there only what is there when you look at it.. because the observation is subjective so is the truth because of your perspective.. how does that not apply now to everything that is an observable truth? and to what degree does it change if at all.. bottom line is you don't know forsure
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"observing something is truth"
No I don't.
Observing things is how we verify an empirical truth. The truth is the statement about the state of affairs. We don't observe any truths. We verify empirical truths by way of observation.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr " Observing things is how we verify an empirical truth." yeah thats what i mean ... so if i keep saying to myself hey i'm here and have memory of doing that theres nothing possibly subjective about that? how do i know it's not a false memory?
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"because the observation is subjective "
Observations are objective.
"and so is the truth"
No truth is subjective. Subjective refers to 1 of the 3 belief types. Opinions are subjective, they are dependent on the subject. Dreams are subjective. Beliefs like that tommorow you will exist is not subjective, it is inductive.
"you don't know forsure"
Then you talk about beliefs and not truths.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
" basically they showed that they don't even know what matter is and that it acts differently when it is observed "
Then it exists, is true. The topic is truth right?
"in other words 1+1= what ever"
1+1=2 has nothing to do with matter. Logical truths are not material things. They are conceptions in our mind solely and refer to things like 1, or + that are also conceptions of mind. Empirical truths talk about matter.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr when i said 1+1= whatever i mean that in the contexts of matter..one electron plus one electron = a wave or two particles .. at the quantum level things act differently .. thats why there is no unified theory in physics "..Then it exists, is true. The topic is truth right?" maybe i'm actually really sure it is true.. but i don't know .. it makes sense
jetset808 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
If one truth is invalid under a different model, then each truth is valid under it's own system.
1+1=2 is not true in binary. 2 has no value in binary.
I think fans of QM want to violate the law of noncontradiction.... say something is true at the same time as it is not true.... and I think it proves QM fans need to go back to the drawing board.
I know QM scientists who deny QM violates the law of noncontradiction.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"then what is proper proof to believe in something, when thinking it can make it true"
Proof only belongs to truth. No belief is proven true. Beliefs must be possibly true and possibly false.
Tautologies are true by way of thinking alone, because all logical possibilities have been taken into consideration. It is true for example that "you exist, or you don't exist", by way of logic. Finding out if you exist or not doesn't alter the truth that you are or are not existent.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"if it was false before and now true because you think it how can you then truly comprehend any truth?"
If it was false before, then it is not true now. If it is true now and was thought to be false before, they whoever thought it was false was wrong. They believed it was true, they did not know. eg: the earth was flat.
The earth was not flat. It was not true.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"you can say all those things are true.. but really how the fuck do i know if space is real i've never been?"
You can't. You trust what you've been told, you apply inductive logic to say space is real or the bottom of the sea exists. What makes it true and not a belief is that it is verifiable, which means it is possible for you to verify it by going. The minute you come back, you need belief to say you even went.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"or gravity i just take peoples word for it and it seems to make sense with the way they explain it"
Correct. You use inductive logic, assumption.... assuming they actually went there, assuming they know what they are talking about, assuming you heard right, assuming many things..... then you can say space (as in outer space) exists. If you were in space you could verify it is true.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr my point is that you can't know if something is true 100% you act as if people are reliable to each other or even to themselves.. if you went on space mtn and told some kid it was really space and he believed you is that true? well earth is in space so depending on your perspective it could be..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"how would i know if i was just a person in your dream so am i real?"
That you think proves that. I think, therefore I am. It cannot be true that I think, if I do not exist.
I pee, therefore I am. I eat, therefore I am. I cannot eat, cannot pee, if I do not exist.
You write on youtube, therefore you exist. If you drop dead as soon as you wrote your last comment, then we wouldn't see any more comments by you. I assume you exist. You can prove you do is true.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr i think therefore i am is just an assumption .. if a holo deck were real like on star trek and you programed a person with past memories would they be real even thou they thought so?
jetset808 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
"i think therefore i am is just an assumption"
False. It is a valid argument. You cannot think if you do not exist.
"if a holo deck were real like on star trek and you programed a person with past memories would they be real even thou they thought so?"
They'd be a real holograph. I don't consider that a holograph thinks, anymore than I consider a computer does.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr ok so cuz you don't consider that a holograph thinks? no holographic people exist so how would you know what fictional people would do or could do.. it's called AI by the way.. artificial intelligence .... they would be a real holograph but if they thought they were a real human what they actually think would be really wrong.. there for it is subjective because of perspective.
jetset808 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
"ok so cuz you don't consider that a holograph thinks? no holographic people exist so how would you know what fictional people would do or could do"
Holographs exist. None of them think.
Thought is not a material object, it is nonphysical. Computers, AI, is all material. I deny AI is thought 100%.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
Quine proved that tautologous truths are not material things. Logic is metaphysical, as is language.
I will paraphrase him:
The number of NFL teams is 32 is true
32 is greater than 31, is necessarily true
therefore
It is necessarily true that the number of NFL teams is greater than 31.... which is false. There were no NFL teams when the NFL didn't exist.
How does T and T resolve F?
The number of NFL teams is contingent on their being 32 NFL teams, not necessary.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
" they would be a real holograph but if they thought they were a real human "
The only thoughts ever shown to exist come from biological brains. I deny they could think if they were ever built at all.
I will reply to you later. Going out. Feel free to reply as much as you like. I'll answer later.
Cheers.
gklr 7 months ago
@jetset808,
"how would i know or would i even know or can i even know"
You can know that you are not a character in my dream many ways, that you think, is just one. The characters in my dreams do not think. You do.
"i'm filtering it thru my perspective"
So what? If you do not exist and have no perspective and others did exist, they could still show why "it is raining out or it is not raining out" is true, independent of anyones perspective, independent of it raining out or not.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr,
"i'm filtering it thru my perspective"
If true, then you must exist. You cannot filter anything if you do not exist.
If you can ask if you exist, you must exist. Tell hollywood script writers that and you will still likely see a sequel to the Matrix anyway....
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr they had two sequels already it was a trilogy that ended.. anyways i don't buy the whole i think there for i am .. i think wrong there for i might not even be..
jetset808 7 months ago
@jetset808,
" i think wrong there for i might not even be"
Explain how you think anything, if you do not exist.
Things that don't exist... think? How? What makes you think so?
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr my doubt
jetset808 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
You doubt things when you don't exist?
How?
When you do not exist, you do not doubt anything. If you doubt, you must exist. That you doubt is proof you exist.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr how do you know the characters in your dreams don't think? and everyone believing something doesn't make it true for example the earth is not flat anymore right?
jetset808 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jetset808,
"how do you know the characters in your dreams don't think? "
Charcters in dreams are what I am thinking. Thought requires a biological brain.
"and everyone believing something doesn't make it true"
Correct, that is a consensus.
"for example the earth is not flat anymore right?"
It never was true that the earth was flat.
gklr 7 months ago
Now, now children, stop bickering!
334286 8 months ago in playlist Absolute truth and facts vs opinions
absolute bluff.
benujohnmtc 8 months ago
hahaha quite funny! I hope I can remember some of those responses and how to come about them. lol
Frejborg 9 months ago
Love is the absolute truth! :D
LifeIsABigPuzzle 9 months ago
@exPastor1,
You are a liar and you've consistently been caught lying. You lied that I threatened your life when I said I didn't care if you died.
You make an ass of yourself on youtube.
gklr 10 months ago
This video asks "how can it be true that there is no truth?"
That is not what relative truth implies. Truth is relative to a system of proof, not relative to personal perspective. What is relative to personal perspective is subjective belief or opinion.
Truth must be proven true or nothing makes it true. If proof exists, then the truth is dependent on that proof, relative to the proof. If no proof, then no truth exists.
All truths are relative to a system of proof.
gklr 11 months ago
@gklr I'm sorry but relativist truth is defined as the individual perspective of the truth.
By this i mean that relativist truth bases itself on the fact that everyone's statement is true independently. Absolute truth claims that there is a correct truth which negates the incorrect statement, relative truth implies that what you've written is truth but my statement is correct as well.
Relative truth is one of the few fields where relativism fails, because there is an absolute truth.
Chessiere 10 months ago
@Chessiere,
"I'm sorry but relativist truth is defined as the individual perspective of the truth."
Did you even watch this video?
Go back and press start again. Clearly you haven't paid attention.
gklr 10 months ago
@gklr I am responding on what you wrote earlier, do you think this video holds the correct information? Are you basing yourself only on this video? Because there are plenty of sites that describe what relativism is.
Chessiere 10 months ago
@Chessiere,
My mistake. I thought your first comment to me was a reply to my own video on this topic. I need no instruction thanks on what relative truth means. It is a mistake of the religious to equate it with how relative is meant in ethics, which is as you say individual perspective. Not with relative truth. Relative truth is always objective. That is the mistake being made in this video and in my haste I didn't even see which video these comments were being applied to. Again, my error.
gklr 10 months ago
@Chessiere,
This video errs in mistaking what relative truth is or even means. They make a common mistake in this regard. The reason why is that theologens are concerned a lot with ethics, where "relative" means subjective.
The word relative means something different in logic than in ethics than in phsyics than in geneology.
Truth is always objective and always relative to a system of proof.
gklr 10 months ago
@gklr Truth without proof is possible. You do not have to know it and you do not have to prove it, yet it's truth, an absolute truth. Plato sustained a similar thing in regards to the matter, but truth does not rely solely on proof for something to be true does not need us to know it.
Chessiere 10 months ago
@Chessiere,
If you have not proven a proposition is true, it may not be true at all. All tuths must be proven true or the proposition might be false. Propositions that might be true and might be false are beliefs, not truths.
If I put a ball on the table, it is true there is a ball on the table. It was not always true. No truth is eternal or can be eternal.
Language did not always exist and truth itself is a part of language.
gklr 10 months ago
@gklr Apparent proofs might not be able to show truth. An example can well be when the police investigates and they happen to find "proof" that leads to the capture of an innocent person. It does happen, it is not uncommon, as proof itself can be misleading. Thus, proof does not always lead to truth but falsity.
Chessiere 10 months ago
@Chessiere,
Is it true that the proposition is false or not?
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr I thought 1 + 1 always equals to 2 forever and ever and ever, no?
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
Not before it is proven true no. Not before math exists no.
Truth only exist in the now, no truth exists for the past or for the future. 1 truth about a thing, proves that thing exists and the future and past do not exist so they have no truths for them.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr So in 500,000BC, 1 + 1 does not equal to 2? Are you serious?
Listen, we express truth in language BUT truth doesn't need to be expressed in order for it to be truth.
Truth only exist in the now; I agree! But so is everything else in the universe. The now is eternal; it's always the now. You can't go to the past or the future. Therefore, to say truth only exist in the now is to say truth is eternal.
P.S. There are many ways to attack religions; you are using the most ridiculous one.
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
500,000 BC does not exist. There is no such thing.
Absolute truth requires an eternal mind/god. Absolute truth is impossible, all truths are systemic, relative to a system of proof. No proof? Then no truth.
" There are many ways to attack religions; you are using the most ridiculous one."
To the ill informed and uneducated perhaps.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr Truths are not systemic. We use different systems to express truths. The system is confined by the truth/reality, not the other way around.
Proof only validates a truth, it doesn't affect the truth as true in any way or form. Ex. Even though we didn't know the Earth is round in 2000BC, it was still the case at the time; we just didn't know it.
The fact that we didn't know didn't affect the truth (i.e. reality).
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
"Truths are not systemic. We use different systems to express truths."
Contradict yourself much? lol. I fail to see how you expect to have a discussion on something you have no clue about.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr No contradict there.
Expression of truth =/= truth
"Apple" =/= apple
funglip 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"Expression of truth =/= truth"
False. All truths are expressions called propositions that speak about things.
"Expression of truth =/= truth
"Apple" =/= apple"
If that is an analogy it is a poor one. Apples are physical things, resolved to exist via perception. Truth is concieved and not percieved. An apple does not equate anything. Equals only applies to concepts. Equals is itself a concept.
gklr 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "False. All truths are expressions called propositions that speak about things."
It's fine if you wanna use that definition; it doesn't change anything. A proposition can always be true. Truth-functionally true.
All I'm showing you is the use/mention distinction in which you still have no clue about.
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
"Even though we didn't know the Earth is round in 2000BC, it was still the case at the time; we just didn't know it."
All truths are known. If a proposition is not known to be true or false it is a belief. You espouse your beliefs as truths and each time you do you are wrong. All statements about 2000 BC are belief statements.
All statements for 1 second ago are belief statements by logical necessity.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr "If a proposition is not known to be true or false it is a belief."
Great, now tell me: what's 1 + 1 in 5,000,000 BC?
And don't tell me the concept of numbers didn't exist at that time because I'm USING the concept of numbers, not mentioning the concept of numbers.
I'll let you think about it for a while; I'm off.
funglip 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"If a proposition is not known to be true or false it is a belief."
Great, now tell me: what's 1 + 1 in 5,000,000 BC?"
Number did not exist in 500,000 BC so it was gibberish then nad had no meaning.... and you missed the point of the argument anyway because that wasn't what I was talking about. The "truth" in question is whether NOW "tomorrow 1+1=2" is true, when it clearly is not. It is a belief to say "tommorow 1+1=2".
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr "Its is a belief to say "tomorrow 1+1=2"
Lol. I don't know what to say. You're more crazy than Harold Camping...
Again and again you're mixing the use/mention distinction.
So what proof do you need for "tomorrow(May 24) 1+1=2"?
Someone is in denial.
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
Newsflash: Tommorow doesn't exist. All truths require deduction and we cannot deduct for what is not there. Inductive logic is assumption in action. Belief is not truth.
Camping says truth is absolute, much closer to you than to me.Anyways you are blocked for talking like an asshole to me. Manners you learned in church no doubt.
Being an asshole is not an argument.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr Wow, you can block me on youtube??
Tomorrow doesn't exist; I agree! Only now exists. But when is it not now?
1+1 still = 2 when all minds are dead. Your twisted logic doesn't work in reality. I'm so sorry. What's reality? Reality is a word, but it's more than a word. Again, use/mention distinction; learn it.
I'm being an asshole? Really? But I'm about twice as nice as you. What does that make you?
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip
I think what gklr is saying that since the common approach to truth is of correspondence it is the relation between truthbearers and truthmakers, not truthmakers (aka objects) themselves. To quote Searle (if I remember correctly) 'there were facts in the jurrasic era, but there werent any true statements.'
KieIicious 8 months ago
@KieIicious I agree. It's still silly that he's trying to use the ambiguous nature of language to reject the actual state of matter.
funglip 8 months ago
@KieIicious,
We believe there were facts in the Jurrasic era. All statements about the past or about the future are beliefs, not truths. Thus there are no absolute truths.
There are many reasons why there are no absolute truths. Truth must be proven is one. Truth is mind/language dependent for two. Truth didn't always exist for another.
gklr 8 months ago
@funglip,
"I'm being an asshole? Really? "
Yep. And all apparently due to that you have been shown wrong. So here come the insults.
You don't even watch videos you attempt to criticize, and in sheer ignorance you insult people who happen to know more than you do. Childish, immature, and an asshole. Grow the fuck up.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr bla bla bla; you talked a ton of BS without actually saying anything. Great job.
If absolute truth = statement that's true in all circumstances
Then your statement, "there's no absolute truth" is self refuting.
Need me to explain? Since you never actually take a logic course or learn it formally. Just ask.
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
"If absolute truth = statement that's true in all circumstances. Then your statement, "there's no absolute truth" is self refuting."
False. It is not true when no truths existed, prior to mind existing or prior to language existing. No true before it was proven true. Not true outside of now.
But you could have already realized that by watching my video.
Show me the logic course that says truth is magical and always existed. The bible and koran are not logic books.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr You can either say "absolute truth exists" or say nothing.
Given absolute truth = statement that's true in all circumstances
You said your statement, "absolute truth doesn't exist" is not an absolute truth = "absolute truth doesn't exist" is false in some circumstances = absolute truth exists in some circumstances = self refuting.
What you are going at is the subject–object problem; it's more of a metaphysics issue, not really an argument in logic.
funglip 8 months ago
@funglip,
There is no circumstance where absolute truth CAN exist. All truths, including "there are no absolute truths", are relative to a system of proof. It is not self refuting at all.
It is a violation of formal logic to say truth is absolute, as there are no absolute systems of proof.
Truth is tautologous or empirical, each of those are systemic and none of those truth types existed at all prior to mind or prior to language.
Absolute truth is utter nonsense.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr
Even if I take your stance that truth didn't exist prior to the existence of mind, absolute truth still makes sense because absolute truth is true as long as my mind exists. As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute".
Therefore, I can always depend on it as long as I exist, which is all anyone can ask for.
Why do you care what's going on when no mind existed? You can never find proof to prove it anyway. You're trying to find nothingness. Let it go.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Even if I take your stance that truth didn't exist prior to the existence of mind, absolute truth still makes sense"
If a truth is not true for every possible circumstance, it is not an absolute truth. Absolute truth must be true "forever and ever amen", always true... and does not exist.
"As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute"."
Nothing was true prior to mind or language existing. Truth is a thought about a proposition. Thoughts with no mind?
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"As far as I'm concern, it's always true therefore "absolute"."
Even prior to language? How is a proposition "true" when it does not exist?
"Therefore, I can always depend on it as long as I exist, which is all anyone can ask for." --- which has nothing to do with being absolute truth. There is no such thing as a truth, that is not a thought
Truth only applies to now, there are no truths for the past or the future. Absolute truths claim to be forever. No possibility of that
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Why do you care what's going on when no mind existed? "
I am showing a possible circumstance, where no truths exist at all. Thus no truth is "true for every possible circumstance", which absolute truth claims to be.
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"You can never find proof to prove..."
All truths must be proven. There is no such thing as an unproven truth. If a proposition is not proven true and not proven false (where it must be true that it is false), it is a belief. Until proven true, no truth is true, thus no eternal truth is possible.
All truths are propositions. Show me the proposition that existed when no languages existed.
Contradictions are proof of what does not exist. Absolute truth is contradictory.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr You cannot prove there exists a time where no minds exist. Email me when an absolute truth *IS* false. I couldn't care less of what happens when all minds die. You're wasting your time.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"You cannot prove there exists a time where no minds exist."
It is a possible circumstance and absolute truths must be true for every possible circumstance. Show it is impossible that minds did not always exist. We show what is logically impossible by showing a contradiction. Contradictions are expressed as "P and not P, at the same time" where P is a proposition.
It is not possible that any truth is true prior to being proven true, thus absolute truth is impossible.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr No, you have to show me how it's possible. That's like asking you to show me how God is impossible.
Even if truth didn't exist prior to minds, so what? Absolute truth is still always truth. You cannot experience nonexistence. You cannot perceive in a time where no minds exist.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"No, you have to show me how it's possible"
The only minds shown to exist are biological and earth bound. It is possible and even widely agreed that the earth did not always exist, let alone biological brains on earth.
We have no propositions that were not formed by earth bound critters. All truths are propositions.
It is quite possible no minds existed, and quite unlikely that language always existed. You need to show and prove both to just start towards any absolute.
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Even if truth didn't exist prior to minds, so what? Absolute truth is still always truth"
Truth existed when truth didn't exist? Can you get more contradictory? Nope.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Show me a time where an absolute truth IS false. You can't. Nonexistence doesn't exist.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Show me a time where an absolute truth IS false. You can't..."
I can't show you "an absolute truth" that is false, because there is no such thing as an absolute truth.
If I have a ball on the table, it is true the ball is on the table. It is not always true. It is not an absolute truth. I can take the ball off the table and then "the ball is on the table" is not true.
Empirical truths and tautologous truths are both systemic, relative to a system.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "I can't show you "an absolute truth" that is false, because there is no such thing as an absolute truth."
Show me a time when "1 + 1 = 2" IS false. Show me a time when existence DOESN'T exist.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Show me a time when "1 + 1 = 2" IS false"
That isn't what I am claiming. I am showing there is a possible circumstance when no minds exist, when 1+1=2 didn't exist.... prior to mind, prior to language. When 1+1=2 did not exist, it was not a truth.
Not true, does not equate false.
Existence is a word with meaning and has no meaning outside what it means. Prior to language existing there was no such word and "existence" didn't exist, and meant nothing.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Why can't you learn the use/mention function of a word? I'm talking about the meaning of "existence", not the word itself.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Why can't you learn the use/mention function of a word? I'm talking about the meaning of "existence", not the word itself."
The word is it's meaning. That is all it ever is. You have meanings, when no meanings exist? Prior to language existing, no meanings to words existed. No propositions existed. All truths are propositions.
Absolute truth is a magical kind of nonsense. There is no room for it in the modern world or in modern logic. It violates logic as much as it can be.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Prior to language existing, what the words *represent* existed. We use words to represent something, that *something* still exist even when there's no word representing it.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Prior to language existing, what the words *represent* existed. We use words to represent something, that *something* still exist even when there's no word representing it."
Truths apply to propositions only. Only propositions are true or false, or believed.
All statements about the past are belief statements. To say you existed 1 second ago is a belief statement. No truth is always true, as no truth is true for 1 second ago.
Truths prove what exists. 1 second ago doesn't
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "Truths prove what exists. 1 second ago doesn't"
Then why are you keep talking about truth of the past when the past doesn't exist?
The past doesn't exist, the future doesn't exist, only the now exists. Therefore it's always the now. Absolute truth is what's always true in the now.
You said truth didn't existed in the past, but the past is also nonexistent. You can't say anything about what doesn't exist.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
g: "Truths prove what exists. 1 second ago doesn't"
f: Then why are you keep talking about truth of the past when the past doesn't exist?
I'm not. I offer a possible circumstance. Saying it is a possible circumstance allows for that circumstance to be false.
You need to show that truth is true before it is proven true, and to prove that mind and language always exists, just to begin any absolute truth. Good luck with that. I won't be holding my breath.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "I'm not. I offer a possible circumstance. Saying it is a possible circumstance allows for that circumstance to be false."
It's impossible to be in the past, or in the future, because it IS, not was or will.
Therefore, absolute truth *IS* always true. Absolute truth didn't exist and will not exist, but you can't make that statement because those times don't exist.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Therefore, absolute truth *IS* always true. Absolute truth didn't exist and will not exist, but you can't make that statement because those times don't exist."
No truths exist unless mind and language exists. To show an absolute truth, you need to show an eternal mind exists, an eternal language exists, and that truths are true before being proven true (which violates logic)
Your beliefs are not truths
Every truth is systemic. No exceptions exist. Thus no truth is absolute
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "No truths exist unless mind and language exists. To show an absolute truth, you need to show an eternal mind exists, an eternal language exists, and that truths are true before being proven true (which violates logic)"
I don't need to prove anything. Because 1 + 1 = 2, always. Except in the past or in the future, but those are beliefs, not truth. The truth is now. Absolute truth is true now, always. That's all I need to know. Chasing for more is being fetish.
funglip 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"I don't need to prove anything."
You need to prove any truth. Otherwise it may not be true at all. What makes it true?
"Because 1 + 1 = 2, always."
False. If minds didn't exist it was not true. If mathematics didn't exist it was not true.
Prove mathematics always existed. Good luck with that.
Oh and prove it was true and not a belief, prior to being proven true. Good luck with that too.
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"1 + 1 = 2, always. Except in the past or in the future, but those are beliefs, not truth."
Look up "always". Prove 1+1=2 always existed.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "Look up "always". Prove 1+1=2 always existed."
Prove to me the past exists first.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Prove to me the past exists first."
I prove the past doesn't exist, and one reason why no truth is absolute.
Absolute truths must be true forever. Eternal truth. Religious nonsense written at a time prior to mankind understanding how truth works... that it is systemic, must be proven and so on.
The religious texts who propogate that truth is absolute where written in a primitive time. Bronze age for the bible. Logic has come a long way since then.
gklr 7 months ago
@funglip,
"The truth is now. Absolute truth is true now, always"
It was not always now. 1 second ago is not "now".
"That's all I need to know."
What is shown true now, is relative to a system of proof. Not absolute. You just denied truth is absolute, and falsely claimed what is true now is absolute when to be absolute requires it was always true.
You can't say what is true now, is absolute.... it is contradictory. Absolute truth is what is always true.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "It was not always now. 1 second ago is not "now".
1 second ago doesn't exist, only the now exists. Because it's always now, absolute truth is always true.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
Absolute truth must be true eternally, not just for now.
What is true now is systemic, the opposite of absolute.
It is not always now. 1 second ago is not "now". An absolute truth must be true for 1 second ago and all of time. No such possibility and you seem to realize why. Truth only applies to now.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Absolute truth must be true eternally, not just for now."
But you just said the past doesn't exist, which means absolute truth doesn't need to be true in the past in order to be true eternally. Since now is all there is, absolute truth is possible.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"But you just said the past doesn't exist, which means absolute truth doesn't need to be true in the past in order to be true eternally. Since now is all there is, absolute truth is possible."
The past doesn't exist, nor does the future. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future, eternally. Absolute truth is impossible.
But what? There is no conflict in anything I said.
All past tense and all future tense statements are beliefs that require inductive logic.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "The past doesn't exist, nor does the future. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future, eternally. Absolute truth is impossible."
Right! Except for the conclusion. Absolute truth must be true in the past and the future in order to be true eternally. But since the past and the future don't exist, "eternal" no longer applies to the past and future, only the now. Therefore, absolute truth only needs to be true now in order for it to be true eternally.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
Now, by the way, is not a time at all. Now is a concept that describes present tense circumstances.
1+1=2 is not true for 1 second ago. It is believed to be true for 1 second ago via inductive logic. We cannot apply deductive logic to things that do not exist. All truths require deductive logic (and yet another reason that no truth is absolute). Deductive logic must exist first.
The further away from us in time or space, the more inductive logic is required.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Now, by the way, is not a time at all. Now is a concept that describes present tense circumstances."
Yes, and it's always the present tense. Agree? When is it not now?
"1+1=2 is not true for 1 second ago."
But as you said, the past doesn't exist so it doesn't matter.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
""Now, by the way, is not a time at all. Now is a concept that describes present tense circumstances."
Yes, and it's always the present tense. Agree? When is it not now?"
So long as minds exist, so long as language exists, so long as in that language we have the term "now" then as time progresses we can say it is "now". We couldn't do that when no minds existed.
Always in the context of absolute truth means for all of time, past present and future.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "Always in the context of absolute truth means for all of time, past present and future."
As you said, the past and future don't exist; therefore the present = always.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"present = always" is contradictory and denies time, change, mass, space, distance and truth all exist. Truth is system dependent, the system must come first. Truth is proof dependent, time dependent, nothing is true prior to being proven true.
present = always is poetry, not logic.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "present = always" is contradictory"
No, it does not. You experienced everything in the now. You can't do anything in the past nor future, you can only do it in the now. Therefore it's always now.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"present = always"
Liebnizs Law is what we use to show A=B.
A=B, if and only if... all that is true for A is also true for B.
The present refers to what is now. Always does not refer solely to now. Therefore they are different and do not equate. I can say something true for present, that is false for always.
You'd need to deny time exists altogether, as well as mass, space, distance, speed and truth.... to say time does not exist. Time = distance/speed and nothing else.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Well, you're the one who said the past doesn't exist; please prove it.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction, which is expressed as P and not P, at the same time.
When we refer to what exists, we refer to the present tense. Not what did exist, not what will exist.
It is a contradiction to say that the past is now, then we contradict ourselves in saying what is past tense is not what is past tense.... P and not P, at the same time. We mean something different with past tense than we do by present tense. Again, see Liebniz.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "It is a contradiction to say that the past is now,"
The past is an illusion, the now is the truth. Look through the illusion and you'll see the truth.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Yes, and it's always the present tense. Agree?"
Not at all. It is not "always the present tense". Always refers to all of the past and all of the future as well as the present tense. To say "it is always now" is clearly false, it was not now 1 second ago. It was not now when you were not born yet.
When is it not now? 1 second ago.
Time exists, change exists. 1 second ago does not exist, but we must assume it did to say change, speed, distance, mass, time all exist.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr 1"When is it not now? 1 second ago."
1 second ago doesn't exist, it's only a belief in your head.
Time always changes, that change happens in the now. Now = change = time
funglip 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"1 second ago doesn't exist, it's only a belief in your head"
It did exist and we must assume so to say the past existed. We can't prove it did.
"Now = change = time"
See Liebnizs Law.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "It did exist and we must assume so to say the past existed. We can't prove it did."
Obviously you hate logic a lot; you're trying to say logic cannot prove anything and it's a waste of time to do so. You have a huge issue on yourself.
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
"Obviously you hate logic a lot;"
Obviously you are a poor psychic. Telling me what I love or hate, a matter of subjectivity, has no bearing on logic or truth. How do you expect to read peoples minds for their likes and dislikes?
Worth what I paid for it. When you think you have ESP ability, I start laughing. Giving me a psychic reading will be about as effective as saying truth is absolute when I know otherwise.
All truths must be proven. No truth is true until proven.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "Obviously you are a poor psychic."
Obviously I was assuming, not sensing that you hate it. And obviously you used it as a chance to mock me for believing to have ESP ability. You have daddy issues.
funglip 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"You have daddy issues."
Alright psychic, go jerk off to yourself then. Blocked.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
Holy fuck. I already had you blocked. No wonder.
I was thinking youtube had simply been slow in emailing me your replies. Nope. You were already blocked.
And no fucking wonder why either. Look at what you write!
Troll someone else. Obviously you have issues with me, earning 2 blocks.
I should have realized when I didn't get any updates in email you were trolling and blocked. Next time that happens I will be quicker on the draw. You don't deserve replies from me. Fuck off
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr Why don't you email youtube to have me blocked entirely on youtube?
funglip 7 months ago
@funglip,
I don't care if you are on youtube. I don't think anyone does.
gklr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funglip,
"you're trying to say logic cannot prove anything"
I say no such thing. Clearly have taken to misrepresenting what I say. Logic is what proves truth cannot be absolute. All truths must be proven.
I took my time out to show you what a logical truth, a tautology, even is.
You take to lying about what I say? Why?
You should be thanking me. Show some manners.
gklr 7 months ago