"1+1=2" isn't necessarily a tautology unless you are using the term tautology in such a way that the whole of math is a tautology...
Otherwise you need to mathematically define the objects "1", "2" and "+" (and possibly "="), in which case "1+1=2" either becomes the definition of "2" or a theorem.
""1+1=2" isn't necessarily a tautology unless you are using the term tautology in such a way that the whole of math is a tautology"
I am. There are only empirical truths and tautologous truths, no other types of truth exist. 1+1=2 is not an empirical truth, so if it isn't tautologous it is not true at all. Do you wish to propose a new truth type?
No, but then again I don't really agree with your classification of truth types. The point was that mathematically there is more depth to the statement "1+1=2" than what all the people who use it ad nauseum realize. Depending on how you choose to axiomatize the natural numbers the statement "1+1=2" can take relatively diverse forms.
"What among anything you said do you feel is news to me?"
I do not think you fully understand what I say. Possibly because you lack mathematical training.
Here is a concrete question on what I'm getting at: take, say, Peano's axiomatic for arithmetic. Is "1+1=2" then: i) a definition or ii) a theorem.
And on another note, mathematical truth is not devoid of empirical considerations: the consistency of our models can not be proven (a meta fact, which, weirdly, kind of can). (...)
"I do not think you fully understand what I say. Possibly because you lack mathematical training."
You challenged that 1+1=2 is tautologous, which is not something that is found in a math book.... perhaps it is your void of philosophical understanding that is to blame.
"And on another note, mathematical truth is not devoid of empirical considerations"
Math is not empirical in any way. All mathematical truths are tautologous by logical necessity or they are not true at all
"perhaps it is your void of philosophical understanding that is to blame."
There is (at least) a key difference between mathematics and philosophy, and that is that the former is a body of knowledge with essential consensus among its practitioners, while the later is heavily partitioned into sects ultimately unlikely to agree on anything. Hence my disagreement with the adequacy of your dichotomy hardly makes me "philosophically inept". And please answer my question: definition or theorem
"There is (at least) a key difference between mathematics and philosophy, and that is that the former is a body of knowledge with essential consensus among its practitioners, while the later is heavily partitioned into sects ultimately unlikely to agree on anything"
Your objection was a philosophical one as you challenged that 1+1=2 is a tautologous truth. Either it is not true or it is an empirical truth if it is not tautologous. You did not explain. I asked you to.
Responding to all your comments is frankly boring, but here you go:
- I reject your simple dichotomy between tautological and empirical knowledge. It seems apparent to me that all knowledge is ultimately a mix of both, including even mathematics. Hence trying to pin me to that terminology is pointless.
"I reject your simple dichotomy between tautological and empirical knowledge"
I didn't talk about knowledge, I spoke of 2 truth types. There are only the 2.
Knowledge is a different beast and includes many beliefs(as well as all truths). For belief types there are 3.
Knowledge is usually a belief. I know I wrote comments to you before, but I cannot prove it is true. I need to use inductive logic to speak about the past because the past does not exist.
"Responding to all your comments is frankly boring"
Then don't reply. I know this is a boring topic. It's hardly something I picked up at my local swingers convention.
For excitement I travel, just got back from being away for 3 days.... I play with my kids, video games and I find music entertaining even if my ears ring nowadays.
Tautologies? lol.
I watch videos of things blowing up for fun on youtube. Talking head videos like this one are shit to sit through.
"And please answer my question: definition or theorem"
Peano simply outlined axioms required to say 1+1=2, which is already assumed by me..... indeed I would add many to them. We need axioms to say anything at all, let alone that 1+1=2. Tell me why Peano math itself is not used.
To say that we think at all, requires axioms. Peano merely offered some on mathematics. Trivial to this discussion on tautologous truth. All truths require axioms, not just that one. Your point then?
I'm a great fan of axioms, being a mathematician and all, but I think this is a key problem in our conversation, because I don't think this is ultimately true. Language isn't remotely axiomatized, and I rather suspect that anyone trying to actually do so would run into paradoxes caused by self-reference analogous to Russel's paradox (e.g. heterological). But in practice we don't care about that for the simple reason that language works anyway. (...)
(...) And, in fact, minor versions of this phenomenon do occur within mathematics itself, a good example being the ways to avoid Russel's paradox: there are plenty of devised solutions, not all equivalent, but your average mathematician (i.e. not a logician) generally doesn't really care for that, and just chooses whichever one makes his life easier.
u: I'm a great fan of axioms, being a mathematician and all, but I think this is a key problem in our conversation, because I don't think this is ultimately true
g: if we don't assume our logic is valid, we can't state it is. We assume billions of things just to get going at all. Otherwise we'd be left trying to prove we didn't just pop into existence 1 millisecond ago with all our memories programmed in. Prove that didn't happen.
Language is too, but that is another matter and irrelevent to that logic depends on it's axioms. Where is the proof anyones logic is valid? There is the self reference problem of showing logic is ever valid.
"and I rather suspect that anyone trying to actually do so would run into paradoxes caused by self-reference "
Ironic then that saying otherwise leads directly to what you suspected.
" But in practice we don't care about that for the simple reason..."
In practice, unless we make many assumptions, we can't say anything. So we do.
All of the axioms of logic use inductive logic, assumption..... belief. None of them are proven true.
The verification principle cannot be verified and the falsification principle cannot be falsified. That is why they are principles and not theories. They are axioms, and all of logic and science depend on them.
Love is shown to exist via tautologous truth, not via empirical truth.
Love is an emotion, for example, is a tautologous truth that uses "love" as the subject. If true, love must exist. It is true by way of definition, the same way all tautologies are true. This is how we prove concepts exist.
We could prove the concept of god exists the same way. We can't prove anyone believes in god or not. We can't read minds. We can't prove we love anything either.
"Hence my disagreement with the adequacy of your dichotomy hardly makes me "philosophically inept". "
You challenged that 1+1=2 is a tautologous truth, which is great.... however you had nothing to back that challenge up with. If it is not a tautologous truth then ok, is it an empirical truth (nope)... so either it is not true or you have a new type of truth.... a matter of philosophy and not of mathematics.
Good enough, explain this new truth type or show 1+1=2 isn't true.
A tautologous truth is any truth that is derived solely by way of logic and reason.
"It is raining out or it is not raining out", is true, independent of the fact of whether it is raining out or not. Tautologous truth is independent of fact
No facts support 1+1=2. It is derived solely by way of logic, and depends on the rules of inference and the values of 1,+,=, and 2... and that minds exist at all to consider them (among other axioms), then and only then is 1+1=2 tautologous
This video also explains another use of the word "tautology" which a grammatical concern and not a concern of the use of the same word in formal logic. The grammatical understanding of "tautology" is a mere case "needless repetition" which 1+1=2 is.
My grandfather is my dads father, is a tautology according to linguistics. I am saying in this video that it is a logical tautology as well because it is true and is derived solely by way of analysis.
The value to the argument I give here is to atheists in particular, in showing how we can better explain the existence of concepts like love to theists, when it is a common stumbling block to many of the people who seem to want to debate theists. When asked what love is they draw a blank stare when they don't need to, we can explain it quite well. Better than theists can. Instead of being a stumbling block, it is to our advantage to describe love or hate etc...
I must say I'm curious. Just what would be your explanation of what love is?
As for discussing with theists, I would say personally that I do prefer to leave any emotional language and analysis out of any religious discussion, as I think a dispassionate attitude is the best way to avoid any kind of self-delusion, but whatever works for you, I guess.
Love is a word, a concept we use to describe an emotion. That emotion which is described is experienced subjectively and hence why everyones understanding of love is a private matter to them.
That we love something cannot be proven true. That love exists can be proven true. It is an emotion we describe, even if differently from person to person.
Just as we can say values exist. Taste in art exists. I can't prove what my tastes are and you can't prove you prefer anything.
"As for discussing with theists, I would say personally that I do prefer to leave any emotional language and analysis out of any religious discussion, as I think a dispassionate attitude is the best way to avoid any kind of self-delusion"
And I would need to assume you are being honest in saying so, as you would that I prefer to do it another way. Point: this type of statement is not a truth. When speaking of preferences we use the same form of (inductive) logic as axioms do.
Atheists can utilize formal logic to better explain reality than theists can, and too often they miss the point of formal logic being used to show what is real. So when a theist waxes poetic about love, which they do often... then even for the atheist to understand for themselves and not argue with theists at all... why and where the theist is wrong... then they are better off.
This video does opens the door for them to do that.
Saying things like "love is a subjective experience" or "love is an emotion", are truths about love, so they prove love exists as a concept. They do not define what love is, they say something about love that is true. If true, love must exist.
What love means to each person is subjective. So when I say to you I love my kids, what I mean is based on my own understanding of love. What you hear is based on your understanding. It is subjective, therefore it exists.
"No, but then again I don't really agree with your classification of truth types"
Good luck on that one. Inform me then.
Empirical truths are propositions about material objects, physical things. Confirmed through 1 of the 5 senses, they are contingent on percieved facts.
Tautologous truths are analytical and are propositions about abstract objects, like oh say... numbers. They are concieved and not percieved, never based on fact. Necessary and not contingent.
It's a shit video. It takes too long to get to the matter at hand. I couldn't watch it when I tried to.
I despise these talking head videos, even my own. They all suck royally. Get past that long enough to see what is being said and ya, the points here are keepers. Tautologies show how we can explain the existence of all things that are not physical.
To reduce truth to being only within the domain of science and logic, is to forget what "true" means. It refers to the agreement or disagreement with the atomic facts. The atomic facts may very well be profoundly religious experiences, where people literally see the face of God.
It is then true of them to say that God is real. It's contingently true depending on whether or not they had the said experience
There is more than one way of talking at stake here, and they dont all hang together!
"It refers to the agreement or disagreement with the atomic facts. The atomic facts may very well be profoundly religious experiences, where people literally see the face of God."
Simple agreement has no bearing on a truth. I could agree that Lady Gaga is cute, that does not make it true. It is still an opinion.
If people claim to see the face of a god, and others agree they saw the same thing, that does not make it true. That is not what truth is at all.
Only science and logic provide truths, science through empirical truths and logic via tautologous truths and there are no other avenues to arrive at truth other than perception (science) and conception (logic).
There is no 3rd option and your objection offered 1 of those 2 as an exception? Contingent truths are empirical, everytime.
Facts are always empirical and tautologies never are factual.
Wittgenstein himself let go of "atomic facts" being the only truths in his latter work.
It is however true that that is your opinion. That opinion itself is the atomic fact. I use atomic fact as simply that which is experienced-- the empirical you spoke of. Whether or not something is True, only means whether or not that expression represents the said experience. Tautologies are pseudo truths, in that they tell us nothing about the world. They are as meaningless as contradictions since they tell us nothing new.
How would I, or anyone, show I have any opinion? They cannot prove I have any opinion at all. They, even I, must believe I have an opinion.
The type of belief used in accepting I have an opinion, is assumption, in that you assume I have not lied. You cannot prove I am telling the truth about any opinion I express, nor can you read my mind.
That opinions exist is true, that anyone holds to one is believed. Opinions are types of statements, making one doesn't prove you hold to it.
@gklr Logic doesn't provide truths on it's own. Your forgetting what give the Truth value in the first place. Logical propositions say nothing. Logic is the system that we use in order to validate arguments and propositions; NOT a proposition itself that is validated. How would one validate the system of logic? Through logic? Well, this is in fact what is so tautologous (intrinsically meaningless) about logic. In other words, logic cannot not be a truth of it's own.
P or not P at the same time, and other tautologous truths... are purely logical. They have no facts to support them.
True, logic is not itself a proposition, I had no such thought.
Tautologies are not meaningless. It is only via a tautology that we can show the existence of abstract concepts like language or logic or mathematics and so on... this video says it better than this comment does.
@gklr "It is true that the earth has water, not a belief."
Are you saying you don't Also believe the earth has water?
I think we can probably dissolve this confusion by simply clearing up what it MEANS to say something is True
I don't know where you're getting this distinction between 'beliefs' and 'truths'. Don't Truths (even in your sense) HAVE to be believed? If you didn't believe them, would they still be true? And in WHAT SENSE?
"Are you saying you don't Also believe the earth has water?"
Yes I am. If someone were to believe the earth has water, it could be proven true. A belief is not proven true, once proven true it is not a belief.
"Don't Truths (even in your sense) HAVE to be believed?"
They cannot be. The method used to determine a belief and a truth is different. The method used tells us if a statement is an empirical truth or tautologous truth, or an assumption, myth or subjective belief.
@gklr Firstly, deductive logic preserves the truth of an argument because it's conclusion necessarily MUST be true if the premises are true. The premises of a deductive argument are as it were deduced from the conclusion itself. Deduction preserves truth, unlike induction which can at best ONLY give GOOD cause to belief it is the case...
Inductive logic leads us to "justified belief", or good cause to believe as you said. What is necessarily true applies to tautologous truth yes.
"Firstly, deductive logic preserves the truth of an argument because it's conclusion necessarily MUST be true"
Slight quibble: Deduction is also applied to empirical truths, which are never necessary.... they are contingent on facts wheras tautologies are necessary as per definition.
@gklr lol. It's funny you delineate between Assumption, Subjective beliefs, and myths
How are these not all essentially the same thing (a belief)?
Again you make a tautologous distinction about Beliefs when you say "subjective". Is there any other kind of belief? And what makes one belief True over another? Whether or not you Believe it?
It is objectively resolvable that the myth of Santa Claus says that Santa is a male. It is not true that "Santa Claus is male", it is a myth. If someone were to say "I think Santa is female", we can show the myth objectively and show they are wrong. We can prove what the myth says, we cannot prove what it says is true.
If someone were to rewrite the myth and make Santa female, the same applies... the new myth would be objectively resolvable as Santa is female.
@gklr So much to address, so little characters allowed
1st, ALL science is inductive reasoning. So if you want to say science provides "truths", you're mistaken in the highest sense of the words (both science AND truth). Scientific "facts" only refer to observations. At BEST, science has strong evidence for a theory. There are no "truths" in science. There are only experimental evidence.
We need some inductive logic to conclude any truth yes, both scientifically and logically. However if I were to ask you why we need inductive logic for science, I am confident your reply would be the time delay between the observation and the realization of that observation.
This is overcome in that the truth about the science is not the observation itself. eg: the sun is larger than the earth, which is true if we assume the sun still exists (we can only know it did 40 mins ago)
And while it is true we can only know the sun existed 40 minutes ago, what we mean by "the sun" is current data from the sun. So we mean 'now', in that the sun refers to our current observation.
But yes you are right in that all truths both for science or logic require inductive logic if just for the assumption that logic itself is valid... as well as all of the axioms of logic itself.
And there are no truths in science is ok by me, there are truths ABOUT science is better
"The sun will rise tommorow" is another example of an objective belief. The means of determination is past events, where we show objectively what occurred and that there is no justification for thinking it won't continue. So justified belief (inductive logic) requires assumption, a belief, but is not subjective. ie: It is not dependant on the subject.
It is dependant on the justification which can be shared. The method is not dependant on myth so it is not mythical (as well as not subjective)
A subjective belief is utterly dependant on the subject. It does not exist if the subject does not exist. I am of the opinion that peanut butter tastes better than jam. I cannot prove I think peanut butter tastes better than jam.
To believe me that I prefer peanut butter to jam, you are required to use inductive logic (assume I am telling the truth). You cannot prove I prefer peanut butter to jam, or even peanut butter to eating shit. I may prefer to barf.... I could be sado-masochistic.
@gklr So again, Logic doesn't provide truths, science (induction) doesn't provide truths, and tautologies certainly don't provide truths (they only state the same thing twice. This is not what truth is)
As far as subjective and objective beliefs, you said it yourself. The subjective belief is utterly dependant on the subject. Equally, the objective (if it existed) belief would be dependent on the object. But there are no objects..
@gklr ALL belief are subjective, since we are all subjects. It's nonsense to say that a subject has an objective belief. How could I? Because OTHER people have agreed with the proposition? This this make it objective? Or does it give me objective grounds (hardly) for my subjective beliefs? A belief in intrinsically subjective. If you think peanut butter tastes good, then it tastes good! Because GOOD, BETTER, are again subjective terms..
@gklr Deductiion preserves truth because the premises are DEDUCED from the conclusion. If the conclusion is true, so too MUST the premises. The premises are drawn from the conclusion, and so MUST be in agreement with the conclusion, since that is their derivation. Induction can in no way provide this. That "the sun will rise tomorrow" could indeed not be case. This is induction-- it cannot give us Truths. We can only surmise
@gklr To avoid further confusion, let me just plainly ask, How in the world are you using this word "Truth"? To you think it refers to the "in-itself" or the "objective" facts about reality? Of course this cannot be the case, since we (being subjectively bound) could never experience the objective--by definition
What do you think it mean to say something is true? if not "the agreement of the atomic facts?"
This is why we have developed Systems of Logic: classical, fuzzy, quantum, etc.
The only objective thing we can do is to "map" our reality into a system that best models the truth we are trying to resolve. The truth is then deduced from the axioms of that particular system of truth.
When this is not possible, we use induction. This is the best that we can do.
@gklr There are no objects in the sense that, I experience something independent of my own subjectivity. If you want to call the objects of my experience the "objective" so be it, but this is not an independent "object" from my own perception. I in fact have no way to know objectively whether this "object" exists independent of my perception. How could i?
"There are no objects in the sense that, I experience something independent of my own subjectivity"
That 1+1=2 is not dependant on you, nor is that the moon is smaller than the earth. Those are objectively shown truths. Subjective beliefs like peanut butter tastes better than jam are not conclusions we have were we can show how it is we arrived at that conclusion. We cannot share our taste bud sensations, and the subject at hand is solely ourselves.
As well, objective beliefs like inductive logic or myths are not a matter of subjective belief. That Santa is male in the myth, is not dependant on you in any way at all. That the sun will rise tommorow is not dependant on your observation. Both of these are beliefs, objective beliefs. Opinions are not assumptions, taste in music is not like Santa Claus, these are different belief types and there are 3 main types. Inductive logic, subjective beliefs and myths.
Its important to understand that tautology only applies within the context of a given domain. Domains are always finite. Once we start talking about things like the universal set and apply the notion of tautology, we start to run into trouble with things like Russel's paradox or Lob's paradox.
This is what makes it difficult to use the word tautology in the context of philosophy because this makes a statement about the domain of objects or topics or concepts that we are speaking of.
Is anything wrong with requiring 2 see or test something before calling it "true". I understand this being used against atheism but it falls short on its own. It's futile for someone to use the argument "your hand is not your hand" or "how do u know that's your hand?" A reasonable playing field has to be established for any progress to b made. 79 is 79 and this IS my hand! If someone disagrees, then he/she is unreasonable.
The number 79 can look or even feel a certain way depending on WHAT objects the 79 are. 79 apples taste good probably....hopefully, not all at the same time. 79 soups taste good...they may even all taste different than each other. So, no we can't taste the symbol 79 but 79 meals sure. 1 is a singular object because we have all agreed that it is, it is irrefutable or logical because of that. The color green is called green...dogs r dogs.
No number has any physical substance whatsoever. Numbers are abstract concepts. 79 apples is not the number 79. There is physical object called a number. Refer to Tautologies for Atheists, which is my video that explains the existence of things, like numbers or atheism, that are not physical objects. Materialists are next on my hit list after I am done with notters. Materialism is just as nonsensical as notterism is.
I love what you're saying here but have a couple questions. Is saying "all elephants are green or all elephants r not green" a statement really? It's not really stating anything. Also, symbols or language, i.e., the #1 only exist in our mind but the actual object(s)they describe DO exist in reality.
Tautologous truth allows us to show the existence of things like logic, truth, etc... all abstractions of mind. Those things have no empirical truths for them, none of what I would call "atomic facts".
"Logic itself is one big tautology"
Sillytalk.
"e.g. why is logic true? Because it's logical?
A vicious circle "
Logic is not true or false, only propositions are. Logic is not a proposition.
gklr, do you think tautologies only exist within our sense of reality? If you put your 5 senses to one side for ten minutes every day and let your mind go free of everything you believe, know, think and understand and it eventually sees the truth as it really is, I.E your mind perceives totally seperately from your 5 senses do you think tautologies would lose their meaning for you?
perception can only be done through one of the five senses. Tautologies are concieved, not percieved.
Do they only exist within our sense of reality? We know of no other. Tautologies are concepts, and how we resolve any concept exists from logic itself to mathematics to language. None of those things can be percieved via any of the 5 senses.
lol actually perception can be achieved with all of the five senses lol not just one. Anyway, perception is possible without use of the five senses. use your tauological principles to explore the power of the mind to perceive things which are not always physically provable by the 5 senses of a 3rd party.
the truth came before language so it stands to reason that language has a hard time expressing the ulimate truth and origin of truth. Thought came before expression whether it be through language, text or tangible reality. You said "reality, what ever that is". Reality is the perception of expression. The big bang is the birth of reality, thought turned into expression and then perception. Science is part of that perception of reality so it can't examine what exists outside of that reality.
The ultimate truth of God or anything spiritual can only be found by putting the scientific mind to one side because it acts as a barrier because God and spirituality goes beyond the realms of the reality that contains science. The mind creates this illusory reality and so it can also uncreate it and see the truth of what lies beyond but we so love the five senses that science relies on we caqn't see anything else. When I say "the mind" I mean us and God because we are all one and the same.
False. The only objects true, false or believed are statements.
"Reality is the perception of expression"
Reality is percieved or concieved. The object "real" or "reality" is concieved and not percieved. The reality of physical objects is percieved and not concieved.
Everything exist. We just need to outline the realm of existence for each concept. Then we can debate why there need to be an hierarchy of importance. Difference between an atheist and a theist is however what realm of existence we put God in. I have difficulty understanding how the realm I put God in isn't more real than when one is putting him in a realm outside time and space, whatever that actually means.
Everything exists? So the present King of America exists? Cold fusion? Magic? Non-existence is proven via showing the object in question as a contradictory object. My video on the Barbers Paradox shows an example of this. If everything exists, then so does the earths 2nd sun, 3rd, and even an infinite numbers of suns exists for the earth. Yet there is only 1. How do you explain that?
If you can't explain who or what the present king of America is, then you have not defined it. If it is an idea of a person ruling America then yes, it exist. Cold fusion exist. It is a concept science hope is possible somehow and some day. Square circles are not defined, and thus it can't be explained what that is which is non existing. I do not know what a square circle is. When I understand what it is, it is existing too.
Explaining what the King of America would be is easy, it is the male who sits on the throne of America, the monarch. See, the US is not a monarchy, so therin lies the problem for saying everything exists. Clearly the present King of America doesn't. As well as the earths 2nd sun, 3rd sun, or the infinite number of suns. Cold fusion does not exist, the concept of it does. A concept about an object is not the object itself. The concept of car is not a physical car.
Another thing I hope you agree with is that the president of the United States doesn't exist physically as well, and not America, or governments or democracy. Even so, all these are more real than the king of America, cause of the collective intentional system, accepting them as working concepts applicable in society.
"the president of the United States doesn't exist physically as well"
The president exists physically, it's George Bush Jr. The presidency doesn't exist physically, it is conceptual. We have empirical truths for the president of the US, and no tautologous truths. We have tautologous truths for the presidency, no empirical truths exist for it. One method (tautologies) shows us what is abstract and concieved, invented in our mind. The other method (empiricism) shows us the material world.
There is little empirical evidence proving who is the president of U.S. If everyone forgot that U.S.A has a president on the same day, they wouldn't prove empirically that they have one. Yes, they might find a lot of documents saying so, but we can't believe everything we read, now can we? The president is dependent on being acknowledged as the president. If everyones opinion was that he wasn't the president. He wouldn't be the president.
Possible worlds means it's possible they are real and possible they are not. So no, a possible world is not 'existant'. What exists is a matter of having 1 proven truth about the object. What cannot and does not exist is what is a contradictory object, like the present King of America, which cannot exist since the US has no monarchy.
State a truth about an object and it must exist.
Use that object as P, in P and not P, and the proposed object is proven to not exist.
I disagree with the statement that truth is language-dependent. Rather, our ability to ANALYZE truth is restricted by language, but that doesn't restrict truth ITSELF. Especially if you refer to tautological analysis (which I prefer to call 'sets'), then the REALITY of "truth" would be an absolute (always whole and complete), independent of limitations in processing: all else would be subsets. It's a mistake to call "truth", only that which one can analyze or define in terms of language.
Truth is a word that applies only to propositions. Only propositions are true or false. Propositions are a particular type of statement, and statements are all language dependant. An example of a truth: "my car is red", does not reveal a truth about the car. The car has no truths for it. Statements about the car are true or false, not the car. This car is true or this car is false makes no sense. A proposition about the car can be true, but no part of the car is the object truth.
Tautologies are not always anything, or sets. Sets of things refers to groups of things. A tautologous truth need not refer to a group of things. Tautologies use time differently than empirical truths, but there is no eternal/absolute nature to tautologous truth. Tautologous truths need to be proven true, are true by way of a system that shows them. The system must exist first or the truth cannot. By system I include mind, language and for any specific truth a means of perception or conception.
"Show me a truth, any truth, and I will show you a proposition everytime." - a quote I picked up off an IRC channel years ago.
This personifies my understanding of truth and what it is. Similar to that is "truth is a characteristic of statements", which is something I've learned down the line too, that from my dad (cgo11) actually.
Truth are, statements ABOUT something that is verifiably true, proven. Any truth is only as good as it's proof. Truth is a thought. It is not a physical object.
Panentheism (all is God) needs, like any claim, to be proved or it sits there as an unproven claim, only true in a story that says so, so it's mythical. Mythical things are not proven false, they simply only have themselves as evidence of being true. To this suggestion I say "perhaps", like I would in saying "perhaps 12 fairies orbit Pluto and love me too".
"It's raining out or it's not raining out" is true whether the fact is it is raining out or the fact is it is not raining out. Looking out the window won't help us resolve this truth. It is true logically, analytically, not factually. Science can't determine it, it is logical and not scientific.
It (what sad is) is tautologous as all defined to exist objects are, they equate their definition and are only what they are defined to be. Like how A=A is tautologous, words like sad are what we define them to be and nothing more.
Sad is a concept we have that attempts to convey an emotional state. I would call all emotional states a mental state. The object "sad" has no physical location. We don't see it as a thing, and although we interpet physical expressions people have as indicators of their mental state, we do not observe the object sad empirically.
"god manifests in our realm at his own will,since he is an intelligent entity."
If you could prove either of those two statements, you would prove God exists. So you can't say they are true, they are beliefs you have... agreed? We prove what exists with a truth about that object, and tautologous truths prove nonphysical things exist, but they are all concepts of mind. No nonphysical object is shown to exist that is not a thought.
Oh ya, your point is very much on topic. Empirical truths are what science uses. Atheism is not a science and science does nothing for atheism whatsoever, evolution or any of it. Science is useful to show certain claims within any theology are false, but that is anti-theism, not atheism.
Hey sorry I didn't reply sooner. We have no empirical truths for numbers, positive or negative, since they are not physical things. As for your examples, to address those concerns adequetely takes more space than here allows. I will come back to this and try to be concise later today... I am going out shopping right now.
All beliefs use evidence or they would not be believed. This video talks about truth statements, tautologies, not belief statements. How do you define evidence?
I would also forward that the supposition's of abiogenesis and the first 75% of the evolutionary timeline are completely faith based. These are "must be true" processes, to be a logical person and atheist, yet they are founded on no evidence.
I would forward that anything stated about the past requires at least some belief, since the past no longer exists. We require inductive logic to state anything about the past or future, only the present allows for truth. 1+1=2 one second ago? I need "1 second ago" to prove it. No truths exist for that which doesn't exist and the past doesn't.
Yes, however when proof that the biblical God doesn't exist is provided (and is IMV easy to provide), the method used can be applied to other proposed Gods. ie: show the alleged God as contradictory. So even though only 1 proposed God is shot down, the method is available to shoot down other proposed Gods. Not all of them are provable as non-existant, so we believe they aren't there.
I'm interested in your proof of no biblical God, enlighten me if you have time. Of course, disproving a book and saying you've disapproved a God is illogical and I'm sure you can see the flawed logic.
Sure. I will make a video on why the biblical God is proven to not exist. It boils down to God changing, while the biblical God is described as never changing. Malachi 3:6 is later contradicted by the same source... the bible.
I was still waiting on your biblical God contradictions. Most people have stable identities but can show various behaviors, depending on the situation. One might apply that to God.
Outstanding video. What you have shared here would be such a benefit to everyone I've met in this youtube community. Great stuff Greg. I thought I had already subscribed, but I was wrong, but soon that shall be remedied. "click!!"
Answer: No. My dad basically talked to me over the years and I've done some study online on my own time. I make no claims of being a specialist. However I do think this stuff should be taught in about grade 9 or 10.
When you say there are no coordinates for p and q... do you mean because they are abstract symbols? I tend to think of it as a thru z, the alphabetical order of the letters; but that's probably not how it works in this use of logic?
The symbol is not abstract, it has shape and size. What it refers to is abstract, the letter itself has no shape or size or location. ie: no coordinates in space. Where is the letter A? The symbol has physical presence in sound or text. The letter itself does not.
Okay, thanks, gklr! I've been discussion meaning with Azrienoch and Scoutie111; I have an existential take on it: there's no ultimate meaning to the universe, but what conscious beings bring to it, with language, concepts, ideas. Maps of a terra incognita. The more useful, accurate maps -- from Science to Shakespeare, are the best. Bad Science, dumb religion, and bad art, point us in the wrong direction.
Once they say they reject mans logic, remind them they resolve that using mans logic and thus must reject that too. I admit at that point I am walking away soon, as it soon is a waste of time. But once they reject mans logic, you can reject all they say and so can they.
"1+1=2" isn't necessarily a tautology unless you are using the term tautology in such a way that the whole of math is a tautology...
Otherwise you need to mathematically define the objects "1", "2" and "+" (and possibly "="), in which case "1+1=2" either becomes the definition of "2" or a theorem.
uvauva2 9 months ago
@uvauva2,
""1+1=2" isn't necessarily a tautology unless you are using the term tautology in such a way that the whole of math is a tautology"
I am. There are only empirical truths and tautologous truths, no other types of truth exist. 1+1=2 is not an empirical truth, so if it isn't tautologous it is not true at all. Do you wish to propose a new truth type?
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr
"Do you wish to propose a new truth type?"
No, but then again I don't really agree with your classification of truth types. The point was that mathematically there is more depth to the statement "1+1=2" than what all the people who use it ad nauseum realize. Depending on how you choose to axiomatize the natural numbers the statement "1+1=2" can take relatively diverse forms.
uvauva2 9 months ago
@uvauva2,
1+1=2 is not an empirical truth. If it is also not a tautologous truth then it is either not true at all or you are making up a new truth type.
1+1=2 is true because of the rules of inference and due to the given values to 1, +, = and 2.
It is tautologous truth, as are all analytical truths.
So far you haven't made a single point to me. What among anything you said do you feel is news to me?
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr
"What among anything you said do you feel is news to me?"
I do not think you fully understand what I say. Possibly because you lack mathematical training.
Here is a concrete question on what I'm getting at: take, say, Peano's axiomatic for arithmetic. Is "1+1=2" then: i) a definition or ii) a theorem.
And on another note, mathematical truth is not devoid of empirical considerations: the consistency of our models can not be proven (a meta fact, which, weirdly, kind of can). (...)
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2
(...)
If we accept our models as noncontradictory it is ultimately because no contradiction has been found yet.
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"If we accept our models as noncontradictory it is ultimately because no contradiction has been found yet."
No. If something is noncontradictory, then the proposition is not "P and not P, at the same time" where P is a proposition.
Contradictions are the logical opposites of tautologies.
1+1=2 is not contradictory because it does not state "P and not P, at the same time".
Saying "1+1=2 and 1+1 is not equal to 2, at the same time" is contradictory.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"I do not think you fully understand what I say. Possibly because you lack mathematical training."
You challenged that 1+1=2 is tautologous, which is not something that is found in a math book.... perhaps it is your void of philosophical understanding that is to blame.
"And on another note, mathematical truth is not devoid of empirical considerations"
Math is not empirical in any way. All mathematical truths are tautologous by logical necessity or they are not true at all
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr
"perhaps it is your void of philosophical understanding that is to blame."
There is (at least) a key difference between mathematics and philosophy, and that is that the former is a body of knowledge with essential consensus among its practitioners, while the later is heavily partitioned into sects ultimately unlikely to agree on anything. Hence my disagreement with the adequacy of your dichotomy hardly makes me "philosophically inept". And please answer my question: definition or theorem
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"There is (at least) a key difference between mathematics and philosophy, and that is that the former is a body of knowledge with essential consensus among its practitioners, while the later is heavily partitioned into sects ultimately unlikely to agree on anything"
Your objection was a philosophical one as you challenged that 1+1=2 is a tautologous truth. Either it is not true or it is an empirical truth if it is not tautologous. You did not explain. I asked you to.
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr
Responding to all your comments is frankly boring, but here you go:
- I reject your simple dichotomy between tautological and empirical knowledge. It seems apparent to me that all knowledge is ultimately a mix of both, including even mathematics. Hence trying to pin me to that terminology is pointless.
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"I reject your simple dichotomy between tautological and empirical knowledge"
I didn't talk about knowledge, I spoke of 2 truth types. There are only the 2.
Knowledge is a different beast and includes many beliefs(as well as all truths). For belief types there are 3.
Knowledge is usually a belief. I know I wrote comments to you before, but I cannot prove it is true. I need to use inductive logic to speak about the past because the past does not exist.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"It seems apparent to me that all knowledge is ultimately a mix of both, including even mathematics"
There are no mathematics truths that are empirical. Offer an empirical truth about mathematics.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"Hence trying to pin me to that terminology is pointless"
I am all ears as to why you think empirical truths can apply to mathematics. No such possibility.
Do you think numbers are physical objects or that anything physical describes any number?
Please provide details of that.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"Responding to all your comments is frankly boring"
Then don't reply. I know this is a boring topic. It's hardly something I picked up at my local swingers convention.
For excitement I travel, just got back from being away for 3 days.... I play with my kids, video games and I find music entertaining even if my ears ring nowadays.
Tautologies? lol.
I watch videos of things blowing up for fun on youtube. Talking head videos like this one are shit to sit through.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"And please answer my question: definition or theorem"
Peano simply outlined axioms required to say 1+1=2, which is already assumed by me..... indeed I would add many to them. We need axioms to say anything at all, let alone that 1+1=2. Tell me why Peano math itself is not used.
To say that we think at all, requires axioms. Peano merely offered some on mathematics. Trivial to this discussion on tautologous truth. All truths require axioms, not just that one. Your point then?
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr
"We need axioms to say anything at all"
I'm a great fan of axioms, being a mathematician and all, but I think this is a key problem in our conversation, because I don't think this is ultimately true. Language isn't remotely axiomatized, and I rather suspect that anyone trying to actually do so would run into paradoxes caused by self-reference analogous to Russel's paradox (e.g. heterological). But in practice we don't care about that for the simple reason that language works anyway. (...)
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2
(...) And, in fact, minor versions of this phenomenon do occur within mathematics itself, a good example being the ways to avoid Russel's paradox: there are plenty of devised solutions, not all equivalent, but your average mathematician (i.e. not a logician) generally doesn't really care for that, and just chooses whichever one makes his life easier.
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
gklr: "We need axioms to say anything at all"
u: I'm a great fan of axioms, being a mathematician and all, but I think this is a key problem in our conversation, because I don't think this is ultimately true
g: if we don't assume our logic is valid, we can't state it is. We assume billions of things just to get going at all. Otherwise we'd be left trying to prove we didn't just pop into existence 1 millisecond ago with all our memories programmed in. Prove that didn't happen.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"Language isn't remotely axiomatized"
I didn't say it was. Logic is axiomatic.
Language is too, but that is another matter and irrelevent to that logic depends on it's axioms. Where is the proof anyones logic is valid? There is the self reference problem of showing logic is ever valid.
"and I rather suspect that anyone trying to actually do so would run into paradoxes caused by self-reference "
Ironic then that saying otherwise leads directly to what you suspected.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
" But in practice we don't care about that for the simple reason..."
In practice, unless we make many assumptions, we can't say anything. So we do.
All of the axioms of logic use inductive logic, assumption..... belief. None of them are proven true.
The verification principle cannot be verified and the falsification principle cannot be falsified. That is why they are principles and not theories. They are axioms, and all of logic and science depend on them.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
Love is shown to exist via tautologous truth, not via empirical truth.
Love is an emotion, for example, is a tautologous truth that uses "love" as the subject. If true, love must exist. It is true by way of definition, the same way all tautologies are true. This is how we prove concepts exist.
We could prove the concept of god exists the same way. We can't prove anyone believes in god or not. We can't read minds. We can't prove we love anything either.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"Hence my disagreement with the adequacy of your dichotomy hardly makes me "philosophically inept". "
You challenged that 1+1=2 is a tautologous truth, which is great.... however you had nothing to back that challenge up with. If it is not a tautologous truth then ok, is it an empirical truth (nope)... so either it is not true or you have a new type of truth.... a matter of philosophy and not of mathematics.
Good enough, explain this new truth type or show 1+1=2 isn't true.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
A tautologous truth is any truth that is derived solely by way of logic and reason.
"It is raining out or it is not raining out", is true, independent of the fact of whether it is raining out or not. Tautologous truth is independent of fact
No facts support 1+1=2. It is derived solely by way of logic, and depends on the rules of inference and the values of 1,+,=, and 2... and that minds exist at all to consider them (among other axioms), then and only then is 1+1=2 tautologous
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
This video also explains another use of the word "tautology" which a grammatical concern and not a concern of the use of the same word in formal logic. The grammatical understanding of "tautology" is a mere case "needless repetition" which 1+1=2 is.
My grandfather is my dads father, is a tautology according to linguistics. I am saying in this video that it is a logical tautology as well because it is true and is derived solely by way of analysis.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
The value to the argument I give here is to atheists in particular, in showing how we can better explain the existence of concepts like love to theists, when it is a common stumbling block to many of the people who seem to want to debate theists. When asked what love is they draw a blank stare when they don't need to, we can explain it quite well. Better than theists can. Instead of being a stumbling block, it is to our advantage to describe love or hate etc...
gklr 8 months ago
@gklr
"Love"
I must say I'm curious. Just what would be your explanation of what love is?
As for discussing with theists, I would say personally that I do prefer to leave any emotional language and analysis out of any religious discussion, as I think a dispassionate attitude is the best way to avoid any kind of self-delusion, but whatever works for you, I guess.
uvauva2 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
Love is a word, a concept we use to describe an emotion. That emotion which is described is experienced subjectively and hence why everyones understanding of love is a private matter to them.
That we love something cannot be proven true. That love exists can be proven true. It is an emotion we describe, even if differently from person to person.
Just as we can say values exist. Taste in art exists. I can't prove what my tastes are and you can't prove you prefer anything.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"As for discussing with theists, I would say personally that I do prefer to leave any emotional language and analysis out of any religious discussion, as I think a dispassionate attitude is the best way to avoid any kind of self-delusion"
And I would need to assume you are being honest in saying so, as you would that I prefer to do it another way. Point: this type of statement is not a truth. When speaking of preferences we use the same form of (inductive) logic as axioms do.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
" but whatever works for you, I guess."
Atheists can utilize formal logic to better explain reality than theists can, and too often they miss the point of formal logic being used to show what is real. So when a theist waxes poetic about love, which they do often... then even for the atheist to understand for themselves and not argue with theists at all... why and where the theist is wrong... then they are better off.
This video does opens the door for them to do that.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
Saying things like "love is a subjective experience" or "love is an emotion", are truths about love, so they prove love exists as a concept. They do not define what love is, they say something about love that is true. If true, love must exist.
What love means to each person is subjective. So when I say to you I love my kids, what I mean is based on my own understanding of love. What you hear is based on your understanding. It is subjective, therefore it exists.
gklr 8 months ago
@uvauva2,
"No, but then again I don't really agree with your classification of truth types"
Good luck on that one. Inform me then.
Empirical truths are propositions about material objects, physical things. Confirmed through 1 of the 5 senses, they are contingent on percieved facts.
Tautologous truths are analytical and are propositions about abstract objects, like oh say... numbers. They are concieved and not percieved, never based on fact. Necessary and not contingent.
gklr 8 months ago
10 people clicked the "dislike" button.
infzy 1 year ago
@infzy,
It's a shit video. It takes too long to get to the matter at hand. I couldn't watch it when I tried to.
I despise these talking head videos, even my own. They all suck royally. Get past that long enough to see what is being said and ya, the points here are keepers. Tautologies show how we can explain the existence of all things that are not physical.
gklr 1 year ago
To reduce truth to being only within the domain of science and logic, is to forget what "true" means. It refers to the agreement or disagreement with the atomic facts. The atomic facts may very well be profoundly religious experiences, where people literally see the face of God.
It is then true of them to say that God is real. It's contingently true depending on whether or not they had the said experience
There is more than one way of talking at stake here, and they dont all hang together!
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
"It refers to the agreement or disagreement with the atomic facts. The atomic facts may very well be profoundly religious experiences, where people literally see the face of God."
Simple agreement has no bearing on a truth. I could agree that Lady Gaga is cute, that does not make it true. It is still an opinion.
If people claim to see the face of a god, and others agree they saw the same thing, that does not make it true. That is not what truth is at all.
gklr 1 year ago
Only science and logic provide truths, science through empirical truths and logic via tautologous truths and there are no other avenues to arrive at truth other than perception (science) and conception (logic).
There is no 3rd option and your objection offered 1 of those 2 as an exception? Contingent truths are empirical, everytime.
Facts are always empirical and tautologies never are factual.
Wittgenstein himself let go of "atomic facts" being the only truths in his latter work.
gklr 1 year ago
It is however true that that is your opinion. That opinion itself is the atomic fact. I use atomic fact as simply that which is experienced-- the empirical you spoke of. Whether or not something is True, only means whether or not that expression represents the said experience. Tautologies are pseudo truths, in that they tell us nothing about the world. They are as meaningless as contradictions since they tell us nothing new.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
How would I, or anyone, show I have any opinion? They cannot prove I have any opinion at all. They, even I, must believe I have an opinion.
The type of belief used in accepting I have an opinion, is assumption, in that you assume I have not lied. You cannot prove I am telling the truth about any opinion I express, nor can you read my mind.
That opinions exist is true, that anyone holds to one is believed. Opinions are types of statements, making one doesn't prove you hold to it.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Logic doesn't provide truths on it's own. Your forgetting what give the Truth value in the first place. Logical propositions say nothing. Logic is the system that we use in order to validate arguments and propositions; NOT a proposition itself that is validated. How would one validate the system of logic? Through logic? Well, this is in fact what is so tautologous (intrinsically meaningless) about logic. In other words, logic cannot not be a truth of it's own.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
P or not P at the same time, and other tautologous truths... are purely logical. They have no facts to support them.
True, logic is not itself a proposition, I had no such thought.
Tautologies are not meaningless. It is only via a tautology that we can show the existence of abstract concepts like language or logic or mathematics and so on... this video says it better than this comment does.
gklr 1 year ago
And as far as science providing truths, or empiricism providing truths, don't you mean beliefs?
Is it true that that is my belief? Certainly
But is my belief true? And how would I check?
How could be begin to know this? By comparison with other empirical beliefs?
In what sense do you suppose science or empiricism provide us with "Truths"?
"Justification comes to an end."
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
No I meant truths. It is true that the earth has water, not a belief.
"But is my belief true? And how would I check?"
A proposition is either a belief or a truth. If it is a belief it is not proven true.
"In what sense do you suppose science or empiricism provide us with "Truths"?"
We can test the conclusion ourselves and using the same data we come to the same conclusion.
There are 2 truth types and 3 belief types. The 3 belief types are assumption, subjective beliefs and myths.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr "It is true that the earth has water, not a belief."
Are you saying you don't Also believe the earth has water?
I think we can probably dissolve this confusion by simply clearing up what it MEANS to say something is True
I don't know where you're getting this distinction between 'beliefs' and 'truths'. Don't Truths (even in your sense) HAVE to be believed? If you didn't believe them, would they still be true? And in WHAT SENSE?
Tautologies can't save you here
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
"Are you saying you don't Also believe the earth has water?"
Yes I am. If someone were to believe the earth has water, it could be proven true. A belief is not proven true, once proven true it is not a belief.
"Don't Truths (even in your sense) HAVE to be believed?"
They cannot be. The method used to determine a belief and a truth is different. The method used tells us if a statement is an empirical truth or tautologous truth, or an assumption, myth or subjective belief.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Firstly, deductive logic preserves the truth of an argument because it's conclusion necessarily MUST be true if the premises are true. The premises of a deductive argument are as it were deduced from the conclusion itself. Deduction preserves truth, unlike induction which can at best ONLY give GOOD cause to belief it is the case...
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism,
Inductive logic leads us to "justified belief", or good cause to believe as you said. What is necessarily true applies to tautologous truth yes.
"Firstly, deductive logic preserves the truth of an argument because it's conclusion necessarily MUST be true"
Slight quibble: Deduction is also applied to empirical truths, which are never necessary.... they are contingent on facts wheras tautologies are necessary as per definition.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr lol. It's funny you delineate between Assumption, Subjective beliefs, and myths
How are these not all essentially the same thing (a belief)?
Again you make a tautologous distinction about Beliefs when you say "subjective". Is there any other kind of belief? And what makes one belief True over another? Whether or not you Believe it?
Your Truth is nothing more than a Belief
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
"It's funny you delineate between Assumption, Subjective beliefs, and myths
How are these not all essentially the same thing (a belief)?"
They are all beliefs, just different types of beliefs as shown by the method used to resolve them.
"Is there any other kind of belief?"
Yes, objective beliefs like myths and assumption.
"And what makes one belief True over another?"
No belief is true. There is no such thing as one belief being true over another.
gklr 1 year ago
It is objectively resolvable that the myth of Santa Claus says that Santa is a male. It is not true that "Santa Claus is male", it is a myth. If someone were to say "I think Santa is female", we can show the myth objectively and show they are wrong. We can prove what the myth says, we cannot prove what it says is true.
If someone were to rewrite the myth and make Santa female, the same applies... the new myth would be objectively resolvable as Santa is female.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr So much to address, so little characters allowed
1st, ALL science is inductive reasoning. So if you want to say science provides "truths", you're mistaken in the highest sense of the words (both science AND truth). Scientific "facts" only refer to observations. At BEST, science has strong evidence for a theory. There are no "truths" in science. There are only experimental evidence.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
We need some inductive logic to conclude any truth yes, both scientifically and logically. However if I were to ask you why we need inductive logic for science, I am confident your reply would be the time delay between the observation and the realization of that observation.
This is overcome in that the truth about the science is not the observation itself. eg: the sun is larger than the earth, which is true if we assume the sun still exists (we can only know it did 40 mins ago)
gklr 1 year ago
...continued,
And while it is true we can only know the sun existed 40 minutes ago, what we mean by "the sun" is current data from the sun. So we mean 'now', in that the sun refers to our current observation.
But yes you are right in that all truths both for science or logic require inductive logic if just for the assumption that logic itself is valid... as well as all of the axioms of logic itself.
And there are no truths in science is ok by me, there are truths ABOUT science is better
gklr 1 year ago
"The sun will rise tommorow" is another example of an objective belief. The means of determination is past events, where we show objectively what occurred and that there is no justification for thinking it won't continue. So justified belief (inductive logic) requires assumption, a belief, but is not subjective. ie: It is not dependant on the subject.
It is dependant on the justification which can be shared. The method is not dependant on myth so it is not mythical (as well as not subjective)
gklr 1 year ago
A subjective belief is utterly dependant on the subject. It does not exist if the subject does not exist. I am of the opinion that peanut butter tastes better than jam. I cannot prove I think peanut butter tastes better than jam.
To believe me that I prefer peanut butter to jam, you are required to use inductive logic (assume I am telling the truth). You cannot prove I prefer peanut butter to jam, or even peanut butter to eating shit. I may prefer to barf.... I could be sado-masochistic.
gklr 1 year ago
Comment removed
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@gklr So again, Logic doesn't provide truths, science (induction) doesn't provide truths, and tautologies certainly don't provide truths (they only state the same thing twice. This is not what truth is)
As far as subjective and objective beliefs, you said it yourself. The subjective belief is utterly dependant on the subject. Equally, the objective (if it existed) belief would be dependent on the object. But there are no objects..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism "But there are no objects"
James Randi is known to say "that the chair won't collapse when I sit on it is a reasoned belief."
This is the objective belief Greg refers to.
If the chair looks fine and if it hasn't collapsed before, you can induce that it won't collapse when you sit on it now. You can't prove it though.
fatfist 1 year ago
@gklr ALL belief are subjective, since we are all subjects. It's nonsense to say that a subject has an objective belief. How could I? Because OTHER people have agreed with the proposition? This this make it objective? Or does it give me objective grounds (hardly) for my subjective beliefs? A belief in intrinsically subjective. If you think peanut butter tastes good, then it tastes good! Because GOOD, BETTER, are again subjective terms..
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@gklr Deductiion preserves truth because the premises are DEDUCED from the conclusion. If the conclusion is true, so too MUST the premises. The premises are drawn from the conclusion, and so MUST be in agreement with the conclusion, since that is their derivation. Induction can in no way provide this. That "the sun will rise tomorrow" could indeed not be case. This is induction-- it cannot give us Truths. We can only surmise
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@gklr To avoid further confusion, let me just plainly ask, How in the world are you using this word "Truth"? To you think it refers to the "in-itself" or the "objective" facts about reality? Of course this cannot be the case, since we (being subjectively bound) could never experience the objective--by definition
What do you think it mean to say something is true? if not "the agreement of the atomic facts?"
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism
"How in the world are you using this word "Truth"
This is why we have developed Systems of Logic: classical, fuzzy, quantum, etc.
The only objective thing we can do is to "map" our reality into a system that best models the truth we are trying to resolve. The truth is then deduced from the axioms of that particular system of truth.
When this is not possible, we use induction. This is the best that we can do.
fatfist 1 year ago
@gklr There are no objects in the sense that, I experience something independent of my own subjectivity. If you want to call the objects of my experience the "objective" so be it, but this is not an independent "object" from my own perception. I in fact have no way to know objectively whether this "object" exists independent of my perception. How could i?
There is only the subject (me); the microcosm.
Wittgensteinism 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism,
"There are no objects in the sense that, I experience something independent of my own subjectivity"
That 1+1=2 is not dependant on you, nor is that the moon is smaller than the earth. Those are objectively shown truths. Subjective beliefs like peanut butter tastes better than jam are not conclusions we have were we can show how it is we arrived at that conclusion. We cannot share our taste bud sensations, and the subject at hand is solely ourselves.
gklr 1 year ago
@Wittgensteinism,
As well, objective beliefs like inductive logic or myths are not a matter of subjective belief. That Santa is male in the myth, is not dependant on you in any way at all. That the sun will rise tommorow is not dependant on your observation. Both of these are beliefs, objective beliefs. Opinions are not assumptions, taste in music is not like Santa Claus, these are different belief types and there are 3 main types. Inductive logic, subjective beliefs and myths.
gklr 1 year ago
Its important to understand that tautology only applies within the context of a given domain. Domains are always finite. Once we start talking about things like the universal set and apply the notion of tautology, we start to run into trouble with things like Russel's paradox or Lob's paradox.
This is what makes it difficult to use the word tautology in the context of philosophy because this makes a statement about the domain of objects or topics or concepts that we are speaking of.
Ormaaj 3 years ago
Nonsense.
There is no conflict between infinite domains and logic.
cgo11 3 years ago
Is anything wrong with requiring 2 see or test something before calling it "true". I understand this being used against atheism but it falls short on its own. It's futile for someone to use the argument "your hand is not your hand" or "how do u know that's your hand?" A reasonable playing field has to be established for any progress to b made. 79 is 79 and this IS my hand! If someone disagrees, then he/she is unreasonable.
julzabro 3 years ago
The number 79 can look or even feel a certain way depending on WHAT objects the 79 are. 79 apples taste good probably....hopefully, not all at the same time. 79 soups taste good...they may even all taste different than each other. So, no we can't taste the symbol 79 but 79 meals sure. 1 is a singular object because we have all agreed that it is, it is irrefutable or logical because of that. The color green is called green...dogs r dogs.
julzabro 3 years ago
julz,
No number has any physical substance whatsoever. Numbers are abstract concepts. 79 apples is not the number 79. There is physical object called a number. Refer to Tautologies for Atheists, which is my video that explains the existence of things, like numbers or atheism, that are not physical objects. Materialists are next on my hit list after I am done with notters. Materialism is just as nonsensical as notterism is.
gklr 3 years ago
I love what you're saying here but have a couple questions. Is saying "all elephants are green or all elephants r not green" a statement really? It's not really stating anything. Also, symbols or language, i.e., the #1 only exist in our mind but the actual object(s)they describe DO exist in reality.
julzabro 3 years ago
julz,
P or not P, is a tautologous truth, so yes it says something, it is one of the foundations of modern logic.
gklr 3 years ago
@gklr I take argument with what you said about tautologies actually saying something; about being meaningful.
What is it that P or not P tells us about the world? What does it, in effect, Say?
Nothing.
Truth derivation is from the Contingent statements. These are the only statements said to have any Sense.
Although you're right to call tautologies the foundation of logic, since logic itself is just one big tautology itself.
e.g. why is logic true? Because it's logical?
A vicious circle
Wittgensteinism 2 years ago
Tautologous truth allows us to show the existence of things like logic, truth, etc... all abstractions of mind. Those things have no empirical truths for them, none of what I would call "atomic facts".
"Logic itself is one big tautology"
Sillytalk.
"e.g. why is logic true? Because it's logical?
A vicious circle "
Logic is not true or false, only propositions are. Logic is not a proposition.
gklr 1 year ago
Hi gklr,
What happened to this video? It doesn't seem to load. I'm really curious of your opinion about this. Is the video anywhere else to be seen?
Regards,
Olivier
Donkeyboy020 3 years ago
It's certainly slow loading. I have no idea what happened. I will remake it when I have the time. Thanks for pointing that out.
gklr 3 years ago
gklr, do you think tautologies only exist within our sense of reality? If you put your 5 senses to one side for ten minutes every day and let your mind go free of everything you believe, know, think and understand and it eventually sees the truth as it really is, I.E your mind perceives totally seperately from your 5 senses do you think tautologies would lose their meaning for you?
11thhourreprieve 3 years ago
11th,
perception can only be done through one of the five senses. Tautologies are concieved, not percieved.
Do they only exist within our sense of reality? We know of no other. Tautologies are concepts, and how we resolve any concept exists from logic itself to mathematics to language. None of those things can be percieved via any of the 5 senses.
gklr 3 years ago
lol actually perception can be achieved with all of the five senses lol not just one. Anyway, perception is possible without use of the five senses. use your tauological principles to explore the power of the mind to perceive things which are not always physically provable by the 5 senses of a 3rd party.
11thhourreprieve 3 years ago
11th,
So a blind man cannot detect heat?
gklr 3 years ago
How does that tie in with what i said?
11thhourreprieve 3 years ago
the truth came before language so it stands to reason that language has a hard time expressing the ulimate truth and origin of truth. Thought came before expression whether it be through language, text or tangible reality. You said "reality, what ever that is". Reality is the perception of expression. The big bang is the birth of reality, thought turned into expression and then perception. Science is part of that perception of reality so it can't examine what exists outside of that reality.
11thhourreprieve 3 years ago
The ultimate truth of God or anything spiritual can only be found by putting the scientific mind to one side because it acts as a barrier because God and spirituality goes beyond the realms of the reality that contains science. The mind creates this illusory reality and so it can also uncreate it and see the truth of what lies beyond but we so love the five senses that science relies on we caqn't see anything else. When I say "the mind" I mean us and God because we are all one and the same.
11thhourreprieve 3 years ago
"the truth came before language"
False. The only objects true, false or believed are statements.
"Reality is the perception of expression"
Reality is percieved or concieved. The object "real" or "reality" is concieved and not percieved. The reality of physical objects is percieved and not concieved.
gklr 3 years ago
Everything exist. We just need to outline the realm of existence for each concept. Then we can debate why there need to be an hierarchy of importance. Difference between an atheist and a theist is however what realm of existence we put God in. I have difficulty understanding how the realm I put God in isn't more real than when one is putting him in a realm outside time and space, whatever that actually means.
Censeo 3 years ago
Everything exists? So the present King of America exists? Cold fusion? Magic? Non-existence is proven via showing the object in question as a contradictory object. My video on the Barbers Paradox shows an example of this. If everything exists, then so does the earths 2nd sun, 3rd, and even an infinite numbers of suns exists for the earth. Yet there is only 1. How do you explain that?
gklr 3 years ago
If you can't explain who or what the present king of America is, then you have not defined it. If it is an idea of a person ruling America then yes, it exist. Cold fusion exist. It is a concept science hope is possible somehow and some day. Square circles are not defined, and thus it can't be explained what that is which is non existing. I do not know what a square circle is. When I understand what it is, it is existing too.
Censeo 3 years ago
Explaining what the King of America would be is easy, it is the male who sits on the throne of America, the monarch. See, the US is not a monarchy, so therin lies the problem for saying everything exists. Clearly the present King of America doesn't. As well as the earths 2nd sun, 3rd sun, or the infinite number of suns. Cold fusion does not exist, the concept of it does. A concept about an object is not the object itself. The concept of car is not a physical car.
gklr 3 years ago
Well sure, the king of America doesn't exist physically. Neither does the second sun.
Censeo 3 years ago
"Well sure, the king of America doesn't exist physically. Neither does the second sun"
Right, so everything exists is false. Existence applies to those objects we have truths for. Believing something exists doesn't mean it does.
gklr 3 years ago
Another thing I hope you agree with is that the president of the United States doesn't exist physically as well, and not America, or governments or democracy. Even so, all these are more real than the king of America, cause of the collective intentional system, accepting them as working concepts applicable in society.
Censeo 3 years ago
"the president of the United States doesn't exist physically as well"
The president exists physically, it's George Bush Jr. The presidency doesn't exist physically, it is conceptual. We have empirical truths for the president of the US, and no tautologous truths. We have tautologous truths for the presidency, no empirical truths exist for it. One method (tautologies) shows us what is abstract and concieved, invented in our mind. The other method (empiricism) shows us the material world.
gklr 3 years ago
There is little empirical evidence proving who is the president of U.S. If everyone forgot that U.S.A has a president on the same day, they wouldn't prove empirically that they have one. Yes, they might find a lot of documents saying so, but we can't believe everything we read, now can we? The president is dependent on being acknowledged as the president. If everyones opinion was that he wasn't the president. He wouldn't be the president.
Censeo 3 years ago
Are possible worlds "things"? If so, then the King of America does exist.
scottvanska 3 years ago
Possible worlds means it's possible they are real and possible they are not. So no, a possible world is not 'existant'. What exists is a matter of having 1 proven truth about the object. What cannot and does not exist is what is a contradictory object, like the present King of America, which cannot exist since the US has no monarchy.
State a truth about an object and it must exist.
Use that object as P, in P and not P, and the proposed object is proven to not exist.
gklr 3 years ago
I like you haha post more shit man
trisix99 3 years ago 2
I disagree with the statement that truth is language-dependent. Rather, our ability to ANALYZE truth is restricted by language, but that doesn't restrict truth ITSELF. Especially if you refer to tautological analysis (which I prefer to call 'sets'), then the REALITY of "truth" would be an absolute (always whole and complete), independent of limitations in processing: all else would be subsets. It's a mistake to call "truth", only that which one can analyze or define in terms of language.
brainouty 4 years ago
brainouty,
Truth is a word that applies only to propositions. Only propositions are true or false. Propositions are a particular type of statement, and statements are all language dependant. An example of a truth: "my car is red", does not reveal a truth about the car. The car has no truths for it. Statements about the car are true or false, not the car. This car is true or this car is false makes no sense. A proposition about the car can be true, but no part of the car is the object truth.
gklr 4 years ago
Tautologies are not always anything, or sets. Sets of things refers to groups of things. A tautologous truth need not refer to a group of things. Tautologies use time differently than empirical truths, but there is no eternal/absolute nature to tautologous truth. Tautologous truths need to be proven true, are true by way of a system that shows them. The system must exist first or the truth cannot. By system I include mind, language and for any specific truth a means of perception or conception.
gklr 4 years ago
"Show me a truth, any truth, and I will show you a proposition everytime." - a quote I picked up off an IRC channel years ago.
This personifies my understanding of truth and what it is. Similar to that is "truth is a characteristic of statements", which is something I've learned down the line too, that from my dad (cgo11) actually.
Truth are, statements ABOUT something that is verifiably true, proven. Any truth is only as good as it's proof. Truth is a thought. It is not a physical object.
gklr 4 years ago
Barney,
Panentheism (all is God) needs, like any claim, to be proved or it sits there as an unproven claim, only true in a story that says so, so it's mythical. Mythical things are not proven false, they simply only have themselves as evidence of being true. To this suggestion I say "perhaps", like I would in saying "perhaps 12 fairies orbit Pluto and love me too".
gklr 4 years ago
"It's raining out or it's not raining out" is true whether the fact is it is raining out or the fact is it is not raining out. Looking out the window won't help us resolve this truth. It is true logically, analytically, not factually. Science can't determine it, it is logical and not scientific.
gklr 4 years ago
Physical objects are not what we define them to be. Empirical truths are verified via any of the 5 physical senses, percieved.
Tautologies are concieved in the mind. No facts support these truths. They are true independant of the facts.
gklr 4 years ago
It (what sad is) is tautologous as all defined to exist objects are, they equate their definition and are only what they are defined to be. Like how A=A is tautologous, words like sad are what we define them to be and nothing more.
gklr 4 years ago
MindLasers,
Sad is a concept we have that attempts to convey an emotional state. I would call all emotional states a mental state. The object "sad" has no physical location. We don't see it as a thing, and although we interpet physical expressions people have as indicators of their mental state, we do not observe the object sad empirically.
gklr 4 years ago
"god manifests in our realm at his own will,since he is an intelligent entity."
If you could prove either of those two statements, you would prove God exists. So you can't say they are true, they are beliefs you have... agreed? We prove what exists with a truth about that object, and tautologous truths prove nonphysical things exist, but they are all concepts of mind. No nonphysical object is shown to exist that is not a thought.
gklr 4 years ago
Barney,
Oh ya, your point is very much on topic. Empirical truths are what science uses. Atheism is not a science and science does nothing for atheism whatsoever, evolution or any of it. Science is useful to show certain claims within any theology are false, but that is anti-theism, not atheism.
gklr 4 years ago
Mindlasers,
Hey sorry I didn't reply sooner. We have no empirical truths for numbers, positive or negative, since they are not physical things. As for your examples, to address those concerns adequetely takes more space than here allows. I will come back to this and try to be concise later today... I am going out shopping right now.
gklr 4 years ago
You are hyper-articulate, hyper-intelligent and my brain is WAY too slow to keep up with you - I'll keep trying though - lol
dannyjam 4 years ago
lol, I ummm, don't agree.
I will however happily answer PMs on topic, if you have anything you want clarified.
gklr 4 years ago
That's quite a religion you've got going there... a religion of words.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
How do you define a religion?
Religion tells people what to think.
Philosophy asks people to doubt.
Confusing the two is common, but still in error.
gklr 4 years ago
I define religion as beliefs not based on evidence. Faith.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
All beliefs use evidence or they would not be believed. This video talks about truth statements, tautologies, not belief statements. How do you define evidence?
gklr 4 years ago
I would also forward that the supposition's of abiogenesis and the first 75% of the evolutionary timeline are completely faith based. These are "must be true" processes, to be a logical person and atheist, yet they are founded on no evidence.
Silly2smart 4 years ago
I would forward that anything stated about the past requires at least some belief, since the past no longer exists. We require inductive logic to state anything about the past or future, only the present allows for truth. 1+1=2 one second ago? I need "1 second ago" to prove it. No truths exist for that which doesn't exist and the past doesn't.
gklr 4 years ago
You, may disbelieve the past if you wish, although communication with your world will be difficult.
Silly2smart 4 years ago
I say all assertions require some belief.
That the past does not presently exist does not deny the value of record.
We can argue that the present is in reality 'the immediate past'.
That is to say, there is only 'the past'.
Both the present and the future are illusions.
cgo11 4 years ago
I want to elaborate on the notion of immediacy/presence.
When we look at the sun we see what was present 8 minutes ago.
When we look at galaxies we see what was present millions of years ago.
When we look at a table in our room we see what was present microseconds ago.
That is, we can only observe the past.
There is no sensibility to the notion of 'now'.
cgo11 4 years ago
The existence of a God could be irrelevant to the bible, so trying to disprove the bible is pointless and not logical in disproving god.
Silly2smart 4 years ago
Yes, however when proof that the biblical God doesn't exist is provided (and is IMV easy to provide), the method used can be applied to other proposed Gods. ie: show the alleged God as contradictory. So even though only 1 proposed God is shot down, the method is available to shoot down other proposed Gods. Not all of them are provable as non-existant, so we believe they aren't there.
gklr 4 years ago
I'm interested in your proof of no biblical God, enlighten me if you have time. Of course, disproving a book and saying you've disapproved a God is illogical and I'm sure you can see the flawed logic.
Silly2smart 4 years ago
Sure. I will make a video on why the biblical God is proven to not exist. It boils down to God changing, while the biblical God is described as never changing. Malachi 3:6 is later contradicted by the same source... the bible.
gklr 4 years ago
I was still waiting on your biblical God contradictions. Most people have stable identities but can show various behaviors, depending on the situation. One might apply that to God.
Silly2smart 4 years ago
Outstanding video. What you have shared here would be such a benefit to everyone I've met in this youtube community. Great stuff Greg. I thought I had already subscribed, but I was wrong, but soon that shall be remedied. "click!!"
rUTokKIN2ME 4 years ago
Thank you for clarifying the difference between a logical tautology and a rhetorical tautology.
Question: Do you have any formal schooling in logic?
grandastro 4 years ago
Answer: No. My dad basically talked to me over the years and I've done some study online on my own time. I make no claims of being a specialist. However I do think this stuff should be taught in about grade 9 or 10.
gklr 4 years ago
I agree - this should be taught in high school.
grandastro 4 years ago
First time I've heard about "tautologies." Facinating.
I'll definitely have to watch your other stuff.
TheCuriousSkeptic 4 years ago
When you say there are no coordinates for p and q... do you mean because they are abstract symbols? I tend to think of it as a thru z, the alphabetical order of the letters; but that's probably not how it works in this use of logic?
StevenErnest 4 years ago
The symbol is not abstract, it has shape and size. What it refers to is abstract, the letter itself has no shape or size or location. ie: no coordinates in space. Where is the letter A? The symbol has physical presence in sound or text. The letter itself does not.
gklr 4 years ago
Okay, thanks, gklr! I've been discussion meaning with Azrienoch and Scoutie111; I have an existential take on it: there's no ultimate meaning to the universe, but what conscious beings bring to it, with language, concepts, ideas. Maps of a terra incognita. The more useful, accurate maps -- from Science to Shakespeare, are the best. Bad Science, dumb religion, and bad art, point us in the wrong direction.
StevenErnest 4 years ago
very insightful video.
TogetherForPeace 4 years ago
Hi Paul,
Once they say they reject mans logic, remind them they resolve that using mans logic and thus must reject that too. I admit at that point I am walking away soon, as it soon is a waste of time. But once they reject mans logic, you can reject all they say and so can they.
gklr 4 years ago
Very intersting. Thanks. I enjoy Mooeypoo's video's, too. Wish she would make more.
bryantulsa 4 years ago