The Statement Game

You're completely forgetting: Buddhism and Daoism are religions and/or philosophies, they are not forms of government. Every country that sponsors Buddhism and Daoism has a form of government in place, so these people are not in any state of political disorder or confusion. And you can't include monks living in monasteries, because monasteries aren't anarchial, they're structured and rigidly oriented, which have rules or else you get kicked out of the monastery.

It's absurd to even consider a spirituality against a condition of lack of government. Spirituality is not presuppose a government to exist, nor does it presuppose the opposite; whether one exists or not is irrelevant. Just because Buddhists, in general, tend to be nice-natured people and be moral enough not to kill, does not mean that it does not or would not happen. And I'm sure there are Buddhists in Oriental mobs and such; Buddhism is the dominant religion there. I mean, Buddhism has more followers than even Christianity and Catholicism, something like 2 billion people all over the world, more if you include Daoism. Certainly if we removed all government around the world, and all non-Buddhists were removed, there would still be complete anarchy, and there would be great amounts of disorder and confusion.

And yet they are confused, but not disoriented. A disoriented team won't do ANYTHING, even if they aren't confused. Any group of people that are both confused and disoriented, can not possibly be productive. If you're going to be productive, there must be a product created from your efforts, and if you are disoriented, you won't be producing anything but randomness.

Being disoriented is the fundamental condition to anarchy; one can know they are in a state of anarchy, and no longer be confused, and still be in anarchy. It's not like once a rebel knows for certain the government has been overthrown, that they'll instantly and magically no longer be in anarchy.

So on both accounts, anarchy is actually not possible.

And yet, here you do not show that tall and short exist together. Relative to a 5 foot man and a 6 foot man, either of them is EITHER taller OR shorter when compared with the other in the same context; neither of them is both, nor is either of them neither.

And a comparison between 3 objects can be broken down into two comparisons between 2 objects; take the transitive substitution hypothesis for example. In order to say that A is less than B is less than C, you must first say that A is less than B, and then say that B is less than C. Either way, there are two "less than" operators here, and both operators only take 2 operands.

So while B may be both greater than A and less than C, those are two separate contexts that B is compared in, not one. It would be impossible to describe B's relationship to both A and C using a single operator; there is no such thing as a trinary operator, only binary and unary. Otherwise, I'd be learning them in my programming classes here. You can't actually compare 3 objects in a single step; the illusion of the 3 of them compared at once is just the product of two comparisons.

So opposites do not exist at the same time.

Black, as an opposite, cannot be *understood* without having *previously encountered* (in another context) its complement white, but regardless of whether colours can or cannot exist without objects to be coloured, any object cannot be coloured BOTH black and white in the same place, for the same reason that two atoms cannot exist in the same place.

Order does not impose limits or cause dissatisfaction; Resource limitations impose limits, not structure. Similarly, morality and worker treatment cause dissatisfaction; an employee isn't going to be angry because he has to punch in and punch out at work every day, and fill out some forms.

and related posts

A fact is a statement that cooresponds to the actual value of reality. That is what a fact is. The quantity 5 is equal to the quantity 5, this cooresponds to the quantity of 5 in actual reality, thus it is fact.

Just because we believe a statement to be factual does not mean it actually is factual. What actually is factual can only be determined as factual after it has been proven. A fact is a fact regardless of how many times you think you've found it. You either have found it, or you haven't found it. (and that is a fact, though its truth value is often unknown to us until we examine it later) Whether or not you believe you have found it is irrelevant.

Yes, math in a volume cooresponds to math on a plane, which again cooresponds to math on a line, which cooresponds to math in a point (if you can call it math by then). The only thing added is rules for accurately communicating numbers between dimensions to make comparisons.

As for the shortest distance between two points ... a point is a 0-dimensional figure. When put into, say, a 3-dimensional context, it is forced to adapt a location in each dimension. So it has a location relative to length, a location relative to width, and a location relative to breadth, and the distance between two points would involve the distance between the locations in each dimension, related to each of the other dimensions by the use of formulas (which are the "rules" for communicating numbers between dimensions to make comparisons). Like A^2 + B^2 = C^2. The 1-dimensional vertical distance squared plus the 1-dimensional horizontal distance squared is equal to the 2-dimensional (I guess you might call it planular?) distance squared. The extra exponentiation is the rule for converting and comparing numbers between the dimensions.

(At this point, I have just looked up to find out the name of the posters, so this is my disclaimer, I'm just arguing for the sake of coming to a conclusion, I don't mean to personally attack any particular person, only that person's arguments, okay? So chill =)

 

To call someone unintelligent becuase you dont understand them shows you how intelegent you truly are. No offense

 

Im sure you dont think Im talking about the dictionary word of anarchy, Im obvously refering to the Buddhist "Anarchy" As Hikaru Zero has insightfully stated. Many monk like life styles have no over arching sytem of government, but are guided by Kindness, and productivity...

 

To be a human being who is guided by kindness and productivity is one thing.

To say that government should not exist altogether to govern all beings (whether or not they are actually capable of the state described above) is another.

Keep in mind, a monk's discipline and rigidness in morality is a result of their own personal strength; a strength that any society, no matter how spiritual or enlightened it becomes, will never be able to match. That's why we have specifically "monks" as separate from "everyone else."

Yes, "anarchy" (in quotes) might be possible among monks, but it's not really anarchy then; use of the word anarchy implies disorder and confusion; just beacuse there is no central government doesn't necessarily mean it's in a state of anarchy. It'd be in a state of peace (which is often seen at the other end of the spectrum from anarchy). Another thing that "anarchy" presupposes is a lack of peace, beyond its presupposition of disorder and potential confusion.

 

who said i dont understand? i disagree. i stated why.

hes using a casual meaning of the word fact.

however there is fact. that is, maths. however the maths in most things is so complicated that we can onlyt get closer to the goal, and call each sucessive step a 'fact' while it is not actually a fact in the true sense of the word.

 

aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-ohh-ok, Gotchya
Much apopligies I thought you were talking about me. Umph Shows how intelegent I am.

 

Huh?
By examining your statement, I am coming to the conclusion that -if a statement is "false" it does not exist.
So according to you,
If I say "I am king of the world" , Now, If that statement is false
THEN,
I have not said " I am king of the world" .

So, I automatically never lied? - And if you agree that I have said it then the Statement is automatically true? - So you would accept that I am the king of the world just because I say it?
Thats preposterous... right? So, your statement that says " If the statement is false then there would be no way to prove it for the statement would not have come into existence" is false.

Truth value of your statement= Faulty.

If you say something, it should be backed up by reasoning. if you make big statements like " it does not exist" , or something else with out any plausible premise/es to support your claims... it just doesn't make sense nor does it work .

thank you.

Oh yea use this for your next argument: " if you make big statements like " it does not exist" , or something else with out any plausible premise/es to support your claims... it just doesn't make sense nor does it work ."

 

"This statement is false."

Statements are not "true" or "false."

Concepts are true or false. (You learn this if you take a Critical Thinking class at college)

So the concept that "this statement is false" is false,

Because the statement cannot possibly be false.

Thus, the statement is neither true nor false (nor is it both),

And the concept of the statement being false is false.

THE END. (closes the book)



Does anyone have money for beer and snacks to celebrate? =D

 

i dont think 'researching' maths is going to help. you need to understand maths.

maths has stayed the same since it began. thats because theres no subjectivity in maths. just as numbers had to be created over time, the idea of zero didnt occur to the babylonians, and the idea of imaginary numbers came relatively recently.

however your examples were confusing caus they didnt seem to show understanding of the ideas.

you dont 'research' maths. you study it every single day for years. you cant learn most concepts without learning the one it came from first. youve got a lot fo researchin to do if you are gonna consider concepts of imaginary numbers and the power of 0 accurately.

 

In an isolated situation, confusion and disoriented could produce a result that, if it were the ONLY situation, could be called progress.

However, if we're talking about randomness and chaos (which is the result of disorientation, which is the opposite of order) on the grand scheme of things, the quarterback has about a 1 out of 30 chance of running in the right direction. Every other direction would be detrimental and would be the opposite of progress, it'd be regression.

So in an isolated situation, *luck*, or circumstance, is the only determining factor of whether or not progress is made. And chances are that progress won't be made, and if it is, it'll almost immediately be reversed.

If we're talking about true anarchy, there would not be a whistle blown, and the fog wouldn't clear, and the players would not get up and orient themselves. That would require the end of the anarchy. The player might run to the goal, and then keep running through it, until he runs out of it. And even if he manages to stay in the goal, the whistle will probably never be blown because the referees will be thinking "what's going on?" That's what anarchy is, and in conditions like that, progress is only the result of chance. So it can't really be made in a condition of anarchy; the chances are too low.

In a singular context, no they can't. The observer's eyes can only focus on one object at a time. The observer will notice the pygmy, then notice you, and conclude only that you are taller. Then, the observer will notice Watusi, and compare Watusi to you and understand that you are shorter.

Tall and short are merely relative terms, relative to TWO objects, not three. In order to compare three objects, you need to have two instances where "tall" or "short" are chosen. And the result of either of those two instances cannot be "both tall and short," it can only be one of them.

You are comparing three objects. You compared A to B, and then you compared A to C. That is THREE objects, not two. I inferred that B has a relation to C, because you have just proven it. B is related to C because they are both compared to A.

The human mind works unfathomably fast. But I guaranteed to you that no matter how fast your brain processes both comparisons, they cannot possibly be made at the same time in the same context. Even if one eye sees A and B, and the other eye sees A and C, and even if both eyes see them at the exact same time, they are still separate contexts. A single entity is incapable of being aware of two entities at the exact same time. Instead, they are first aware of one entity, then aware of the second entity, in such rapid succession that an illusion of awareness of both entities is created.

Setting aside spatial arguments ...

We would know that black has occupied a space without knowing that white has occupied a space, because we have previously observed both black and white, and we have previously observed that black is not white. Therefore, if something is black, we know it is not white.

And if you have not previously encountered both black and white, and compared them, then you would be unable to differentiate between the two of them until that comparison is made and both are observed. But even so, it is positively impossible to observe both black and white in the same place at the same time in the same context.

As I said, resource limitations produce dissatisfaction. You would, in this case, be dissatisfied because you don't have enough brain resources to go around to do all of the paperwork. You wouldn't be dissatisfied if you could handle it all in the blink of an eye.

And please don't take that as an insult, my brain wouldn't be able to process it any faster than yours, I'd be pretty dissatisfied too.

The actual state of all things, regardless of perception and awareness of those things.

Actually, all of that is exactly what it says, and that is all that is meant. Because A is equal to A cooresponding to A, A does not equal B cooresponding to anything.

Just because a person says it is a fact does not mean it is a fact. It was never proven; we percieved that it was proven, but in actuality, it was not proven.

Start at the top: you say "here is a factual statement."

Statements are not factual; concepts are factual. So the concept of having your head chopped off (assuming the definitions, or concepts, of "head" and "chopped off" presuppose that the flow of blood would NOT be ensured to the brain, by definition) and you dying would be factual.

But, as you proved, just because you say it is factual doesn't make it factual.

Facts are not conditional on anything; that is why they are called facts, and not conditions. We can only describe facts with words (creating affirmative statements), and those descriptions are regularly incorrect. If I described that, in actuality, {if your heart was removed, and you were run over by a truck and fried in oil, you would die}, this description is not a fact, because descriptions do not take the nature of being "fact" or "non-fact." It has a degree of ACCURACY to fact (in which case, the above statement is very, very accurate, because you'd be hard pressed to come up with a situation where you live), but statements are not factual.

But this is my point. These are three separate systems of math, not one! In each system, the relation of the sum of the angles in a triangle to a number is different. And each system describes rules for different situations. Each situation is a separate context, with only a single fact cooresponding to the relation of the sum of the angles in a triangle.

Math is not fact. As a matter of fact (pun totally intended, hehe), conventional math as we are taught in schools (which, for example, considers infinity to be a concept and not a number) are disputed by many other individuals. I remember my high school math teacher explaining that there was a push to consider infinity as a number and not a concept.

Also, that same math teacher (he's actually pretty brilliant, too bad he retired !) proved that there are different sizes of infinity. In conventional math, infinity always equals infinity. Yet, my teacher points out that, if you take the entire list of integers (which would be an infinite quantity), and you compare it to the entire list of real numbers (which would also be an infinite quantity), well ... between every two integers is an infinite number of real numbers. So the distance between two integers is comprised of an infinite number of real numbers, and the number of real numbers between three integers would be greater than the number of real numbers between two integers.

And that's where it starts getting confusing; don't worry if it doesn't make much sense.

My point is ... my math teacher proved that infinity is not equal to infinity. That means, there is SOMETHING wrong with conventional math.

Math as we know it is just our description of actual values. Math is not factual; quantities and their relationships are factual, but the best we can do is describe quantities and describe the relationships between quantities (which tend to be accurate, but aren't always accurate).

See what I'm saying? Our description of math is accurate to actual math most times, but sometimes, our description of math is inaccurate.

Also ... just because the Romans had no concept of zero doesn't mean zero did not exist. When you say "it did not exist to them," you are actually referring to a description of zero not existing to them. But that does not mean that zero itself did not exist to them. It just means they couldn't comprehend or describe it.

Regardless of our descriptions of something, that does not mean it is not a fact (nor does it mean that it is a fact). Our descriptions only have varying degrees of accuracy.

Anyway ... time to get a soda! =P I'm glad I have someone to argue with! So it is a pleasure to argue with you. =)

StonerBill:

Math has not stayed the same since it began. Or rather, our description of math did not stay the same. Actual quantities and their relationships (or actual math) has. So, if that's what you're referring to, you're correct.

Study = research. They are different words for the same description: the process of learning (or data acquisition and analysis, or whatever the living daylights you want to call it).

 

That's ridiculous, and if that's what you learned then that class should be scrapped. I have a concept of a chair in my head right now. How can it be either true or false? It doesn't assert anything. It may not exist, but the concept itself doesn't even assert existence. If I wanted to assert existence, then I'd say "The chair in my head exists," which would be false. It can be false because it's a statement.

The end.

 

Allow me to clarify. By concept, I am referring to a specific kind of concept; a relationship between two objects or ideas (nouns). You are correct that a chair is not true or false.

But ALL sentences, which have subjects and predicates, describe a relationship between objects.

"this statement" being one object
"is" being the relationship
"false" being an idea

The sentence is the description of the relationship. The actual relationship is either true or false. Either the concept of the relationship is false, or it isn't false. What I mean is, when I think "this statement is false," the concept I have in my head (of that statement being related to false) either cooresponds to an actual value, or it doesn't. If it does, then that concept of the relationship I have in my head is factual. If it doesn't, then the concept of the relationship is not factual (hence false).

So objects are not true and false, you are correct. But relationships are ALWAYS true or false. And our descriptions of those relationships (statements) are not true or false, they are only accurate or inaccurate, cooresponding with actual reality.

Reality is true or false. Description of reality is accurate or inaccurate. And that's what I'm trying to convey. My apologies for being vague.

"The chair in my head exists."

The chair - object
In my head - specification of exactly which object, to avoid vagueness
exists - a relationship between the chair and existance
existance - (implicit, just like "you" is implicit in imperative sentences) another noun

So ... if the relationship (existing) cooresponds to the state of actual reality (whether or not the chair does exist), then the relationship is true. If the relationship does not coorespond, it is false. So if the chair exists, the description of its relationship is accurate. And if the chair doesn't exist, the description of its relationship is inaccurate.

And conventionally, you can substitute the words "true" and "false" for "accurate" and "inaccurate," but in that case, you're just using ambiguous terms which are best not substituted because they are ambiguous. Thus it is important to mark the distinction between "true/false" and "accurate/inaccurate," because statements can be partially accurate and relationships cannot. Consider this statement:

"The chair looks red."

Presume for a second that the chair in question is coloured red-orange. The statement, then is not "completely accurate," nor is it "completely inaccurate." Complete inaccuracy would be the opposite of red (which is debatable, but considering violet is the opposite end of the colour wavelength spectrum, it's safe to presume that violet is the "opposite").

But when you say "partially true" or "partially false," that only alludes to the degree to which the statement is accurate. But the chair is, in fact, not red, so the relationship between the chair and red is false (because it is not red), and the accuracy of the statement is somewhat accurate and somewhat inaccurate.

The end. Haha.

 

Facts are illusions and change all the time.

New discoveries often show what were considered facts were not, and what were considered fallacies were actually realities.
ie: The city of Troy
Once considered a myth, now proven to have existed.
Life existing in temperatures above boiling point, once thought impossible, now seen to exist at vents on the sea floor.

 

I'm starting to get very intrigued by this conversation. But there are still a few things I'm confused about. First thing, is this a theory of truth or meaning? Second thing, whose theory is it because it does not appear to be like any I've ever heard of before.

Third thing, "true" is an adjective, not a noun. "p is the truth" makes "true" into a noun, but do you think that they mean the same thing? I really don't know; I'm asking. "The truth" sounds a lot more dramatic to me, or maybe I'm just being too picky. Another thing I've noticed is that very few sentences can be predicated by "is true" or "is the truth" and make sense. As we've already concluded, "the chair is true" doesn't make any sense. It does if you use "true" to mean "reliable" like we sometimes do (e.g. "His aim was straight and true") but this clearly means something very different from what we're talking about, since "His aim was false" makes no sense at all. It seems that such sentences lack any truth value whatsoever, which suggests to me that they're meaningless. But why is it that "This statement is false" seems to just intuitively make more sense than "This chair is false,"? It must be because "this statement" refers to something that normally have truth values - statements. So, does that mean that "This statement is false" means "'This statement is false' is false,"? That fairly obviously looks to be nonsense, whereas "'The chair is brown' is false" is clearly meaningful. Now it's starting to look a lot more like Tarski, with whom I'm a little familiar. Is this sort of the point you were making, or am I way off? We could also phrase the two sentences differently. We could say, "It is false that this statement is false," or "It is false that the chair is brown." But if it is false that this statement is false, then this statement is true. So then to judge "This statement is false" as false, you'd have to say, "'This statement is false' is true," which is basically a restatement of the whole problem. So I run around that circle in my head for a little while and am left wondering how a statement that seems so innocent can be so problematic and why a statement so similar to any other is such an exception.

No, falsity is still a value (they express the vallue as 0; truth is 1); if the statement lacks a value, then it's meaningless. Also, I've never heard the term "factual" used in the way you use it in a philosophical context. A fact, as I know it, is a "given" synthetic a posteriori statement, like "The chair is brown," or "It's hot in here." Mathematical truths don't qualify as facts because they're analytic a priori; they're not facts, but they're still true. Anyway, it's a purely semantic point. I'm only wondering if this is how the word "fact" was used in that way in your class, or if you're paraphrasing.

Now I'm really confused. If something that "corresponds with reality" isn't the truth, then what is? Surely, "The chair is brown" describes, is accurate, and is true. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are all statements really descriptions of relationships? I'm not sure I even understand what you mean by "relationships" and "descriptions of relationships." Maybe I'm misinterpretting what you mean by "concept of the relationship" too. So, could you please tell me the difference between "relationship," "description of relationship," and "concept of relationship"? Examples would help.

I think your vagueness and my thickness are working hand-in-hand on this one. Reality seems to me to be the chair without anyone saying a word about it. As we said already, this can't be true or false. To me, a description of reality would be "the chair is brown," which can be either true or false. Also, what's the difference between "true" and "accurate"?

So, is the relationship the whole predicate or just the verb? You can see why it's hard to tell from your example.

This idea here seems really sketchy to me. Complete inaccuracy, it seems to me, would be complete falsity, which would not be violet but rather any colour which is not red. Now, you could argue about red-orange and light and shadow and colour blind people, but then I'd say you're falling into the trap of making appearances seem more like reality than reality. Moore explains it well in the "Envelope Paradox."

Anyway, I was wrong about your class. This post is really just about clarification. Don't think that I'm hell-bent on proving this stuff wrong or anything. On the other hand, it should certainly be looked at critically.

 

While in the end it is really the concept and not the statement itself that is either true or false this is a bit of a semantic argument. We respond to a statement as though it were equivalent to the concept contained therein. For example, we say that the statement "It is possible that 5 can equal 4" is false. In terms of sysbolic logic, for example, we would conclude not that the concept is false (which it is by the way) but that the statement is false. This is more of a linguistic issue that a logical one. In the end however (if we wish to maintain an attitude of strict scrutiny) the semantic trap succeeds in this case since the concept contained in the statement "This statement is false" referrs to the truth value of a statement itself. I will therefore modify my original statement slightly to read "This concept is false".

 

Those, as you quanitly point out, are not facts, they are what we consider facts to be. They are our description of facts, and those descriptions change with time and have a degree of accuracy to them. But ... they are not facts, merely descriptions of the facts.

I second your intrugement. If that is a word. I think this is a theory of truth. And it's my theory of truth; this whole argument is partly me trying to understand truth by describing (as accurately as I can) what I see. But, it's based on the theory of "truth" (if you want to call it that) that was taught to me in a classroom, not to mention countless other teachers (whether living, dead, or sentience-incapable, they are still teachers). It's basically "my" theory, in a sense, which is based on others' theories.

I try not to be limited by language. "True" is a state, not an adjective. Or rather, the concept of "true" is a state, and the word "true" which comes to represent the concept of "true" is an adjective. "Truth" is an object (presuming that concepts are intangible objects; I will refer to concepts as objects in this manner henceforth), and the word "truth" is a noun that describes the object "Truth."

Just as I explained earlier between "exists" and "existance," there is such a relationship between "true" and "truth." When you say "something is true," you are referring to the relationship between that something and "truth." And truth is just the totality of actuality. That is, truth is the "real world" which is seen through eyes that do not percieve and distort it.

Thus, when we say "something is true," we are explaining that the relationship between "something" and the state of "truth" is accurate.

Looking at it in this way, sense cannot be made of the sentence "the chair is true" because "truth" is not a property of the chair. The chair cannot possibly be considered "true" or "false." It can "exist" or "not exist," but the chair doesn't have the property of truth in the same way that a number does not take on the property "red." They're incompatible.

You can only predicate something with "is true" if it has a property that relates to "truth."

That, in a nutshell, is the fallacy of language. English and every other human language are created to describe perceptions, and perceptions are, naturally, fallable. They are succeptable to being incorrect.

This is why it is necessary to make a distinction between the WORDS "true/false," and the CONCEPTS represented by the words "true/false."

When you say "his aim was straight and true," the words "straight" and "true" do not actually have any reference to his aim's state of curvature or truth, they have altered definitions which are ambiguous, and make the sentence confusing as hell, which is why we need to differentiate.

That is my point. Sentences do NOT have any "truth" value whatsoever. Only their CONCEPTS do. Sentences, however, are not meaningless; they are descriptions of concepts and of the relationships between those concepts.

Sentences do not take on "truth" values, only "accuracy" values. And that's what I'm trying to convey.

Let's look at this problem:

"This statement is false" seems to make sense. The statement relates two objects:

The statement - an object
and
truth - an object (false is just a state of the property of truth, it is substitutable)

This relationship is either true or false.

However, it is recursive. That means, every time you break "this statement" down, you are given yet ANOTHER relationship between "this statement" and "truth."

It is infinitely recursive; it is impossible to break down the statement because the statement contains a reference to itself. Because it is infinitely recursive, it cannot be evaluated to either "true" or "false."

When you say "this statment is false," it implies that there is a relationship that can be evaluated to either true or false. However, in this specific case, that relationship can NOT be evaluated. Thus, the statement is non-sensical.

But if it COULD be evaluated, the statement WOULD make perfect sense. This is why it *appears* to be valid, but it actually is just a play on words, another fallacy of language.

No and Yes. statements do not have truth values, but the relationships that statements describe do have truth values. That means that "this statement is false" means the CONCEPT that "this statement is false" is false. But, again, that's recursive, so it's unevaluatable, which is why it's just a mistake of language.

Because the relationship between the chair and it's colour can be evaluated to a definate truth value. That is why it is meaningful, and the other statement is not. Because the brown statement is not infinitely recursive.

I can't answer that; I have no clue who Tarski is. Sorry, haha!

No matter what words you use to describe the relationship between the statement and its truth value, it is always going to be infinitely recursive. It seems like a restatement of the whole problem in different words, because that's exactly what it is.

The same concept. But different words. Which is why separation between concepts and descriptions is necessary.

Welcome to the Programopolis. Population: Evaluating .... evaluating .... evaluating .... evaluating ...



It's because it is infinitely recursive that it cannot be evaluated. Eventually, you run out of resources to evaluate it with (brain drain), and settle for confusion.

Falsity is a value of the property of "truth," but the statement itself LACKS the property of truth simply because it is infinitely recursive.

Factual: meaning, it cooresponds to facts (and all facts have a truth value of "true" otherwise they aren't facts =P).

I said, it is accurate or inaccurate, cooresponding with actual reality. What I mean is, if the values of actual reality reflect the description, then it is accurate. If the values of actual reality aren't what the description suggests, then it is inaccurate. And there can be varying degrees of inaccuracy depending on how precise the description is. For example, I can try to describe ice as "cold," but a more accurate description is "cold, reflective, and translucent." That does not mean that "cold" is very inaccurate, it's just that the bigger description is more accurate. So there are varying degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy.

"The chair is brown" is a description of the concept of a relationship between two objects (the chair, and colour).

If the chair is actually brown, then the relationship between those objects is true, and the statement that describes the relationship between those objects is accurate.

I suppose that could be debatable, but I have never come across a statement that does not describe a relationship. I welcome you to try.

A statement, as a sentence, has a subject and a predicate (or more simply, a subject and a verb, since technically a predicate can also contain a direct object). It also has a direct object, but that direct object is often implied and omitted. Sometimes, even the subject is implied and omitted. For example:

Run.

This statement implies a subject (you) and a relationship between you and your state of movement. The state of movement (whether you are running or not) is the implicit direct object, and the verb "run", in this case, describes an instructive relationship between you and your state of movement.

A relationship is ... well, that's really hard to describe.

Okay ... in my head, I have an idea of an object.

The object consists of a plane of wood with four wooden stakes stuck into the corners, and another plane of wood on the other end.

All that above is a description of the object in my head. That description could easily be shortened for practical uses, into a word: "chair."

Thus, the word "chair" is a substituion for a description of the object in my head.

Similarly, I may have another object in my head, which can be described as a "body."

And I can compare these two objects (chair and body) in my mind, and form a relationship between those two objects (sitting. or even ... not sitting. but it's still a relationship between those two objects).

Thus ... the relationship between those two objects can be described as the body resting upon the chair. Or, it can be shortened into another word, "sitting."

Thus, we have two objects, and a relationship between them.

We also have a description for each object (two descriptions) and a description of the relationship between them. If we lay all of those descriptions out:

body sitting chair

And throw in some grammar rules to make it intelligible:

The body is sitting on the chair.

You now have a statement with a subject, a verb, and a direct object.

Sorry if that doesn't help, but that's my best attempt, heh.

Reality would be the chair without anyone saying a word about it, in a sense, yes. That cannot be true or false. However, reality also includes the relationship between the chair and its colour property. And that relationship CAN be true or false. The description of that relationship (which would here be in written English) is just a description. It is the relationship that evaluates to "true" or "false," and the description's accuracy to whether the relationship is actually true or false is what the statement is measured by.

*scratches head*

Try and figure that one out. I just re-read it and lost myself. Uhh ...

"true" is a value. "accurate" is a relationship between the value and a description of the value.

Apologies, the relationship is the verb.

I wrote that under the misunderstanding that the predicate is the verb. But heck, that's how you're taught what a "predicate" is in grade school: a verb. Then, in high school, they throw in direct objects and crap. Heh. =(

Complete inaccuracy would be the state of a description that does NOT correctly describe a relationship in any way, shape, or form. For example:

The chair is red-orange.

If you say it's red, you are inaccurate, but you are not UNaccurate, because your statement does have a degree of accuracy to it (even though it is not completely accurate).

If you say it's purple, you are both inaccurate and UNaccurate, because the chair is in no way, shape, or form purple.

And, let's keep colour-blindness out of it. =P That only makes it more confusing. I could come up with another example that would work for colour-blind people, but that shouldn't be necessary.

I hope you ARE hell-bent on proving this stuff wrong.

Not because you truly THINK it is wrong, but just to prove that it can withstand criticism, which means I'm probably thinking something right.

So I welcome your critical assessment, even if you don't believe it's wrong. =)

So ... we go through ALL of THIS ... ^^^^

And you CHANGE your statement?!

You bastard! =D Hahaha!

Okay, now I'm going to make you eat your words: What do you mean by "concept"? An object, or a relationship? If "concept" refers to the relationship between the concept of itself and truth, then it is STILL infinitely recursive and cannot be evaluated, which means it STILL cannot be true or false, which makes your statement {this concept is false} false.

=P

Edit: Sigh. I had to disable smilies in this post to make it all fit.

 

If it's not your definition, why did you give it as an example? That's like saying, okay, here's an example of my definition, except, it's not my definition anymore. =\

And I'll also argue that progress made by luck alone is not progress. It is luck. Good luck. But progress implies that a specific effort is made to further a goal. See the definition:

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization

With luck, there is no "goal," and in an isolated situation such as you described, there is no "steady" improvement in a situation. And that's if you can even consider it improvement, because if there is no goal to relate to an action, there is no such thing as getting closer to or further away from the goal, or improvement or regression, because there is no goal to improve towards or regress from.

And orientation requires that things are oriented. And all things that are oriented have a structure. And all structures are ordered by some kind of nature. So when I said order was the opposite of disorientation, that conclusion can be drawn. Order and orientation are synonyms in this example.

You shouldn't put words into the mouth of others. I did not say anarchy must be infinite. I said that, during the duration which anarchy resides, any "progress" is only observed *after* the anarchy ends. You are too hasty to assume.

Progress does not occur during anarchy, it may be the lucky result of anarchy, but progress implies an orderly push towards a goal; anarchy is not ordered, and there is no "goal" of anarchy.

And I also did not define anarchy as the lack of ordered progress, either. You're twisting what I say to make it sound like what you want me to say.

Furthermore, even by your own assumption and distortion of what I have said, the phrase "circulus in demonstrando" has absolutely nothing to do with the premises and conclusion you have stated. The argument, when you give it a valid form, would go like this:

(P1) No progress can occur if order is not present.
(P2) Order is not present during anarchy.
-----
(C1) Therefore, no progress can occur during anarchy.

This is, according to conventional argument structure, a valid argument. It follows the structure: No A if no B. No B in C. Therefore, no A in C.

There is nothing circular about it whatsoever; the quote is misplaced.

The logic here is completely foolish to apply. Not only is it a quote (which rarely, if ever, takes the form of a rational, valid argument) and not an argument, but it is about electrons. Electrons are part of a purely theoretical science.

And what he points out is invalid. His premises are these.

(P1) All Electrons must either be moving or stationary. (implied)
(P2) The electron is not moving.
(P3) The electron is not stationary.

There isn't even a conclusion that he is saying. It's completely incoherent. Theoretical science at the level of electrons is still subject to simple laws such as that of premise 1. No scientist operating in that field will disagree.

Regardless, all of this is unrelated.

When B compares A to C, either the comparison is accurate or inaccurate. Assuming that the comparison is accurate (that it cooresponds to what actually is true), it doesn't matter of D, E, F, or G compare A and C, they must ultimately come to the exact same conclusion as B, if their conclusions are accurate.

If I look at two people and understand that one of them is taller than the other, you cannot possibly look at the same two people and observe the opposite. It is empirically and logically impossible at the most fundamental level.

Furthermore, when B compares A and C, he is comparing ONLY A and C. He is not comparing either A or C to himself. You even point this out when you say "So, I am not comparing three items." But previously, you argued that B could be taller than A and shorter than C at the same time, which implies that you are comparing B to both A and C. (even if in separate contexts)

I am having a difficult time following your logic because you are hopping from one argument to the next with complete lack of regard for what you were talking about. Please, stick to what you are talking about.

In addition, you say "The value of A and C may vary from that determined by B." This is nonsensical. We are not talking about the values A and C individually, we are talking about the relationship between A, B, and C. And the relationship between A and C does not change from viewpoint to viewpoint, ever, if it cooresponds to reality.

It can be empirically proven that either A is taller than C, A is shorter than C, or A and C are of the same height. No matter if you are looking at them from ANY perspective, A cannot be taller than C from B's viewpoint, and also be shorter than C from D's viewpoint. That is ridiculous.

So you are saying it is impossible to see black without also seeing white at the exact same time?

By the same logic, then, am I unable to feel pain if I am not also feeling pleasure?

That's just ... I don't even want to comment on the logic (or more accurately, lack thereof) of that statement. It just ... it doesn't make any sense.

I said *spatial arguments aside.* We are not talking about space or place or anything of the sort.

When you visualize a black something with no background in your mind, the colour of the background is not black, it is what we programmers call "null." It does not have colour or shade. There is no background to exist to HAVE colour or shade, it cannot take the form of any colour, not black, nor white.

To visualize something with no background is SYNONYMOUS with visualizing the object and ONLY the object. Because a background that does not exist is not visible! You cannot possibly visualize the unvisualizable. And to assume that anything that is unvisualizable is "black" is preposterous.

Boredom is not dissatisfaction. To be bored is to be disinterested, not to be dissatisfied. Say I am disinterested in religious proceedings, that does not mean I am dissatisfied with them by any means.

They can lead to ALL of those things: dissatisfaction, challenges, and interesting ways of problem solving. The entire point of problem solving assumes there is a problem, and a problem is something that you are dissatisfied with to begin with.

I just did explain it. You asked me what it was, so I explained it. What is not to be explained?

Ugh ... =\

Okay. If something is PROVEN, it cannot be DISPROVEN. That is the most simple and fundamental logic of it. If there is such a thing that exists, and this thing has a property we could call "definitiveness," then that thing cannot be "definite" and then later become "indefinate" unless the thing itself has changed; in which case it is no longer the same thing we are talking about.

If it is later disproven, that means it was not proven to begin with. It is not "proven" and then "disproven," that is ridiculous. We only THINK it was proven. To prove something means it cannot be contradicted logically:

Prove (v) To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

If the truth or validity of something has been established, it has been established under all conditions and in all situations in which it applies. (otherwise its validity has not been established and it is not proven)

Just because President Bush says it is a FACT that Saddam has nuclear weapons, does not make it a fact. This "fact" has already been disproven. Humans use the word "fact" to make them sound convincing, like a lwayer; in reality, when you use "fact" in such a manner, you are only substituting "high probability" for a word that sounds more concrete when it actually isn't. And this is done for the purpose of being convincing.

But it is relatively difficult to prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt. Which is why we have theories and hypotheses to explain things that are likely but cannot be proven. Quantitative math can be proven. Or, more accurately, it cannot be disproven in any scenario in which quantitative math applies (so it is safe to assume that it is proven, because its validity has been established in all circumstances and conditions). Its application in, say, quantum physics, cannot be proven, it can only be suggested. That is why it is a theory and not a proven fact.

While I respect you arguing against me, it bothers me that you are talking down to me here like you know it all, and like I'm some kind of child. Quite honestly, it doesn't make me feel confident that I'm arguing with someone worth arguing with. Neither of us know absolute truth, we can only use human logic to describe truth. So I request that you don't talk down to me like you know the nature of truth. I do enjoy arguing with you (even if we disagree completely), but not being talked down to by you. =(

Just to finish:

This is a play on words. What we consider to be facts are often only compromises, because they are incorrectly labelled as facts (see my reference to George Bush a few paragraphs up). The definition of a fact, here, is being altered by Mr. Carman to suit his needs, in the same way that Bush alters things to suit his needs. In reality, Mr. Carman is only describing the nature of our play on the word "fact." And he is correct in describing *our play on the word "fact"*, but not what fact actually is. You can call fact or truth by whatever words you want; that does not change the nature of fact or truth, though. This fallacy of language is why humans have such a hard time trying to understand fact and truth; because words have multiple definitions which can be interpreted in multiple ways by each person. But the concepts that each instance of a word represents do not change just because the label we place on them change.