It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
You have still yet to explain how the statement "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be false. I understand that it cannot be true because it is self contradictory , but why can't it be false?
...…

I don’t know why you ask this as it was YOU who said that it can't be false.
Reminder of your quote ( ) :

…
..… (my emphas ...[text shortened]... s such a thing as truth (or ultimate truth) then it is false is it not?
.…[/b]

What?[/b]

"The liar paradox is the sentence "This sentence is false." An analysis of the liar sentence shows that it cannot be true (for then, as it asserts, it is false), NOR CAN IT BE FALSE (for then, it is true). " WIKIPEDIA

1)I did not say the above , it was a quote from WIKI. But I do agree with the above. However , it's not the statement I was refering to.

2) The above statement "this senstence is false" is a different statement from " there is no such thing as truth". It's the second sentence that my comments refer to. They are not the same and should not be treated as such. You seem to be grouping them together for the sake of your position.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
You have still yet to explain how the statement "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be false. I understand that it cannot be true because it is self contradictory , but why can't it be false?
...…

I don’t know why you ask this as it was YOU who said that it can't be false.
Reminder of your quote :

…One could say "there is a thing as truth (or ultimate truth) then it is false is it not?
.…

What?[/b]

The only way out is to say "there is no such thing as truth , except for this statement which is true " KM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No no no! the only LOGICAL way out is to point out the fact that it CANNOT be either true or false because it is a self-contradiction and thus a nonsense statement. RESPONSE FROM HAMMY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok , time to clear things up - first of all this is what you said as a direct response to my comments about the statement "there is no such thing as truth" ( we shall call this statement T).

Now , regarding statement T you have said that it is a nonsense statement and it cannot either be true or false. YOU SAID THIS.

I have asked you and am still asking you how Statement T cannot be false . I understand that it cannot be true because if it is true then it is self contradictory. But I do not see how it works the other way.

Can you please explain why you said this about statement T . Please forget about statement S ("this sentence is false" ) for a minute.

One statement at a time please hammy. As you know different statements require different treatment.

If you have simply just grouped S and T together and forgotten that they are not the same then that's fine , just concede this, it's not going to wreck your position. I for one will admit that by including the WIKI quote things got very confusing. My mistake.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"The liar paradox is the sentence "This sentence is false." An analysis of the liar sentence shows that it cannot be true (for then, as it asserts, it is false), NOR CAN IT BE FALSE (for then, it is true). " WIKIPEDIA

1)I did not say the above , it was a quote from WIKI. But I do agree with the above. However , it's not the statement I was refering ...[text shortened]... treated as such. You seem to be grouping them together for the sake of your position.

…
2) The above statement "this sentence is false" is a different statement from " there is no such thing as truth". It's the second sentence that my comments refer to. They are not the same and should not be treated as such.
..…

If you read half way down the second post from the bottom of page 9 then you will see that I am with agreement with you here 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
You have still yet to explain how the statement "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be false. I understand that it cannot be true because it is self contradictory , but why can't it be false?
...…

I don’t know why you ask this as it was YOU who said that it can't be false.
Reminder of your quote :

…One could say "there is ...[text shortened]... thing as truth (or ultimate truth) then it is false is it not?
.…

What?[/b]

Anyway, we where BOTH wrong back then because I erroneously failed to spot your above mistake! -because, as you have just correctly pointed out now, there is no reason why "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be false! --------------------hammy----------------------------------------------


Fair enough mate. I would like to point out that I never thought that "there is no such thing as truth" could not be false. Infact I have alwasy thought it was false and still do. I believe it is false. I believe truth is absolute and a brute fact.

I did not understand why you thought I didn't believe this. The reason i brought up the statement is because I believe it is a logical proof (of sorts) for the existence of an ultimate , absolute truth.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
2) The above statement "this sentence is false" is a different statement from " there is no such thing as truth". It's the second sentence that my comments refer to. They are not the same and should not be treated as such.
..…

If you read half way down the second post from the bottom of page 9 then you will see that I am with agreement with you here 🙂[/b]

Ok , so where were we?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Anyway, we where BOTH wrong back then because I erroneously failed to spot your above mistake! -because, as you have just correctly pointed out now, there is no reason why "there is no such thing as truth" cannot be false! --------------------hammy----------------------------------------------


Fair enough mate. I would like to point out that I ne ...[text shortened]... believe it is a logical proof (of sorts) for the existence of an ultimate , absolute truth.

…
I did not understand why you thought I didn't believe this.
..…

Because you explicitly said it!

Reminder of your quote :

…. …One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or NOT true. ..…
.… (my emphasis)

Doesn't "NOT true" mean "false" here?

-so we where both wrong!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , so where were we?

I don’t remember.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , so where were we?

It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
I did not understand why you thought I didn't believe this.
..…

Because you explicitly said it!

Reminder of your quote :

…. …One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or NOT true. ..…
.… (my emphasis)

Doesn't "NOT true" mean "false" here?

-so we where both wrong![/b]

…. …One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or NOT true. ..…
.… (my emphasis)

Doesn't "NOT true" mean "false" here?

-so we where both wrong!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me clarify. It was you that seemed to be saying that statement T could not be true OR false. I said repeatedly that it could be false but not true (because it would be self contradictory). The above sentence is taken out of context because it forms part of a greater argument. The argument was that it's a self contradictory statement so obviously couldn't be true , but I DID NOT go on to say that it couldn't be false.

I challenge you to find anywhere where I have said that statement T cannot be false.

Show me where I have said this.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
I did not understand why you thought I didn't believe this.
..…

Because you explicitly said it!

Reminder of your quote :

…. …One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or NOT true. ..…
.… (my emphasis)

Doesn't "NOT true" mean "false" here?

-so we where both wrong![/b]

Because you explicitly said it! ------hammy-----------

Where? In the quote you prvided I DID NOT SAY that statement T could not be false. I said it could be true or NOT true (ie true or false) in theory , but I then went on to point out that if it is true then it is self contradictory and therefore cannot be true (which shows it is false)

You keep quoting this thing I said and I keep reading it and I cannot see how it supports what you are saying. Can you actually read. Where have I said that statement T cannot be false. I actually said (if you took the time to read it) that it CAN be false.

If anything I made the mistake of suggesting that it is either true or NOT true , but that part of it was to establish that it could not be true and false at the same time (eg B is B and not A but cannot be AB)

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Whatever is true is true. That's ultimately the truth.

That whatever is X is X is more or less just tautological. So this basically says nothing. You still haven't answered my question: supposing there are 'ultimate' truths, what confers the ultimacy? What makes a truth an 'ultimate' truth?

Let's leave out the word "ultimate" for a minu ...[text shortened]... that follow from the proposition that there exists at least one brute fact.

You still haven't answered my question: supposing there are 'ultimate' truths, what confers the ultimacy? What makes a truth an 'ultimate' truth?--lemon------

What makes a brute fact brute?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't bash grammar 😀 or spelling. i make some from time to time and as long as the meaning gets through, why comment on a something like that.


so since i made that clear, i will repost my comment along with the corrected sentence that triggered it:

"It 's like SAYING something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it."
"i wonder if there is any context in which that would actually make sense"

"It 's like SAYING something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it."
"i wonder if there is any context in which that would actually make sense" ------------ZAH-----------------

None , why don't you ask Hammy , he's the one that thinks that something that cannot be explained is not inexplicable simply becasue there is a reason why it is inexplicable.

That;s like saying it's not actually red because there's a specific reason for it's redness. Or saying a red poppy isn't red because by definition it has to be red.

Hnanny says that brute facts are not inexplicable because by definition a brute fact has no explanation.

I say a brute fact is inexplicable because it can't be explained.

Why don't you talk to him instead.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
How do you know what "most people mean by it" ?
….

Exactly the same way I find out what most people usually mean by any other word:
-I often talk to people that occasionally use that word and grasp what THEY mean by the word by the way they use it.[/b]

The word impossible has a logical clear defintion but also has other uses (like "for pete's sake stop being so impossible!" )

That doesn't mean that in a formal argument like we are having I can suddenly revert to this more colloquial meaning for the word "impossible" because "that's what most people mean by it" .

The pure definition of impossible is not possible.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
No -nor has it been “proven” that it does have a “cause”.
But the existential hypothesis that there exists a “cause” for it is an unnecessary one because its apparently random behaviour can be accounted for simply by assuming it IS truly random and this is the simplest hypothesis because it doesn't assume there must exist a specific kind of cause f ...[text shortened]... have studied some quantum physics at a very basic level like I have then you should know this.

I missed this post so I will respond now.

Given that the basis of science is the discovery of causes for things and that the basis of rational scientific enquiry is "what's the reason for that happening" OR "what caused that?" then causality is pretty important in our understanding of the universe.

There are millions of different types of events in the universe that we know occur because they have been caused. There are millions of proven caused events.

There is not one proven uncaused event.

An uncaused event is a pretty remarkable thing and remarkable claims require remarkable proof. It's seems very sloppy science that after centuries of observing the universe work in a cause and effect manner to just assume that quantum events are uncaused because they seem to behave in a random manner.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It's all a mystery really.....

Ah yes......

Existence is a mystery. It has to be.

If existence came from nothing then we'll never figure out how that happening because there's nothing there to figure out or explain.

If it came from something then that something begs a further question ad infinitum and we have a never ending series of questions which cannot be fathomed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re-reading this makes me wonder was it ever possible that nothing might have ever existed? Was existence inevitable? If so then why?

It also makes me wonder whether (if quantum events are truely uncaused) then could all quantum events just suddenly cease one day and the universe just stop or dissappear? Afterall , if existence really is uncaused then what's to stop it just not existing...pooofh! There's nothing causing it to exist ?