How does teleporting differ from moving somewhere by yourself though? In both cases your exact same matter, just changes location in space and time.

I have always thought that, statistically, out of 1000 conspiracy theories, it is simply impossible for all 1000 of them to be totally wrong.

Almost certainly a couple are 100% correct and another couple come closer to the truth than the official version.

We will never know which ones they are but we will have to keep this statistical element in mind.

The power of intuitions

If you reject the value of primary and fundamental intutions (for example, I exist, the external world exists, it is composite, there is a "becoming in time" , there is a consciousness, an intentionality etc.). , in favor of some kind of all-around rational-scientific "proof"... we should ask ourselves first: why are we inclined to give more weight and validity to that proof, rather than to the primal intuitions?

Because we have a rational-scientific proof of the validity of the rational-scientific "proof? And What about a proof of the proof of the validity of the proof? And so on and so forth ad infinitum?

Nope, the reason is that the belief in the validity of the rational/scientific proof is itself a primal intuition, or rather, a corollary of the intuition that rationality has strong descriptive and explanatory power of reality (or that reality is intrinsically intelligible)

so... to deny all the other primal and core intuitions in favor of this other core intuition... well it makes little sense, I guess. Why would you do that?

As Husserl said "every original presentive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition: everything originarily -- so to speak, in the flesh -- offerd to us in intuition is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there"

Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Because this is never the case, we got different schools of thought, religions and churches, languages, political parties.

But it does not mean that we would not have common raw observations or basic logic even though we disagree about the further, for example metaphysical implications of them.

The value of n/0?

edit: corrected a small mistake

I could argue that, in fact, there is no such thing as dog and you own a wolf.

A domesticated wolf yes, but a wolf none the less.

Truth is a multifaceted thing and not just a flat yes/no.

You can say, in this case, that I am a bit pedantic and it is also true.

I have a better question for you: What is the square root of -4?

Better question. Is it morally wrong to speak cruelly to a rock? Both a rock and Chatbox have no feelings.

The question which should be asked; does a human lose something when they speak cruelly to a rock or Chatbox. And the answer is, depends on the specific human, and their current specific emotional state.

It’s a self refuting argument. If the statement “nothing is true” is a true statement, then it is self refuting.

This sub truly is a dumpster fire. Does anyone know if there’s a better forum to discuss actual philosophy?

This guy knows how to kick a dog.

The problem of strict binary truth lies in the language and the principles of decision making. What I think you are saying is that at a fundamental level we reach a statement which is either true or false. And I agree. But our language and our brains do not operate in that paradigm. We operate in a paradigm of weighted probabilities that allow us to decide on how to solve real scenarios. Traditionally, computers work in strict binary logic, but they can not approach human operating capacity without emulating human neural networks. Human brains operate on connection strength, not binary predictions. They can infinitely approach truth, but can never achieve it. The third option between truth and falsehood is uncertainty. But you can not reject truth as the article suggests, because you will break the mechanisms that lead to computational function. In other words, uncertainty is a function of those two options. If we take a statement outside the context of possible thought or observable reality, there is no saying if you do have a dog or not. Because truth changes based on a subset of observable reality. What if our reality exists in a multiverse and/or consists of multiverses itself? Now you have to infinitely define which particular you has or has not a dog, which in essence makes the statement "I have a dog" infinitely verbose to exclude all other possibilities. As such, yeah, technically it can only be true or false, but determining the absolute truth is impossible.

A state of absolute truth is theoretical. Uncertainty is practical. If you remove uncertainty from thought, it will imply vast philosophical consequences such as absence of freedom of thought. Option 3 being between 1 and 2 excludes truth and untruth. You can either have 1, 2 or 3... in theory. In practice we only operate in option 3. If 0 is false and if 1 is true, uncertainty is between 0 and 1, it is quite literally a real number ;)

>“It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.”

​ Alright, no organ donation after death then.

Before the particle being observed, however, it exists in a superposition of states, meaning it is at both X and Not X. But as soon as you detect it at X, then it is at X and X only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Interesting. I think we agree but something isn't right. My own use of language, internal and external, use the phrase "X is true" quite often, which suddenly feels redundant. Why does it not feel complete to just say "X is"? I guess I'm looking for insight into what the addition of 'true' and 'false' signify. Is it just common language usage or is it more than that?

The problem with the authors argument lies in its over-simplified concept of truth. According to the article's own logic, instead of dismissing the concept of truth, we should instead build it into a more robust statement that deals with paradoxes and inconsistencies. And in rejecting traditional truth, the article conveniently reinvents it in different terms to stop it collapsing on itself.

Escaping the reality-to-truth link in our paradigm is only possible if you assume that our reality is a part of bigger reality we cannot observe, because the truth as we can observe it has a hierarchical nature. If we say that gravity is a force that pulls objects together, then we encounter lots of smaller branches of truth that occur when gravity itself is proven to be true. We established the truth of gravity beforehand by observing these smaller branches to conclude that there is a certain bigger branch these lead to. If we do not see the branches, we cannot establish anything.

Naturally, this tree of reality does not contain truth only. It contains a set of all possible statements regarding reality. Say apples fall from trees on Earth. But outside Earth, it is not what happens. Away from major gravity wells, the apple slowly approaches the tree instead. Same with observable reality, it is not necessary that statements keep their truth on higher levels which we can not observe.

Observation is not just a function of perception, but information including anything a human or machine computer can think of. You can not imagine a fourth fundamental color. It can exist on the EM spectrum, but knowing how it looks to a different organism is impossible. Take that analogy to the function of thought and see what happens. We do not know how to think of things we can not think. We can not imagine realities impossible to imagine. There is a limit to how far we can climb the tree of reality.

We use the concept of truth to predict future in our subset of reality. Say you know it to be true that it is cold in winter. Naturally, you have warm clothes, heating and food to prepare. Remove the notion of truth from that, and you operate as if that didn't matter. Cutting the link between truth and reality. Now how are you going to make any decision? You have no way to predict reality now and as a result you can not function.

There are lots of way to define and understand truth that are efficient concepts for operating in the universe. But to function without that concept in a meaningful way is impossible. You can't make machine or biological computers work without prediction, and the concept of truth is an inseparable part of that function.

The article does not explore any of these problems in enough detail. It dances around with terminology and the idea of radical philosophical thoughts being "more defensible". Perhaps there is merit in that, but this article is extremely unconvincing.

cheers, it’s been a fun debate

/u/iiioiia has not convinced me but respect to him nonetheless

this has been fascinating to read both of you, just thought i'd throw that in instead of being a silent observer

Nothing, assuming I understand you and “is” = true and “not is” = false.

That is a dog.

That is not a dog.

Only one of those statements can be correct about any one thing at a particular time.

Something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

>Something is either true or false, no?

Genuine question:

What is the difference between saying what I quoted and saying:

'Something either is or not is?'

What does the addition of the true and false qualifiers add to the context?

Your ideas about 3 et seq. are likely mere definitions that will allow us to determine the answer to whether I have a dog.

That is, of 1 and 2, one must be true and one must be false. That is, I cannot have a dog and not have a dog at the same time. It’s an impossibility.

If 3 is a cat, then 2 is true. If 3 is anything other than a dog, then 2 is true, but if 3 is a dog then 1 is true.

You see what I’m saying?

And as to whether the universe is true or not, I don’t know the answer, but I know it’s either true or false, and it is cannot be both true and false.

I'm a layman by every definition of the word. My thoughts about this are very difficult to get out here. I write this as if I'm arguing with myself, not you all. Be easy on me if I'm an idiot.

Truth is an assumption outside of present-time first hand experience, I'm not even sure if there is truth in first hand experience but I'm willing to assume so for now. Something either 'is' or 'is not' and saying something 'is true' is a bit redundant except for the fact that it clarifies that the stance taken is an assumption. Stating a truth is stating a belief of durable accuracy.

Truth is also an idea created by consciousness, a mental construct, maybe specific to human consciousness and maybe not. Truth does not exist outside of consciousness. Even so, conditions must be met in order for something to be true. In order for something to be eternally true, or even just continue to be true after the first hand experience has ended, one must assume that those conditions will never change or haven't already changed. Those conditions must also be true, and have true conditional requirements themselves, and so on until we get to something that just 'is'. Being that it is a mental construct, truth's legitimacy is only valuable to entities that see what 'is' through the rose colored glasses of consciousness. If all consciousness were to cease to exist so would all truths. The things about which we speculate the truth of would either 'be' or 'not be'. "Yes, or not yes", if you like.

Truth is useful in society, no doubt, but only as a shortcut, so that one can assume something to 'be' without firsthand experience of it, almost representative of a single human consciousness. If we all communicate the truths of our first hand experiences to each other it helps fill in the blanks of our assumed knowledge by utilizing second hand experiences much like our brain does when interpreting the inputs from our senses that make up our first hand experiences. Even more, if I find by first hand experience that river X is the longest river in country Y then I can only assume that the conditions that were met to make this true continue on after my first hand experience has finished. I will continue to believe it to be true until I have first hand experience of new conditions that disprove it or if I receive enough information of convincing second hand experiences that override my belief of it.

An earthquake may've drastically changed the landscape and river X is no longer the longest river, but that will not factor into the truth of the matter until some consciousness believes those new conditions to be true.

I did not defend nihilism to prove myself, I was just emitting my opinion. I don’t think anything matters enough to be fought about. I think one way, you think the other and that’s all. If you really wish to know, and I’d understand since psychology interests me too- the best way I’d explain my thoughts is: I like animals. I hate children. I hate people. I think that the world is comforting. I want more knowledge and I think the world is overpopulated. Every problem the world is experiencing now is because of humans. Natural disasters are pretty, even if people hate them I understand that they’re necessary for balance. Science is fascinating, humans are painfully boring. What I do find interesting about humans (and why I don’t just go and kill everyone because they don’t matter) is their brains. Some humans have the conscience that allows them to see things objectively. That’s existential nihilism. I find it wonderful. Philosophies are an art, they’re the part of the human brain that mixes objectivity and subjectivity via acquired knowledge. Nature, on the other side, is an art- the very first and main art form. While I’m not the type to go hug trees and cry watching deforestation videos, it disgusts me to know that we’re ruining it just so we can expend our population and pretend that the world is just fine. I fought over racism, sexism and overpopulation and that alone shows me that humans aren’t as artful as I often give them credit for. My dislikes comes from people forgetting to use their heads, going about their lives with the simple desire to live and nothing else. It is not that I don’t care, I care but not for their lives. I care for the impact of their lives. I hope it makes sense?

Ok can you help me understand? You say you don't care about anything but you don't want the Earth to be destroyed because it's pretty. How is not wanting something to be destroyed different from caring about it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Here is the Wikipedia on this issue. Like you, others have challenged the law, but I don’t buy it for a second. I think Aristotle hit the nail on the head.

I see what you're saying. It is a dilemma. To me neither the cause nor solution to that lie specifically in philosophy or stoicism, but rather in Buddhism. Existence is an illusion, none of it really matters or means anything but simultaneously it does all matter. Because what you do and how you handle it determines whether or not you will ever escape it and how much you will suffer in the meantime.

Stoics, as far as I've read, kind of touch on the existential crisis a bit, but the reality is we exist and therefore we suffer but we only suffer and only suffer so greatly because we think we exist. It can seem very convoluted and took me a long time to come around to but Buddha even said that a "dispassion for life" is one of the many steps to enlightenment and ultimately ending rebirth. Eventually you realize it is futile. You cannot escape the suffering, it is part of the world and part of nature, but you can learn and train yourself to escape your perception of suffering. There is meaning in living like this, but once again that meaning is just part of the overall illusion.

The bottom line, really, is just practice love and compassion. The rest sorts itself out but eventually most of us have to make a conscious choice to wake up, and only then do we see the illusion.

Lol, again, it does not matter what is the definition of RL. It doesn’t even matter if RL changes.

A is always RL or not RL

B is always RL or not RL

To prove me wrong you need to show me a scenario where

A = not RL and RL

B = not RL and RL

It’s an impossibility. You cannot be not Race Leader and be Race Leader at the same time. You cannot be and not be at the same time. Ternary logic might exist but it’s wrong to the extent it might suggest that things need not always be true or false.