First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
What is "Truth"?
45423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 3/23/13 , edited 3/23/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:


TAO_Arecibo wrote:

Justine, most people who support subjective reality (like myself) go to philosophy to support it, meaning it supersedes science, and actually discusses the assumptions science itself makes. So really, it's not possible to counter the arguments using science itself.
To me the definition of subjective reality only defines a particular perspective of reality, not what reality is. That's what I was saying, but I see that a subjective reality perspective defines reality itself differently, and one who embraces a solid, objective reality has no way to disprove the subjective definition of reality.


That is definitely possible. Reality could exist solidly, and we simply wouldn't be able to prove that it is what we see. We just can't tell for sure =).
Within the confines of a reality as defined by an objective perspective you can't disprove a subjective reality. Like you said it's not possible to counter the arguments of a subjective reality using science. And this is true because the reliability of science is limited to a solid universe of laws and concrete physical properties.

But what I have is science that leads me to my opinion, and that opinion is that the subjective reality perspective is false and that reality as described by that perspective is non-existent.

In any case, by my objective perspective on reality, truth is that which reflects reality most accurately. Without observers of reality, truth is irrelevant, since reality, a solid and independent of observation one, is not influenced by being observed. Truth is a human concept, describing the quality of what is observed, assumed, or the information being presented.
320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/13

JustineKo2 wrote:
Within the confines of a reality as defined by an objective perspective you can't disprove a subjective reality. Like you said it's not possible to counter the arguments of a subjective reality using science. And this is true because the reliability of science is limited to a solid universe of laws and concrete physical properties.

But what I have is science that leads me to my opinion, and that opinion is that the subjective reality perspective is false and that reality as described by that perspective is non-existent.


You can believe that, if you wish, yes. Just remember that you are assuming. Like we all do to live a practical life.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/28/13 , edited 3/28/13

TAO_Arecibo wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:
Within the confines of a reality as defined by an objective perspective you can't disprove a subjective reality. Like you said it's not possible to counter the arguments of a subjective reality using science. And this is true because the reliability of science is limited to a solid universe of laws and concrete physical properties.

But what I have is science that leads me to my opinion, and that opinion is that the subjective reality perspective is false and that reality as described by that perspective is non-existent.


You can believe that, if you wish, yes. Just remember that you are assuming. Like we all do to live a practical life.



I think we have already had a similar discussion about the nature of truth and assumption, only that what you call assumptions really aren't assumptions at all.

But three questions:

1. On what basis are we allowed to make a metaphysical assumption of an independent ideal, when true scepticism must necessary dispose of such metaphysics? Those that believe in the subjectivity of reality have to prove the metaphysics upon which it is founded, and then try to connect it with how things appear, on the other hand, the materialists need not resort to such metaphysics simply because his position does not violate Guillelmus de Ockham's famous principle: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", and all metaphysics, necessarily, resort to some unnecessary plurality.

2. From what I have read, you defend the idea of a subjective reality, and presenting as 'sceptical' when the relativity of reality relies on the belief of the duality of mind and body, so, even ignoring science, which seems to be leaning towards monism, is there any specific reason to support the duality of the mind and body beyond intuition? And if not, and because Dualism itself is fraught with many problems in itself that is avoided by accepting any version of Monism, if we were to accept a monistic theory of the mind-body problem, does that not presuppose some reality in which the mind-body exist and so, must necessarily be independent of the mind?

3. For what reason should we assume that people strive to live a practical life or live a practical life?
4432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / NYC
Offline
Posted 3/28/13
What you perceive to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it is reality. Reality is held together by common truths. What is true is based on what you perceive.
There is a thine line and various gray areas in-between because we believe it is so.

My philosophy is that truth is relative.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/28/13 , edited 3/28/13

Larliet wrote:

What you perceive to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it is reality. Reality is held together by common truths. What is true is based on what you perceive.
There is a thine line and various gray areas in-between because we believe it is so.

My philosophy is that truth is relative.


My answer to that:

5 + 7= 12
Posted 3/29/13

longfenglim wrote:


Larliet wrote:

What you perceive to be true, doesn't necessarily mean it is reality. Reality is held together by common truths. What is true is based on what you perceive.
There is a thine line and various gray areas in-between because we believe it is so.

My philosophy is that truth is relative.


My answer to that:

5 + 7= 12


how?

Posted 3/29/13 , edited 3/29/13
Everyone has their own truth , theres a variety of them rather than one unified centralized decided version. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a idiot who couldn't think for themselves XD
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/29/13 , edited 3/30/13

AruarianDance wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


My answer to that:

5 + 7= 12


how?



Paeno's Axioms:

1. There exist a number 'zero' in the set of all Natural Numbers N
2. If a number a is in N, then its successor, S(a), is also in N
3. There is no a in N whereby the function S(a) is equal to zero
4. For all a and b in N, the function S(a)=/=S( b) if a=/= b
5. Suppose that S is a subset of N, such that zero exist in S and that for any arbitrary a which exist in S has a successor S(a) which exists in S, then S is equivalent to N

Note: From thess axioms, we can define all natural numbers, for example, 1 = S(0), 2= S(1)= S(S(0)), 3 = S(2)=S(S(S(0))), etc.

Definition:
Iteration- Let there be a function f which takes any element a in the set S from set S to set S
f: S --> S
An iteration of this function would be the composition of this function onto itself, or
f(f(x)) where x exists in S
Then the nth iteration would be f^n(x) where by the profess of composing that function onto itself would be repeated n times.

Axiom-f^n: S --> S , and satisfies the following conditions:
f^0 is the identity function in the set S, and f^(S(n))(x)=f(f^n(x))

Transitive Property:

if a=b, and b=c, a must equal to c


Definition of Addition:

Let m,n exist in set N,

let the function S be the successor function

Let the function S^n represent the successor function S iterated n times.

m+n=S^n(m)


Definitions:

Numbers are defined as they are commonly used, the basis of those definition which shall be the above.


Prove: 5 + 7 = 12

1. Definition of Addition
5 + 7= S^7(5)

2. S^7(5)=S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(5)))))))

3. S(5)=6 by definition of 6, so, S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(5)))))))=S(S(S(S(S(S(S(6)))))))

4. S(6)=7 by virtue of the definition of 7, so S(S(S(S(S(S(7))))))=S(S(S(S(S(S(S(6)))))))

This process can be repeated until we at last come to

S(11)=12, therefore 12, by virtue of transitivity, must equal S^7(5), in other words, be equal to 5+7, so 5+7=12.

όπερ έδει δείξαι
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/29/13

Arkthethird wrote:

Everyone has their own truth , theres a variety of them rather than one unified centralized decided version. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a idiot who couldn't think for themselves XD


I think otherwise, and I think you are wrong. Since this is, by your own theory, truth, you must necessarily be wrong.
45423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 4/1/13

longfenglim wrote:


Arkthethird wrote:

Everyone has their own truth , theres a variety of them rather than one unified centralized decided version. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a idiot who couldn't think for themselves XD


I think otherwise, and I think you are wrong. Since this is, by your own theory, truth, you must necessarily be wrong.
I concur.

468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101
Offline
Posted 4/1/13
Truth is something that is actual.

A lie is obviously something not true. The opposite of what happened, or what you think.

Can't word it very well, but truth isn't an "opinion".

Theories are the ideas we have of things we don't have the truth to.

Truth isn't objective.
Sailor Candy Moderator
164355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 10/25/13
Closed due inactivity. 0 new posts in months. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.