A question about Truth and the mind

[Ringel05]

We all know that 0 < 1. That is true and it will always continue to be true. It just isn't possible to change that equation from true to false. What if someone convinced people that truth changes with time. Now the correct assessment of that expressions truthiness changes from true to false and back to true depending on what point in time it happens to be (the current date on the calender). Wouldn't our ability to ascertain the truth of anything be hindered since things that are true can be made to be seen as false and things that are false can be made to seem to be true and vice-versa as time moves forward. Something that is true now would be considered false in the future even though it did not change. So 1 < 0 is false NOW but could be true later and then switch back at any moment. Wouldn't we all be confused as to what is truth since it has no stability even in our own minds?

We have nothing to compare other questionable things to since it can change. How would we compare things such as knowing we have enough money in our checking account. We would think we are broke when we have something more than zero dollars and rich when we are broke and vice-versa when we think 1 > 0. How would be able to make correct choices if truth is temporary?

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

We all know that 0 < 1. That is true and it will always continue to be true. It just isn't possible to change that equation from true to false. What if someone convinced people that truth changes with time. Now the correct assessment of that expressions truthiness changes from true to false and back to true depending on what point in time it happens to be (the current date on the calender). Wouldn't our ability to ascertain the truth of anything be hindered since things that are true can be made to be seen as false and things that are false can be made to seem to be true and vice-versa as time moves forward. Something that is true now would be considered false in the future even though it did not change. So 1 < 0 is false NOW but could be true later and then switch back at any moment. Wouldn't we all be confused as to what is truth since it has no stability even in our own minds?

We have nothing to compare other questionable things to since it can change. How would we compare things such as knowing we have enough money in our checking account. We would think we are broke when we have something more than zero dollars and rich when we are broke and vice-versa when we think 1 > 0. How would be able to make correct choices if truth is temporary?

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

That is not necessarily true because a great deal of the world does. Your reply basically told me that I am wrong which means that you thought it was false. Where was the complexity in your analysis of what I said?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Math is a matter of accuracy. Truth is a human concept and, as such, totally subjective.

What you are saying is that you think what I said was wrong or false. Aren't you using true and false to judge what I said. Would you say that that analysis is pretty cut and dry. It was either right or wrong?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The Achilles heel of all truth is relative crowd is that they use absolute truth to say that absolute truth doesn't exist. They say it was always false from the beginning and will always be false to the end. That seems pretty absolute if you ask me. I kind of see the relativity of truth (LOL) as a kind of preparation to be lied to since one could say a false statement and then later say it was true. That in itself would be a lie.

 

[norwegen]

What was true that is no longer true?

I don't know what you are trying to say but if it is no longer true then it probably was never true in the first place because what we once thought was true was probably not in the first. It just means we were wrong then but correct now.

I was asking for an example.

What was once true that is now false?

 

[Ringel05]

We all know that 0 < 1. That is true and it will always continue to be true. It just isn't possible to change that equation from true to false. What if someone convinced people that truth changes with time. Now the correct assessment of that expressions truthiness changes from true to false and back to true depending on what point in time it happens to be (the current date on the calender). Wouldn't our ability to ascertain the truth of anything be hindered since things that are true can be made to be seen as false and things that are false can be made to seem to be true and vice-versa as time moves forward. Something that is true now would be considered false in the future even though it did not change. So 1 < 0 is false NOW but could be true later and then switch back at any moment. Wouldn't we all be confused as to what is truth since it has no stability even in our own minds?

We have nothing to compare other questionable things to since it can change. How would we compare things such as knowing we have enough money in our checking account. We would think we are broke when we have something more than zero dollars and rich when we are broke and vice-versa when we think 1 > 0. How would be able to make correct choices if truth is temporary?

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

That is not necessarily true because a great deal of the world does. Your reply basically told me that I am wrong which means that you thought it was false. Where was the complexity in your analysis of what I said?

Your perception is truth for you and others that think like you. How many page dissertation do you think you need to grasp the difference between the human and physical sciences? For the Human sciences alone it will have to cover Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, History, Psychology, Metaphysics and Philosophy, each of which would cover at least 100 pages or more to show the argument and tie it all together. Or you could do what I did and go to college for 12 years studying all the above plus some of the physical sciences.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

We all know that 0 < 1. That is true and it will always continue to be true. It just isn't possible to change that equation from true to false. What if someone convinced people that truth changes with time. Now the correct assessment of that expressions truthiness changes from true to false and back to true depending on what point in time it happens to be (the current date on the calender). Wouldn't our ability to ascertain the truth of anything be hindered since things that are true can be made to be seen as false and things that are false can be made to seem to be true and vice-versa as time moves forward. Something that is true now would be considered false in the future even though it did not change. So 1 < 0 is false NOW but could be true later and then switch back at any moment. Wouldn't we all be confused as to what is truth since it has no stability even in our own minds?

We have nothing to compare other questionable things to since it can change. How would we compare things such as knowing we have enough money in our checking account. We would think we are broke when we have something more than zero dollars and rich when we are broke and vice-versa when we think 1 > 0. How would be able to make correct choices if truth is temporary?

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

That is not necessarily true because a great deal of the world does. Your reply basically told me that I am wrong which means that you thought it was false. Where was the complexity in your analysis of what I said?

Your perception is truth for you and others that think like you. How many page dissertation do you think you need to grasp the difference between the human and physical sciences? For the Human sciences alone it will have to cover Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, History, Psychology, Metaphysics and Philosophy, each of which would cover at least 100 pages or more to show the argument and tie it all together. Or you could do what I did and go to college for 12 years studying all the above plus some of the physical sciences.

What you are saying is that your way of thinking is true. Do you mean the idea of truth you are pushing or the idea that truth is absolute. You are kind of using truth is absolute because you basically said it is absolutely true because if it was a matter of each person's perception then my perception and your perception would be true. That would bring about a conflict becuase something can't be both true and false.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

We all know that 0 < 1. That is true and it will always continue to be true. It just isn't possible to change that equation from true to false. What if someone convinced people that truth changes with time. Now the correct assessment of that expressions truthiness changes from true to false and back to true depending on what point in time it happens to be (the current date on the calender). Wouldn't our ability to ascertain the truth of anything be hindered since things that are true can be made to be seen as false and things that are false can be made to seem to be true and vice-versa as time moves forward. Something that is true now would be considered false in the future even though it did not change. So 1 < 0 is false NOW but could be true later and then switch back at any moment. Wouldn't we all be confused as to what is truth since it has no stability even in our own minds?

We have nothing to compare other questionable things to since it can change. How would we compare things such as knowing we have enough money in our checking account. We would think we are broke when we have something more than zero dollars and rich when we are broke and vice-versa when we think 1 > 0. How would be able to make correct choices if truth is temporary?

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

That is not necessarily true because a great deal of the world does. Your reply basically told me that I am wrong which means that you thought it was false. Where was the complexity in your analysis of what I said?

Your perception is truth for you and others that think like you. How many page dissertation do you think you need to grasp the difference between the human and physical sciences? For the Human sciences alone it will have to cover Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, History, Psychology, Metaphysics and Philosophy, each of which would cover at least 100 pages or more to show the argument and tie it all together. Or you could do what I did and go to college for 12 years studying all the above plus some of the physical sciences.

I kind of wonder how your teachers would react if you filled out the inccorrect answer on a question and said it wasn't incorrect because that was how I perceived it. I don't think she would have excepted that.

 

[Ringel05]

Are you attempting to compare the empirical of mathematics to human perspective based on cultural and psychological factors? You're kidding, right?

I'm not and it isn't different because true is true and false is false. False will never be true and if their was a 'cultural perspective' that said otherwise I would wonder if it was wrong in the first place.

Obviously you never took any of the human sciences so it's probably waaaaaay too esoteric for you to grasp but yes you are making that comparison. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily revolve around you and your ideas of truth and right of wrong and while there are some basic human truths those are pretty much few and far between. Of course if one is talking about the physical sciences and mathematics then yeah, common truths abound.

That is not necessarily true because a great deal of the world does. Your reply basically told me that I am wrong which means that you thought it was false. Where was the complexity in your analysis of what I said?

Your perception is truth for you and others that think like you. How many page dissertation do you think you need to grasp the difference between the human and physical sciences? For the Human sciences alone it will have to cover Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, History, Psychology, Metaphysics and Philosophy, each of which would cover at least 100 pages or more to show the argument and tie it all together. Or you could do what I did and go to college for 12 years studying all the above plus some of the physical sciences.

I kind of wonder how your teachers would react if you filled out the inccorrect answer on a question and said it wasn't incorrect because that was how I perceived it. I don't think she would have excepted that.

See, that's what you get for being a black and white thinker, this isn't about purple, grey, orange, 1, 2, 3, 4, molecular structure, solid, liquid, gas, etc. We're referring to what humans believe is true or false, differences among small groups up to entire cultures.