What is truth?

[Wuwei]

I haven't changed definitions. I have yet to see one. I repeat, saying it is evoked is not defining it. If you define red as light in a set range of wavelengths is one way to do it. But then red = light between X and Y. Anything outside that set is not red and anything inside is. Whether anyone ever perceives that light is irrelevant. In which case, red is evoked by nothing, it just is.

When I said "evoked" I was relating the physical definition to the physiological aspect which you are focusing on.

Again as far as defining it, I was repeating the physical definition. If you want to go into the full spectral complexity of "red", the discussion turns to hue, saturation and intensity and the ambiguity of different evaluations by different people. That falls under the realm of physiology, not philosophy.

 

[SwimExpert]

i am only saying something untrue must be a fallacy.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning and logic. This is entirely separate from a false statement. "All dogs are fish" is a false statement. "All dogs are mammals, no mammals are fish, therefore no dogs are birds" is a fallacy.

 

[SwimExpert]

Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false

That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.

 

[PratchettFan]

I haven't changed definitions. I have yet to see one. I repeat, saying it is evoked is not defining it. If you define red as light in a set range of wavelengths is one way to do it. But then red = light between X and Y. Anything outside that set is not red and anything inside is. Whether anyone ever perceives that light is irrelevant. In which case, red is evoked by nothing, it just is.

When I said "evoked" I was relating the physical definition to the physiological aspect which you are focusing on.

Again as far as defining it, I was repeating the physical definition. If you want to go into the full spectral complexity of "red", the discussion turns to hue, saturation and intensity and the ambiguity of different evaluations by different people. That falls under the realm of physiology, not philosophy.

Philosophy is not involved at all.

The purpose of a definition is to determine if a given concept is or is not true. To say the text is red means nothing unless we have something upon which to determine what is or is not red. If red is light in a set spectrum, then that is what it is and that will be the basis of making that determination. If that definition is fuzzy, if it this spectrum for some and that spectrum for others, then it falls apart.

 

[Wuwei]

So, you are choosing for yourself a definition that is rooted in the foundation of electromagnetic science. You have selected your own definition, and reject others.

Nope. I'm only saying a physicist will define red one way for his convenience. Artists will define it as they see fit. An ophthalmologist may have another definition, and a Socratic philosopher even another.

How then would you describe conditions whereby people see color when they read or when they listen to music?

Synesthesia

You are starting to confuse yourself. Light color is based on wavelength. Your "spectrum of photons" implies (incorrectly) that photons have set types, akin to the various atoms which make up the periodic table.

Nope. If that confuses you, then just think of light as a spectrum of wavelengths which can be separated using a prism.

Look. We both do agree. If you want to view light from a Socratic POV, that's fine by me. I'm looking at it from a physics point of view. We are both right if we stand by our separate definitions.

 

[PratchettFan]

Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false

That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.

No, you need to support your claim. Beauty is entirely subjective, and is therefore neither true nor false.

 

[Wuwei]

Philosophy is not involved at all.

Sorry. I was confusing you with Swimexpert.

The purpose of a definition is to determine if a given concept is or is not true. To say the text is red means nothing unless we have something upon which to determine what is or is not red. If red is light in a set spectrum, then that is what it is and that will be the basis of making that determination. If that definition is fuzzy, if it this spectrum for some and that spectrum for others, then it falls apart.

It certainly does fall apart for different people. I would interpret that to mean that there is no good physiological definition for red.

 

[PratchettFan]

Philosophy is not involved at all.

Sorry. I was confusing you with Swimexpert.

The purpose of a definition is to determine if a given concept is or is not true. To say the text is red means nothing unless we have something upon which to determine what is or is not red. If red is light in a set spectrum, then that is what it is and that will be the basis of making that determination. If that definition is fuzzy, if it this spectrum for some and that spectrum for others, then it falls apart.

It certainly does fall apart for different people. I would interpret that to mean that there is no good physiological definition for red.

If it falls apart for anyone, then it is an invalid definition for the purposes of determining reality. We can identify a hydrogen atom because we have defined the specific attributes which make it a hydrogen atom. It is not hydrogen for some and helium for others. It either meets the criteria of the definition or it does not.

If we never knew there was such a thing or if our definition was completely wrong, that would not change the nature of the atom. Only our ability to understand it. The atom does not care if we understand it. It's existence stands on its own, whether we understand or not. Thus these definitions are important to us, but they have no importance at all to that which we attempt to define. If those things are dependent upon our definition, then they are not real.

 

[Capstone]

No, you are using temporal terms to claim atemporal qualities. You are contradicting yourself because these alleged atemporal qualities exist within the context of an extant time. ...

The definition I'm using for "atemporal" is as follows:

atem·po·ral

\(ˌ)ā-ˈtem-p(ə-)rəl\adjective
:independent of or unaffected by time :timeless
First Use: 1870

The atemporal quality in question is 'eternal existence'.

In accordance to the definition quoted above, when the existence proper of an existent thing is not dependent on time, it can rightfully be classified as "atemporal, existentially speaking". What's more, since the collective existence of such things is not "affected by time", it qualifies as atemporal across the board.

The fact that complex formations of such building blocks are both dependent upon and affected by time is irrelevant to the atemporality of the existence of the building blocks themselves.

No. If something is eternally existent it is temporal, not atemporal. ...

How so?

If the existence of such a thing is "independent of" and "not affected" (which is not the same as 'uneffected', BTW) by time, said existence is indeed atemporal...by definition.

...By definition a "self evident" truth requires recognition by an observer in order to exist, and as such is entirely subjective.

By whose definition?

That something is self-evident doesn't entail that everyone knows about it. The evidence is objectively there to be recognized whether anyone else gets around to recognizing it or not.

 

[Wuwei]

If it falls apart for anyone, then it is an invalid definition for the purposes of determining reality. We can identify a hydrogen atom because we have defined the specific attributes which make it a hydrogen atom. It is not hydrogen for some and helium for others. It either meets the criteria of the definition or it does not.

If we never knew there was such a thing or if our definition was completely wrong, that would not change the nature of the atom. Only our ability to understand it. The atom does not care if we understand it. It's existence stands on its own, whether we understand or not. Thus these definitions are important to us, but they have no importance at all to that which we attempt to define. If those things are dependent upon our definition, then they are not real.

Yep. I think we are in agreement.... Unless you think otherwise.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Truth is not interpretable. It cannot change. It is fact. And fact cannot change.

What color is this text? Is your answer a fact? Is there any interpretation that occurs in determining the color of this text?

My interpretation is that the color is red. So I believe it is red.
The truth is that the color is: (In subtractive color used in digital formats such as your screen)
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
In Additive color, as converted by an Adobe engine is:
C - 2
M - 13
Y - 19
K - 0

Anything else?

You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.

I did define color, specifically in fact.

No, you didn't. You defined digital formats, not color.

That color, in RGB is those exact numbers. Every time. It will not, and cannot change. You asked me "what is the color of this text"...and the only place that text will appear is on a computer screen.
So, a computer, every computer, will send to every monitor regardless of make or model or what country - those RGB numbers.
So it is TRUE..that the color of your text is:
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
On Hexidecimal it is #ff0000, that is the HTML color. Which your computer than translates to RGB for your monitor.

 

[there4eyeM]

When Jesus stood before Pilate, Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The gospels do not give us Jesus' reply. So I present the question to you. In your opinion, what is truth?

Jesus' reply was his life. He knew words are relative and there was no expressing the truth to Pilate with them.
Jesus knew the truth.
The truth is not something anyone here will be able to state, identify and certainly not define.
When one is in the truth, one knows the truth. When one is not, one asks what the truth is.

 

[PratchettFan]

What color is this text? Is your answer a fact? Is there any interpretation that occurs in determining the color of this text?

My interpretation is that the color is red. So I believe it is red.
The truth is that the color is: (In subtractive color used in digital formats such as your screen)
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
In Additive color, as converted by an Adobe engine is:
C - 2
M - 13
Y - 19
K - 0

Anything else?

You haven't defined "color". It is a meaningless term except for the observer. If you wish to deal in reality, then the question should be what are the wavelengths of the photons generated by those particular pixels on the screen.

I did define color, specifically in fact.

No, you didn't. You defined digital formats, not color.

That color, in RGB is those exact numbers. Every time. It will not, and cannot change. You asked me "what is the color of this text"...and the only place that text will appear is on a computer screen.
So, a computer, every computer, will send to every monitor regardless of make or model or what country - those RGB numbers.
So it is TRUE..that the color of your text is:
R - 248
G - 221
B - 200
On Hexidecimal it is #ff0000, that is the HTML color. Which your computer than translates to RGB for your monitor.

You still haven't defined color.

 

[PratchettFan]

If it falls apart for anyone, then it is an invalid definition for the purposes of determining reality. We can identify a hydrogen atom because we have defined the specific attributes which make it a hydrogen atom. It is not hydrogen for some and helium for others. It either meets the criteria of the definition or it does not.

If we never knew there was such a thing or if our definition was completely wrong, that would not change the nature of the atom. Only our ability to understand it. The atom does not care if we understand it. It's existence stands on its own, whether we understand or not. Thus these definitions are important to us, but they have no importance at all to that which we attempt to define. If those things are dependent upon our definition, then they are not real.

Yep. I think we are in agreement.... Unless you think otherwise.

I agree with anyone who agrees with me.

 

[SwimExpert]

The definition I'm using for "atemporal" is as follows:

atem·po·ral

\(ˌ)ā-ˈtem-p(ə-)rəl\adjective
:independent of or unaffected by time :timeless
First Use: 1870

The atemporal quality in question is 'eternal existence'.

An "eternal" object is still temporal. It exists in time.

In accordance to the definition quoted above, when the existence proper of an existent thing is not dependent on time

Just stop right there, because you're speaking nonsensical jibberish. The definition you've provided is suspect at best to begin with, and you comprehension of it is even worse. Longevity does not equate to atemporality. Even if the entirety of time were compressed to nothing more than the span of your life (which would mean that you would exist eternally, from the beginning of time to the end of time), your existence still would not be atemporal. Your existence would still be in a constant state of change. Your existence would depend on time in order to ever be defined.

That something is self-evident doesn't entail that everyone knows about it.

Someone would have to know about it, at the very least. Furthermore, if it were truly self evident, then everyone would know it upon being faced with it.

The evidence is objectively there to be recognized whether anyone else gets around to recognizing it or not.

Prove it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false

That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.

No, you need to support your claim. Beauty is entirely subjective, and is therefore neither true nor false.

I need to support the law of excluded middle? No, I do not need to support a logical cornerstone that has been understood for thousands of years. You simply are ignorant.

 

[SwimExpert]

Look. We both do agree. If you want to view light from a Socratic POV, that's fine by me. I'm looking at it from a physics point of view. We are both right if we stand by our separate definitions.

My point is that you are choosing one definition, or interpretation, to utilize, and from it you are claiming an objective reality in regards to the definition of red. Ultimately, your definition is subjective. In the final measure, your position is not objective at all. Which should not at all surprise you, because true objectivity is impossible for any observer.

 

[PratchettFan]

Given that your statement about Sandra Bullock is neither true no false

That is a false statement. Perhaps you need more education. Do some reading on the law of excluded middle and come back when you know what you're talking about.

No, you need to support your claim. Beauty is entirely subjective, and is therefore neither true nor false.

I need to support the law of excluded middle? No, I do not need to support a logical cornerstone that has been understood for thousands of years. You simply are ignorant.

Yes, you need to support your claim. Sorry if you think that isn't fair.

 

[Capstone]

An "eternal" object is still temporal. It exists in time. ...

Because an object exists in time doesn't necessarily mean its existence is dependent on time. If the simple fact that it exists is not dependent on time, meaning that it has always existed and that it will always exist (which is basically the definition of "eternal", BTW), then it qualifies as 'atemporal', and here's the key, whether 'time' itself had a beginning and may have an ending or not.

...Longevity does not equate to atemporality. Even if the entirety of time were compressed to nothing more than the span of your life (which would mean that you would exist eternally, from the beginning of time to the end of time), your existence still would not be atemporal. .

...speaking of 'suspect definitions'.

If something's eternally existent, it had no beginning and it will have no end.

As succinctly defined in the OED:

eternal
Syllabification: e·ter·nal
Pronunciation: /əˈtərn(ə)l/
adjective
Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning:...

...Your existence would still be in a constant state of change. Your existence would depend on time in order to ever be defined.

That's only true of a temporary being, by which I mean a being whose very existence depends on the movement and changes of positions and forms of the eternal fabric that constitutes his/her/its being. In line with my previous analogy, it's true of the temporary cardhouses, not of the eternal cards.

...Someone would have to know about it, at the very least. Furthermore, if it were truly self evident, then everyone would know it upon being faced with it. ...

Not necessarily.

Subjective understanding (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on the objective veracity of a self-evident truth, nor does it negate or in any way refute its self-contained evidence. The evidence is there, irrespective of the inability of some to see it. While the truth may not be evident to them, the failure to perceive it as such is one of subjective understanding of the available evidence, which is certainly not a negation of the availbility (read: presence) of that evidence. An elementary school student's inability to see the truth in a highly advanced calculus formula doesn't mean its truth isn't evident in (and proven by) the equation. It's objectively there to be perceived and comprehended, regardless of the subjective limitations of those who can't comprehend it.

Prove it.

Here's a thought: why don't you prove that the veracity of self-contained proofs and/or the fact that their evidentiary components are indeed evident in such equations...are negated by subjective ignorance?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Truth has at least two modes quantum mode and wave mode....catch the wave ....