Abstract Philisophical Nonsense...!

This is something that I have been debating elsewhere and I wondered if I might get a valuable insight from someone here.

It concerns the nature of truth and different types of truth statements.

As far as I am concerned, there are two types of truth statement.

1) A Statement about the nature of reality (Synthetic)
2) A Statement about an abstract concept (Analytic)

The truth of synthetic statements is determined by empirical (observational) evidence.

For example, "There are three oranges in this box" is a empirically verifiable by opening the box and observing the contents.

The truth of analytic statements is determined, not by empirical evidence, but by the definitions of the terms used.

For example, "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement because of the meaning that I attach o the terms used.

However, someone contended that there is infact no such thing as analytic statements as everything is part of reality and I can only come to learn about so called "analytic" statements through the physical world and therefore they must ultimately be synthetic.

Thus we are at an impasse. :(

Does anybody have anything (helpful) to contribute?

just because a subject can be traced backwards does not mean that the subdivisions should be ignored.

I am a man, I am not just a human, or even merely a mammal. Whilst I am a mammal, it is not important. I am a man.

I like oranges :)

I'm in agreement with you simon, was just about to try and explain why but I'm finding it difficuly to say why :)

Well I'm glad that someone agrees with me.

It is an immensley frustrating debate...

oi!

I post something "sensible" and just because its a little bit obscure it gets ignored...!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm

However, someone contended that there is infact no such thing as analytic statements as everything is part of reality and I can only come to learn about so called "analytic" statements through the physical world and therefore they must ultimately be synthetic.

---

Not every analytic statement can be learnt of through the physical world.

Now taking "2+2=4" may be proven by taking two sticks, and another two, and counting them up.

What about statements such as 5/0 ?

How can we divide 5 "sticks" with 0 "sticks"? If we were to, we may even come to the conclusion that 5/0 = 5.

How did this "someone" reach the decision that all analytic statement need be proven through the physical world?

Hmm,

Seems to me, for all intents and purposes, the observer {mind}
cannot be part of the physical reality, in fact, all we know is the
mind exists, and its reality thats in doubt, therefore any mental
process developed with the mind and which functions within a
mind is more real than any we might observe operating
in "Reality".

The process of "Addition" originated as a mental process.
Certainly it can be synthetically modeled within a physical device,
But any statements made about the original process really can't
be synthetic, since they are statements about a process outside
of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak


Not every analytic statement can be learnt of through the physical world.

Now taking "2+2=4" may be proven by taking two sticks, and another two, and counting them up.

What about statements such as 5/0 ?

How can we divide 5 "sticks" with 0 "sticks"? If we were to, we may even come to the conclusion that 5/0 = 5.

How did this "someone" reach the decision that all analytic statement need be proven through the physical world?

---

But thats all a matter of how you physycally model the process of division.


Suppose x is your numerator and y is your denominator. The first thing you could do is make y number of groups. Then you could say that the quotient is the sum of all the units or things in those groups. So even if you have 5/0, there are no groups, so the answer would be zero.

Of course, a division by zero can be proven to be undefined, or infinite.

Perhaps a scenario thats even more difficult to model is one in which you do 1/0.5. In this case, the answer would be 2, but it is quite impossible to get 2 objects out of 1. Therefore, this seems to be a purely abstract concept.

Woo hoo... a simonm/kedaman abstract philosophical discussion thread.....










............. Shame keddie is away at the mo :D

well u cant even knwo if the minds true
only ur own
i mean, i dont know if u guys exist

Of course we don't. Were all figments of your imagination.

Do you feel good about yourself now?:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
But thats all a matter of how you physycally model the process of division.


Suppose x is your numerator and y is your denominator. The first thing you could do is make y number of groups. Then you could say that the quotient is the sum of all the units or things in those groups. So even if you have 5/0, there are no groups, so the answer would be zero.

Of course, a division by zero can be proven to be undefined, or infinite.

---

Your post agrees with mine, somewhat. Also, take this into account: 5/0. We want to divide 5 by zero, but since we physically cannot do that, we notice the 5 sticks just sitting right there. One could also point out that there is ONE group. She would say then 5/0 = 1.

So, inasfar as proving abstract statements through the physical world is concerned, it's not very reilable is it. Unless someone here can show us how to do that...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak


Your post agrees with mine, somewhat. Also, take this into account: 5/0. We want to divide 5 by zero, but since we physically cannot do that, we notice the 5 sticks just sitting right there. One could also point out that there is ONE group. She would say then 5/0 = 1.

So, inasfar as proving abstract statements through the physical world is concerned, it's not very reilable is it. Unless someone here can show us how to do that...

---

I agree. Hence my 1/0.5 scenario. In the physical world, you cant get 2 out of 1.5. As much as i wish i could lol.

Behemoth

I appologise for ignoring your response but I must confess that I did not see the relevance in relation to the topic. Perhaps you can explain further?

mendhak

Quote:

---

Not every analytic statement can be learnt of through the physical world.

---

Ah, but where did you learn all statements you know of from? You read if from a blackboard at school or from the page of a book, right? are they not part of reality?

Quote:

---

What about statements such as 5/0

---

If I'm not mistaken, nobody knows how to divide zero into five. It is generally regarded as undefined. However, that is immaterial to the point.

NotLKH

Quote:

---

The process of "Addition" originated as a mental process.

---

did we not learn about it through the physical world? Were we not told about it (or shown it)? How else did it get in our mind?


The point that this guy is trying to make is that all words can only be defined either by synonym (exchanging one word for another) or obstensively (by pointing to real world instances of it).

Since the process of defining words by synonym can go on forever, eventually it must come down to a real world instance.

err...bugger. now I've got to explain my mysterious mumbo-jumbo.

Here we go:

I take issue with the categorisation. an analytic statement may be derivable from reality, and therefore synthetic, but to derive like this merely distorts the discussion. regardless of whether or not the statemnt can be derived as synthetic, it stands as analytic because it is or can be analysed.

right...I think thats ok. Sorry, I'm having a blond day today.

Behemoth is explaining the significanse of the is-a-relationship Analytic truth is Synthetic truth.

I argue that there is only axiomatic truth defined by man, and that it is just a keyconcept in logic which is a tool to model and predict events.

In my opinion the truth is false.

I was fine with all this until you started using big words.
Ked - thanks for explaining my argument. Could you explain it to me please?

Quote:

---

Ah, but where did you learn all statements you know of from? You read if from a blackboard at school or from the page of a book, right? are they not part of reality?

---

First of all, I reached that decision myself. Second, just because it's written in black and white, or even on your monitor screen, which makes it a physical entity, is THAT the criteria for it to be synthetic?

Dude, if that's the logic you're applying, then I ask you to step back and look at yourself, or whoever put forward this statement.

The statements thought or decisions reached (or anything analytical) has come about through thoughts. To simply link that to the most basic of physical reality is a cinch. (You thought therefore your brain cells worked, therefore it was physical)

That logic is just ****ed up.

Right ... the truth

consider an apple. You might say it's coloured green, I say it's coloured red. Who is right ? Who tells the truth ?

Or better : isn't truth the result of generally accepted definitions ?

Behemoth

I must admit that I am still in the dark as to what you are getting at and Kedaman's illustration does nothing to make it any clearer (to me anyway).

mendhak

That is not my opinion. I am just trying to convey the point of the guy I have been arguing against. He claims that there is no such thing as analytic statements and that all we know, we know through experience.

I don't actually agree with that but that's his line of thought.

Wally Pipp

Quote:

---

isn't truth the result of generally accepted definitions ?

---

You seem to be claiming the opposite: that there is no such thing as synthetic statements and the truth of all statements is determined by the truth of it's definitions.

I suppose he would argue: how do know what is "commonly accepted?" Through experience, right? Therefore you learn about common definitions through experience and thus they are synthetic.

I must admit that ths subject is starting to do my head in. :rolleyes:

And what evidence against it are you going to bring on ?

You are talking about absolute truth and I talk about relative naming of the 'truth'.
You see it green and the rest of the world sees it as green therefore it must be green ? That's not really valid, is it ?

People have argued for centuries about the shape of our planet (flat or round) until they ended up at their departing point without falling off.

My idea is that truth is a direct result of how we perceive our surroundings. The fundamental definitions are open for interpretations.

I mean : why exactly is green green ? If I see a circle as a 'square' then I see it that way. Does it invalidate the 'truth' ?

If you can argue about the semantics of it, how do you argue about the nature of it ?

Besides, 'truth' is a bit adaptable : what we now see as truth could change in a 100 years (f.e. our knowledge about the nature of the universe)

Quote:

---

Simon d00d
That is not my opinion. I am just trying to convey the point of the guy I have been arguing against. He claims that there is no such thing as analytic statements and that all we know, we know through experience.

I don't actually agree with that but that's his line of thought.

---

OK, now I see what you're getting at. But is there any other line of thought that thoroughly counters his? More importantly, do his ideas reference any other set of ideas, and does it properly debunk them?

Creating an idea pertaining to a tiny concept, or to no other concept may be easy, especially when very few other ideas upon the same exist.

Of course I don't know as much as this as you do, you probably went into reading this person's paper. I haven't.

My argument is that whether or not all statements can be distilled down to synthetic statements on the basis of your definition of synthetic, this is not useful to us.

Wally has shown that the whole discussion can be turned around, and that all synthetic statements can be regarded as analytical.

Thus, the categorisation is almost arbitrary. I believe the definitions of "analytical" and "synthetic" are too generic to be of use in this cas.

Wally

I am not really interested (at this point in time) of discussing the nature of truth itself. I am more concerned with knowledge and the types of statements we can make.

Is it possible to make statements that do not concern the nature of reality (or at least our experience of it)?

mendhak

Well, I believe that we grasp abstract concepts (that do not concern the nature of reality) by making intuitive leaps. Thus we learn about the nature of numbers through an intuitive leap of understanding and can therefore make statements such as "1+1=2" based on this understanding and not on experience.

You said there Simon : understanding.
If I understand different than you then my 'truth' derived from my observations could be entirely different. It's in other words not enough to say "I open this box and I see 2 oranges thus there must be 2 oranges".

The "because I see them" argument is not a valid argument, it's an observation. If I say that I see 3 oranges then we're both in a philosophical conundrum.

Thus truth itself is a generally accepted rule.
There may be a unique 'truth' out there but we're bound to our obsevations and understanding of it and therefore not in a position to judge what is fundamentally true.

We only convey our truth. Many people believe that there may be phenomenons that we cannot understand or describe, others call it superstition or misconception or blatantly say that they do not exist and are solely confined to the realms of fantasy.

(the god thing I've argued before may be explained this way but their analysis of the situation is so flawed and contradictory that I choose not to make a decision about it. I only wished that they stopped bugging us with their conversion tactics ;))

My truth, simon, is very similar to yours when it comes to basic things like colour but could be fundamentally different when we're discussing the nature of time for instance.

Therefore I say that we, humans with our limited understanding and our inevitable bond with our own observations, cannot speak about the true nature of reality and truth

Wally

What you are saying is a perfectly valid point but I don't see the relevance to this topic of conversation.

I think it is simon.

The synthetic are not a premise to abstract truths simply because truth is bound to observation and own knowledge.

If your friend says that you can only derive that '1+1=2' from a physical example then what happens if that physical example doesn't present itself to him before he makes the statement ? Can he verify the validity of the statement without prior knowledge ? Can he verify why I would be wrong if I said to him 'in my knowledge and experience, that is not true' ?

No, he can't therefore reality and truth are bound to the individual's knowledge and observations.

Abstract and relative : You assume that 1 + 1 = 2 because you see it and you know from experience that it is so in your opinion but it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

His synthetic (empirical) statements are a direct result of how he perceives the world and bound to him. The fact that it is generally accepted to be true doesn't change that.

So in short : it's all down on how you look at it :)

It's the possibility vs undeniable rock solid true.

Wally

Quote:

---

Abstract and relative : You assume that 1 + 1 = 2 because you see it and you know from experience that it is so in your opinion but it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

---

Ah! So you are saying that we know "1+1=2" through experience and is therefore a synthetic statement. I would contend that we cannot know such a concept through experience as it is purely analytical in nature and it's truth (or falsehood) rests on the way we define the terms in that statement. I define the terms "1", "+", "=" & "2" in such a way that to conjoin them in such a fasion: "1+1=2" is to proclaim a true statement.

No experience can refute or verify that statement because it does not derive it's truth from my experience. It derives it's truth from the way I define it's terminology.

Of course, you may not define the terms of that statement in the same way that I do and, in your case, it may not be true (and this is the point you are making, is it not?)

However, I don't care that we each might make our own definitions, the point is that the truth of an analytical statement rests purely on the way we define the terms and not on experience.

The point was the one that Behemoth made earlier : synthetic and abstract are too vague a term to be used to its full potential.
You cannot know the fundamental truth, the real reason why a statement is true or false.

I didn't mean that I know out of experience that 1+2=2, I merely pointed out that some people assume that it is so because their experience tells them so but that doesn't mean that they are right

I've turned the logic around, I've used your logic and I already ended up in 2 different modi of looking at 'the truth'.
You only see the truth as you experience it, bound by your knowledge and limited by your observations.
You simply cannot say 'This is the truth', neither with synthetic nor with abstract.

So I say that truth may be abstract insofar that they relate to your reality and that you cannot fundamentally prove why they are true. As said before, simply looking at things and then make a statement is not a proof for truth in either form.

Back to the apple statement. Synthetically you would say 'this apple is green because I see it green' and abstractly (sp?) you would simply define the apple of the green colour.

But what is green ? What if I say it's red ? What if I say it's not an apple ? What if I change the definitions ? Then what happens ?

In short : your classification (as behemoth says) is limited and vague because that classification is bound to you and your knowledge.

Determining the true nature of reality, the true nature of truth, the true nature of statements cannot be done by our limited views.

Your friend says that synthetic comes before abstract. I say that that statement comes forth out of his own experience and doesn't necessarily means that he is right.

What if I said 1+1=3 ? What would you bring on as evidence to say I'm wrong ? Surely evidence that comes out of your experience right ? How did you get to that experience ? By assuming that 1 means a unique entity, that + means add (whatever value you give that definition), that = means equals and that 2 means one unique entity and again the same unique entity.
What if I say that + means subtract (whatever value I choose to give it) ? Then your statement changes fundamentally.

So in short : his statement is in my opinion a false one simply because he made it out of his own experience just as my statements may be false as they come out of my experience.
We cannot know the true nature of truth, much less divide it in categories that are unique and comprehensive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp

Suppose x is your numerator and y is your denominator. Then you could say that the quotient

---

Well I think you're just showing off that you can remember which of these is which.

And Behemoth, what's all this "sinews of your stones" bollox.

Wally Pipp

Believe me, you are missing the point of what I am getting at and I shall attempt to illustrate why.

Quote:

---

What if I said 1+1=3 ? What would you bring on as evidence to say I'm wrong ? Surely evidence that comes out of your experience right ?

---

If "1+1=3" was a synthetic statement, then I could attempt to provide evidence that either confirmed or refuted it.

However, since it is my assertion that "1+1=3" is an analytic statement, there is no such evidence (even in principle) that could confirm or refute it. It's truth is not determined by experience. It's truth is determined by the way I define it's terminology.

Quote:

---

What if I say that + means subtract (whatever value I choose to give it) ? Then your statement changes fundamentally.

---

That is precisely the point I am making. If you define the terminology differently than I do, then it is no longer a true statement. It's truth rests on the definition of it's terminology.

Quote:

---

So in short : his statement is in my opinion a false one simply because he made it out of his own experience just as my statements may be false as they come out of my experience.
We cannot know the true nature of truth, much less divide it in categories that are unique and comprehensive.

---

When it comes to synthetic statements, I agree with you 100%. We cannot know that a statement is true (with absolute certainty). The truth of a synthetic statement rests on the observational evidence and we have no way of verifying the reliability of our senses.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Brown


Well I think you're just showing off that you can remember which of these is which.

And Behemoth, what's all this "sinews of your stones" bollox.

---

It means I've got big balls, dunnit? or some other biblical nonsense :p :D

Simon

Quote:

---

When it comes to synthetic statements, I agree with you 100%. We cannot know that a statement is true (with absolute certainty). The truth of a synthetic statement rests on the observational evidence and we have no way of verifying the reliability of our senses.

---

As I think you just have made it clear that nobody can give you a satisfactory answer, I want to ask you why you keep questioning truth and reality.

I'm also used to seeing you put "with absolute certainty" in parentesis, whats your point simon? Is there any certainty at all and how do you define it?

if you want everything to be simple and easy to comprehend, consider that all statements are either theorems or axioms

Kedaman

Quote:

---

As I think you just have made it clear that nobody can give you a satisfactory answer, I want to ask you why you keep questioning truth and reality.

---

I would have thought it clear that this thread is not about questioning truth and reality, but how we formulate knowledge and statements.

Quote:

---

I'm also used to seeing you put "with absolute certainty" in parentesis, whats your point simon? Is there any certainty at all and how do you define it?

---

I think that we can, under many circumstances, obtain a high level of certainty. We can endeavour to reduce the element of doubt to neglible levels but we cannot reduce it out of existance.

Simon

Quote:

---

I would have thought it clear that this thread is not about questioning truth and reality, but how we formulate knowledge and statements.

---

Well I thought we had made it clear that analytic statements must

Quote:

---

ultimately be synthetic

---

and synthetic statements cannot be verified.

Quote:

---

I think that we can, under many circumstances, obtain a high level of certainty. We can endeavour to reduce the element of doubt to neglible levels but we cannot reduce it out of existance.

---

what makes something more certain than something else? I remeber that dealing with science game you had me playing with for a while without success, if you were to agree with Popper, then you would say that a statement is true until falsified, and since all statements are synthetic, they're all either true or false.

I would like to point out that my synthetic statement that there is no such thing as reality has not yet been falsified and thus is true.

Quote:

---

There are two main philosophical positions concerning the status of scientific laws - the realist and the anti-realist. Realists claim there are laws governing the universe and that the laws and hypotheses that scientists put forward are either correct, or are somehow like the real laws. Anti-realists claim that the laws we make are useful but can never be true, as there are actually no laws existing in the universe that our theories could correspond to. Scientist may make increasingly predictive laws but these will always be the constructions of a human mind using human concepts and interpretations and can in no way relate to the real universe.

The game you have just played assumed a realist position, in other words there was actually a law (a rule) that dictated whether the cards were accepted or not, and this law was written in terms that humans are familiar with. Imagine that there was no law, or that the law was written using algorithms of a kind not known to humans. Would this change the way you approached trying to crack the code? Does it matter whether a scientist is realist or anti-realist?

---

my answer is yes, the realist is less openminded

Kedaman

Quote:

---

what makes something more certain than something else?

---

Well, when it comes to synthetic statements, the more observational evidence we aquire that corroborates the statement, the more certain it becomes.

As for statements of generalisation, the more ways in which such statements can be falsified, the better they are.

Quote:

---

I remeber that dealing with science game you had me playing with for a while without success, if you were to agree with Popper, then you would say that a statement is true until falsified, and since all statements are synthetic, they're all either true or false.

---

You misunderstand Popper if you believe that. Statements are not considered true until falsified. They are considered potentially true. No scientific statements are ever considered justified or true.

When comparing scientific theories, the theory with the greatest chance of being falsified (the one that can be falsified in more ways) is preferred over the other.

Quote:

---

I would like to point out that my synthetic statement that there is no such thing as reality has not yet been falsified and thus is true.

---

Could I ask you in exactly what way can the above statement be falsified? What event or occurence would falsify such a statement? I cannot think of one so that makes it a very poor scientific statement indeed.

Simon
What's the use of having only false and potentially true statements? For logic to be applied you need axiomatic approaches. Besides, isn't it possible that a falsified statement can be reverted to potentially true, since observational evidence doesn't justify anything?

Quote:

---

Well, when it comes to synthetic statements, the more observational evidence we aquire that corroborates the statement, the more certain it becomes.

---

Isn't that a bit how inductionists think? Why does the event of falsification become less probable if you have more correct applications of your statement?

Quote:

---

Could I ask you in exactly what way can the above statement be falsified? What event or occurence would falsify such a statement? I cannot think of one so that makes it a very poor scientific statement indeed.

---

well the occurance of a reality of course, to me this happens in all events i apply the notation of a reality, but for most of you its just a static belief with no possible way of verification. Once you've discovered the nature of reality, it can occur to you as well.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

What's the use of having only false and potentially true statements? For logic to be applied you need axiomatic approaches. Besides, isn't it possible that a falsified statement can be reverted to potentially true, since observational evidence doesn't justify anything?

---

OK, according to Popper, the purpose of science is to weed out the false theories (from an array of conjectured hypothesis) and from those left, select the best one. Eventually, you end up with the best available theory and go with that. The benefit of not having actually true theories is that you keep things open to revision. You acknowledge the fact that one day a new and better theory may come along and usurp the previously held one.

The reason why observational evidence doesn't justify anything is, not because it might be erroneous (although that is a valid point in itself), but because any finite collection of observations may be consistant with an infinite number of potential theories.

Assuming that an observation is valid, if it does not falsify your particular theory, it doesn't mean that your theory is in anyway justified. There are an infinite number of other theories that would also not be falsified by this observation.

That is why an observation can falsify but not confirm a theory.

Quote:

---

Isn't that a bit how inductionists think? Why does the event of falsification become less probable if you have more correct applications of your statement?

---

I was refering to non-generalisation statements (such as "there is a chair in the den") which can be confirmed by observation.

Simon
If there's two sets of statements, one with falsified, one with potentially true statements. When to extend the potentially true set with another statement is it more important that it is consistent with earlier potentially true statements or more important that it is consistent with observations?

Kedaman
If you have a theory that has not yet been falsified and you wish to extend it by adding additional assertions, the new statement(s) should be consistant with both previous statements and observations.

If a theory contains two statements that predict contrary observations, one of them will be falsified when tested, right?

Simon
not sure how you can have such a theory, I wasn't actually talking about that, I was refering to the set of all statements that still are potentially true, they can be inconsistent with each other right? I think a theory would have to be selfconsistent while two theories can predict contradictory observations while being potentially true, am I right?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I think a theory would have to be selfconsistent while two theories can predict contradictory observations while being potentially true, am I right?

---

I suppose that is correct but a scientist would endeavour to test these conflicting theories until one or the other was falsified.