Can anything really be true/false? - General

We've never encountered an axiom of reality though. For instance, Euclid's postulates were intended to be true of all space, then non-Euclidian geometry happened. [editline]26th December 2011[/editline] If they were provably wrong, they couldn't have really been axioms.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33911912]We've never encountered an axiom of reality though. For instance, Euclid's postulates were intended to be true of all space, then non-Euclidian geometry happened.[/QUOTE] what do you mean? I am no longer talking about math axioms. I mean the axioms we use in science, to describe our world. For example, I assume that "I can perceive reality with my senses". But what if that axiom is false? what if I am in a lucid dream, and don't know it? if that was true, I could never prove anything related to reality, since I cannot sense it.

That's not really an axiom, that's just a guiding principle. When I refer to an axiom, I am referring to it in the mathematical sense. That's all that's really necessary anyway because showing that things can be mathematically true is enough to answer the OP.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33912053]That's not really an axiom, that's just a guiding principle. When I refer to an axiom, I am referring to it in the mathematical sense. That's all that's really necessary anyway because showing that things can be mathematically true is enough to answer the OP.[/QUOTE] No, it's not actually. It's a fine concept, but it's still created by human minds. I realize that I come off as a stubborn fuck that won't accept any arguments, but can you really say that "it's mathematically true, therefore we can conclude that it's true"? Math was created by human minds. How can we prove that what the human mind concocts is true? Maths might solve a problem, but both the maths and the problem were created by humans. Seeing as the human mind is as limited as it is, how can we trust ourselves and all the "answers"?

Math wasn't created by human minds, at least not all of it. The basic concept of the number corresponds to a real thing, does it not?

"Eyes were created, and the universe could see" Numbers wouldn't exist unless we created them, would they? Any concept, really, was created by us. We percieve the world, and process information given to us through a human mind. Can it be trusted?

[QUOTE=Pampers;33913618]Numbers wouldn't exist unless we created them, would they?[/QUOTE] So even if humans did not exist, two planets could not orbit each other?

We were created in a universe, weren't we? I don't know what would be, and what wouldn't, if we did or did not exist. Fact of the matter is that we exist. We are capable of self-conciousness, but how can our conciousness and creations be trusted?

Is today undergrad philosophy major appeal to skepticism day

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33913641]So even if humans did not exist, two planets could not orbit each other?[/QUOTE] of course they could. But we invented math, as a way to describe and explain what is going on.

[QUOTE=Pampers;33913694]We were created in a universe, weren't we? I don't know what would be, and what wouldn't, if we did or did not exist. Fact of the matter is that we exist. We are capable of self-conciousness, but how can our conciousness and creations be trusted?[/QUOTE] Sounds like you're thinking more along the lines of the "is anything real?" thread.

The emphasis there was "how can our consciousness and creations be trusted?"

As I said; I realize that I probably come off as stubborn, possibly also retarded, arrogant shit, but I'm confused. Most discussions have good arguments on either sides, so what is determined as an absolute truth? I don't know anything about philosophy, and I can't name any philosophers (except Platon, Aristoteles and some other ancient greek guys I can't remember), I'm just asking questions to get some alternative views.

[QUOTE=Pampers;33908869]These are all human truths. Science, math, and the very concept of true/false was created by us. Therefor; can anything be true/false?[/QUOTE] Truth and Falsity are not human concepts. They are concepts inherent to the universe, accessible only to consciousnesses. If the universe was devoid of humans 2 + 2 would still not make 5.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;33914492]Truth and Falsity are not human concepts. They are concepts inherent to the universe, accessible only to consciousnesses. If the universe was devoid of humans 2 + 2 would still not make 5.[/QUOTE] But Science is not so. How can we be sure that what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is real?

there isn't really anything we as humans can define as true or false, but not true or not false is possible within the scope of our intelligence.

[QUOTE=Pampers;33908869]These are all human truths. Science, math, and the very concept of true/false was created by us. Therefor; can anything be true/false?[/QUOTE] Everything,but the universe/beings were created by us. But since big bang wasn't and isn't a conscious being but an occurrence,we can't get answers from it. Even the phrases true and false and their meanings were invented by US. About what other than ''human truths'' do you wish to hear of? Alien truths?God's truths?

-blabla fucking bla

[QUOTE=Science;33907972]true = true true != false false = false Im pretty sure all of them statements are true.[/QUOTE] Actually they're only axiomatic. Our whole logical framework necessitates that something cannot be true and false simultaneously, otherwise something called explosivity (where we can prove that literally every proposition conceivable is both true and false simultaneously). There's no reason in itself why something cannot be true and not true, except for it fucking logic up the bum if it were. [editline]4th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33915443]But Science is not so. How can we be sure that what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is real?[/QUOTE] Philosophically speaking, we have no reason to believe there is an external world beyond our perceptions. So yeah, we can't be sure any of our perceptions are "real" in the sense of existing beyond our perception.

"Can anything really be true/false?" No.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33913738]Is today undergrad philosophy major appeal to skepticism day[/QUOTE] And if it is, [i]is it really?[/i] I think false is a human (or any being with sentience) concept but true isn't. If it wasn't for sentience everything would be truth because that's just what would be. For false to exist there needs to be someone or something presenting alternatives to what truly is, right?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34047972]And if it is, [i]is it really?[/i] I think false is a human (or any being with sentience) concept but true isn't. If it wasn't for sentience everything would be truth because that's just what would be. For false to exist there needs to be someone or something presenting alternatives to what truly is, right?[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure. In philosophy we talk of a domain of 'the true' propositions and 'the false' propositions. The false is just infinitely bigger than the true, but they still compliment each other. The statement "there are no planets" is false independently of sentience, in exactly the same way as "there are planets" is true independently. I get what you mean though, because it seems that sentience is required for propositioning to actually take place. There's definitely a lot of metaphysical problems with reifying propositions (i.e. saying there is an actual domain of propositions in your ontology). However I think the most consistent view is that there is a truth out there, but you have to assume the axioms of logic are true (which I think is a much bigger admission than a lot of other people do). Which isn't to say there has to be an external world for there to be truth. My perceptions could literally be the whole world, and I could still make true propositions, for example "there is perception".