Is there such a thing as truth

[TheMindRapist]

Who thinks there is such a thing as truth?

[Jesus_of_Suburbia]

Everything I say is a lie.

Did i blow your mind?

:\

Of course there is such a thing as truth, i'll demonstrate

0<1
100>34
92=92

All true statements

Can this be translated over to people? Sure.

Jim is taller than Sally
Sally has red hair
Jonas has 9 toes

Anything that can be empirically proven is either true or false, everything else is opinion.

ie:
Baseball is better than Football
Cheese tastes better with Wine
Apple makes the best products known to man

all subjective and opinionated, therefore not true.

Can you elaborate upon the subject and give us a reason why there is no such thing?

[TheMindRapist]

I agree with the numbers, and with the Jim is taller than Sally statement. But for the other two what if people have different definitions of red or toes. Who is right? Numbers and taller are more or logic statements in my opinion, which I failed to consider as things that could be true.

[Jesus_of_Suburbia]

I agree with the numbers, and with the Jim is taller than Sally statement. But for the other two what if people have different definitions of red or toes. Who is right? Numbers and taller are more or logic statements in my opinion, which I failed to consider as things that could be true.

What someone's definition of an idea (like color) is has no bearing on the truth.

Sally's hair is red
It is also rojo
If you are color blind it could be green

but regardless of what you call it, the same spectrum of light is refracted off of sally's hair

As for logic not being something that is considered true, thats rediculous. The only possible outcomes for a logic gate are true and false.

As i said before, anything that is not empirical is opinion and can never be true.

Republican is a political party in the USA
This is a true statement
All Republicans are Old Fat White men
This is an opinion
Frank is an Old Fat white man and a Republican
This is truth (assuming he is old, fat, white, and republican)
As a side note, "old" and "fat" are subjective, however you can empirically define these (ie: overweight, and older than the majority of people or however you want to benchmark age)

Truth exists, always will, always has.

[Kuja]

The best you can do, is define a system and then statements that are derivable from that system definition are 'truth' within that system.

[c24lightning]

I agree with the numbers, and with the Jim is taller than Sally statement. But for the other two what if people have different definitions of red or toes. Who is right? Numbers and taller are more or logic statements in my opinion, which I failed to consider as things that could be true.

What someone's definition of an idea (like color) is has no bearing on the truth.

Sally's hair is red
It is also rojo
If you are color blind it could be green

but regardless of what you call it, the same spectrum of light is refracted off of sally's hair

You are getting at how it isn't exclusive.
If you're color blind, it would be some shade of grey.

No matter what you call it, it still is one type.

0<1
100>34
92=92

Jim is taller than Sally
Sally has red hair
Jonas has 9 toes

Math is undesputable. But your logic doesn't follow completely when giving examples in 'real life'.

Jim is taller than Sally is equivelent to 0<1
Sally has red hair -- no. If you are saying that statement is equivelent to 100>34, you're wrong, if you are saying it's like 92=92, you're closer, but still wrong: you would be assigning Sally to every red thing. What if you have red hair? Then your hair is Sally? ...

Same with Jonas and 9 toes. Jonas is everything with 9 toes? ....

[Kalraken]

you would be assigning Sally to every red thing. What if you have red hair? Then your hair is Sally?

That does not assign Sally to everything red. The red hair is the subject. The sentence simply states that Sally has red hair somewhere on her body, has Red hair on her person, or owns red hair.

[Crystal_Bearer]

You're all still assuming a lot here. To say that there is a truth is to say that everything has definition. That is the most important thing here. It doesn't matter what that definition is, or even how you look at it. It doesn't matter if you can ever see or describe the truth... only that there IS one. There is a truth, and no, I cannot tell you the truth of anything. Everything is beyond a holistic definition, and is therefore subject to interpretation of said truth into what we like to call: 'Understanding'.

[c24lightning]

you would be assigning Sally to every red thing. What if you have red hair? Then your hair is Sally?

That does not assign Sally to everything red. The red hair is the subject. The sentence simply states that Sally has red hair somewhere on her body, has Red hair on her person, or owns red hair.

Please learn grammar!

Statement:
Sally has red hair. or Sally's hair is red..

"red hair" or "red" is not the subject. It is the predicate.

The understood quantifier of "Sally" is "All" (All Sally...).

Now in strict logical form, your statement is this (brackets separate terms):
All [Sally] is [that which has red hair]. or All [Sally's hair] is [that which is red].

Because the quantifier of [Sally] or [Sally's hair] is All, it is distributed. The predicate ([red hair] or [that which is red]) is always undistributed in universal affirmative statements, such as the two Sally statements.

If JoS was saying that those statements are equivilent to 92=92, he would be assigning [Sally] or [Sally's hair] to all [red things]. We know that some [red things] are not [Sally] or [Sally's hair], so JoS is wrong if he is saying it is equivilent to 92=92.


Kalraken, I'm a couple weeks away from completing my second year of logic. I have taken grammar for more than 8 years. You better be dang sure when you're saying I'm wrong.

_________________________________________________

Edit:
Back to the point of this topic..

JoS said "Everything I say is a lie." (or something very close to that).

I will expand on this:

"Everything I say is a lie."

If I lie about everything, then that statement is true, so I am telling the truth. But if that statement is true, then some things I say are not lies, including "Everything I say is a lie". That means that "Everything I say is a lie" must false. But if some things I say are not lies, my satement that "Everything I say is a lie" must also be false. This will go in a contradictory circle, much like "What came first - the chicken or the egg?" because you need one for the other, for example, a chicken can only come from an egg, but the egg is made by the chicken.

So there must be such a thing as truth, or else nothing could exist.
And if nothing exists, there is nothing that can be true because there is nothing to be true.

[Inferno96]

Courses in logic, what is the world coming to.

My answer to the topic is: maybe.