JThunder wrote:
Well, no. Presuming what you mean by “rest on”, tautologies rest on the fact that they are redundant.
Ramanujan wrote:
Because they cannot be false; therefore, they are absolutely true.
Owlofcreamcheese wrote:
Exactly. It is a trivially easy matter to make pigs fly: simply define “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”.
there’s a simple answer to all this. Truth can only exist for things in the past (it’s all part of collapsing probability waves and other esoteric stuff). It is impossible to make a truthful statement about something either in the present or on the future, you can only predict statistically what may happen.
Redundant, yes… but IN A WAY THAT REQUIRES SOME OF THEIR COMPONENT CONDITIONS TO BE TRUE.
Consider the simplest tautology, “A or NOT A”. This tautology rests on the fact that at least one of its components (i.e. “A” or “NOT A”) is true, and these components need not be tautologies themselves. (In fact, if one of them WERE a tautology, then the complementary condition would be completely unnecessary!)
In other words, the very definition of a tautology REQUIRES some non-tautological conditions to be true. Ergo, tautologies are not the only statements which are true.
Really? It seems to me that you’re predicting that future statements can not be considered truthful.
Besides which, I think you’re confusing “truthfulness” with “certainty.” The statement “the sun will rise tomorrow” may indeed be true, but this does not make it certain.
JThunder wrote:
Nice try. But it isn’t a matter of whether one or the other component (term, actually) is true. They may, in fact, both be false. It is a matter that the terms contradict. Remember that everything proves a tautology, whereas a contradiction proves anything.
I think I am going to start a thread about how logic is meaningless. I remember getting into a mini-debate about that with another poster, too.
Interested parties keep an eye out.
I’ll be on your side. Looking forward to it.
NO. In my explanation, specifically identified the component terms as “A” and “NOT A.” According to the rules of symbolic logic, if “A” is false, then “NOT A” is true – and conversely, if “NOT A” is false, then “A” is true.
So if you have a tautology, then you MUST have at least one component term which is TRUE, and this term need not be a tautology itself! (In fact, if it were, then the original tautology would be foolishly excessive, as it could ultimately be rephrased as “TRUE or NOT TRUE.” Sheesh.)
I would be very interested in seeing the “logic” by which you argue that position.
A term can’t be a tautology since a term has no logical relation. But now, you’re invoking the Principle of Noncontradiction, itself a tautology. That’s why I’m on Eris’s side.
Logic is a house of cards and mirrors. That’s why it describes the universe — an illusion — so well.
Instead, you should have said “statements about the future cannot be considered truthful”. This is obvious.
Indeed, there is no such thing as “certainty”. At the particle level, only statistical probability exists. Since we are all made up of particles, the same goes for us. Of course, the larger the number of particles, the closer behaviour will be to statistical norms, so we can get very, very close to certainty, but we’re never actually there.
This is very encouraging, because it means that you could (maybe) live forever. However, don’t cancel your life insurance policies, just in case!
I am quite certain my name is erislover. Quantum physics or not.
originally posted by rampisad
Therefore the uncertain is a certainty.
Eris wrote:
That’s just a shortcut. What you’re certain of is that there is a consistent one-to-one relation maintained between your username and the name that appears in the left margin. Would you still be certain you are “erislover” if the software insisted — consistently — that you are “gagnard”?
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? It would take a novel’s worth of events to convince me my name isn’t erislover (unless I changed my name, though to be honest I am tempted to get people IRL to call me erl). And I only say that because, in fact, I am not a novelist. Perhaps if I could write a novel I wouldn’t say that. Can all belief be suspended in fiction?
I made up a thought experiment once (at least, I don’t recall reading it before I thought of it; it is possible I’ve committed some theft of ideas here) about a man who, every day, insists his name is [something different than it was yesterday]. For example, yesterday he insisted his name was Frank, and today when I called him Frank he insisted his name is not Frank, it is George.
Otherwise, he acts completely normal. First question is, what do we call him? Second question is, though I didn’t specifically mention it, was the man quite irritated by our calling him different names because we were always doing that? (That is, is that how you imagined the situation as you read it?)
Anyway, something to amuse one’s self by.
No. It is obvious that somethings about the future MIGHT not be truthful. That does not mean that they are untruthful.
Are you certain of that?
sigh Not everything is quantum phenomenon, y’know. What about principles of logic, or morality? For that matter, how certain are you that these laws of quantum probability will apply in the future?
You seem quite certain that nothing is certain, and quite convinced of the future “truth” that future events can not be considered truthful. Interesting.
First of all, a term can have a logical relation, insofar as it can be a logical postulate. Either way, the point remains — you have just admitted that there are things which can be TRUE, but which are not tautologies.
And the Principle of Noncontradiction is NOT a tautology. It is an axiom, just as all the fundamental principles of symbolic logic are. These are the principles which are used to prove that a statement is tautological. They are not tautologies themselves.
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answering said, `I do confess to Thee, Father, Lord of the heavens and of the earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and understanding ones, and didst reveal them to babes.
JThunder wrote:
The relation is not a part of the term, but of the sentence.
Huh? When have I ever denied that? Sure, a statement can be true while not being absolutely true. But take a peek at the topic’s title.
“Axiom” and “tautology” are not mutually exclusive terms. Just as a man can be both a husband and a father, a statement can be both unproven and redundant.
A statement is tautological if it is always true, or, as I prefer to say, absolutely true.
I may as well chime in my favorite absolute:
Difference.
That is a phenomenal concept right there. It cannot be reduced, and is widely understood. Granted; it’s so true that olny using a 2d pictoral or symbol line might make it impossible to communicate without telling someone what it is already.
A=A refutes itself with the absolute of difference. “A” cannot equal itself, it can only equal something else - as lack of discernment or discernability as being an existent quality which pervades everything is so rediculous, as to render it false for all possible possibilities.
Moving into derivations and/or extractions from the concept of difference becomes a matter of whether or not it reveals itself as postulating difference into a monism as absolute.
If this occurs, it violates the concept of difference and is considered IMO, the most false thing which could be uttered in the realm of intent or even an illusion of intent.
-Justhink