2 of 2
2
Another “Help with my philosophy class” thread
Posted: 16 February 2010 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
Kaizen - 16 February 2010 12:51 AM

RE: Your comment on truth, while I agree that truth should remain consistent regardless of any subject’s opinions, my understanding of truth is that it is basically a statement/proposition that aligns with reality. So if no one existed, there would be no one to express any “truths”, but there would be reality. Not really a disagreement with what you’ve said, just adding.

I’d put that a little differently. A proposition is an abstract object which basically is made up of a possible state of affairs. Each meaningful statement represents a proposition. If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2010 07:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
WeeDie - 16 February 2010 06:27 AM

A reality would never “be”, without subject. God is the unifying factor of Being - the transcendental object that brings all together. From God emanates dharma, the stream that brings one to the recognition of how Love works its way to fulfill Life, or Being. With practice and sincerity, this truth can be Remembered more and more frequently, until one abides in Love as a permanent state, empty of form.

That’s nice and all, but this post is simply making assertions without any supporting evidence to back up its case. Are the readers of this suppose to just accept this without question?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2010 07:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
dougsmith - 16 February 2010 07:32 AM
Kaizen - 16 February 2010 12:51 AM

RE: Your comment on truth, while I agree that truth should remain consistent regardless of any subject’s opinions, my understanding of truth is that it is basically a statement/proposition that aligns with reality. So if no one existed, there would be no one to express any “truths”, but there would be reality. Not really a disagreement with what you’ve said, just adding.

I’d put that a little differently. A proposition is an abstract object which basically is made up of a possible state of affairs. Each meaningful statement represents a proposition. If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

Thank you Doug for your insight and that clarification.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2010 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 16 February 2010 07:32 AM

I’d put that a little differently. A proposition is an abstract object which basically is made up of a possible state of affairs. Each meaningful statement represents a proposition. If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

Hi Doug,

I find this very difficult to understand, I hope I’m going to ask a couple of worthwhile questions.

1) How do we distinguish between true propositions and facts? What I’m getting at is presumably many of these “possible states of affairs which are actual” are contrary to fact.

2) Facts are timeless, things that are true today were true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. And so it seems to me these facts are somehow separate to the “possible states of affairs which are actual”, as they seem to be time bound. How does your theory account for this?

Hope I’m making some sense.

Stephen

[ Edited: 17 February 2010 01:35 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2010 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
StephenLawrence - 17 February 2010 01:33 PM

1) How do we distinguish between true propositions and facts? What I’m getting at is presumably many of these “possible states of affairs which are actual” are contrary to fact.

It’s been awhile, so I’m a bit fuzzy here. But basically true propositions are facts.

I don’t see how an actual state of affairs (= a possible state of affairs which is actual) can be contrary to fact.

StephenLawrence - 17 February 2010 01:33 PM

2) Facts are timeless, things that are true today were true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. And so it seems to me these facts are somehow separate to the “possible states of affairs which are actual”, as they seem to be time bound. How does your theory account for this?

A state of affairs is something like an ordered set of variables, Property P in four dimensional spacetime x,y,z,t. Such a thing is then true timelessly. (E.g., it’s timelessly true that it’s 33º F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2010 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 17 February 2010 01:55 PM

A state of affairs is something like an ordered set of variables, Property P in four dimensional spacetime x,y,z,t.

Ok

Such a thing is then true timelessly. (E.g., it’s timelessly true that it’s 33º F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010).

Or E.G., it’s true today that it was 33 degrees F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010.

I still can’t help thinking there are two things here, it’s happening yesterday and it’s truth today,  so there is what happened and the timeless fact, perhaps it’s just that this is too hard to imagine for me.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2010 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
StephenLawrence - 18 February 2010 10:29 AM

Or E.G., it’s true today that it was 33 degrees F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010.

Right. Or it was true on Feb. 12, 1998 that it will be 33 degrees F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2010 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 18 February 2010 10:33 AM
StephenLawrence - 18 February 2010 10:29 AM

Or E.G., it’s true today that it was 33 degrees F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010.

Right. Or it was true on Feb. 12, 1998 that it will be 33 degrees F. in NYC at 3:54pm EST on Feb 17, 2010.

Yes, I’m working with this view. I’m not absolutely sure about it (as if I am of anything grin ) a friend showed surprise at this view the other day , expressing the view that there are not facts about things that haven’t happened yet. I gave an argument against that but his intuitive response rings an intuitive bell with me too.

With regard to this specific topic, my problem is the event on feb 17th and it’s truth on feb 12th appear to be two separate things to me, not one and the same thing. If I’m going to drop any tendancies towards idealism (I guess I should) then I can understand there being states of affairs at particular times, but not facts about those states of affairs at different times, without the presence of an observer.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2010 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-02-11

If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

There were no people 4 million years ago, but does that entail that there no matter-of-fact about whether the earth was covered in lava?  You might say that there is, but only because there are now people who can make a statements about it. It would follow, then, that “the earth was (is) covered in lava” would not become a fact until someone learned how to make statements. Doesn’t this seem to you to be a little absurd?

Also, I’m not sure what your getting at with “possible states of affairs which are actual”—why not just say “actual states of affairs”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2010 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
aroyal641 - 19 March 2010 05:21 PM

If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

There were no people 4 million years ago, but does that entail that there no matter-of-fact about whether the earth was covered in lava?  You might say that there is, but only because there are now people who can make a statements about it. It would follow, then, that “the earth was (is) covered in lava” would not become a fact until someone learned how to make statements. Doesn’t this seem to you to be a little absurd?

Sure, that’s absurd. A statement is a sentence uttered or written by someone. There weren’t any of those until there were people to make them. But what there were were true propositions, where a proposition is a possible state of affairs, and a true proposition is an actual state of affairs.

aroyal641 - 19 March 2010 05:21 PM

Also, I’m not sure what your getting at with “possible states of affairs which are actual”—why not just say “actual states of affairs”?

It’s a pedantic construction, I agree. But the reason I say it is that there are propositions of all kinds, including those that denote nonactual states of affairs (= false propositions).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2010 12:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-02-11

ok. that sounds about right

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2010 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 19 March 2010 05:31 PM

 

Sure, that’s absurd. A statement is a sentence uttered or written by someone. There weren’t any of those until there were people to make them. But what there were were true propositions, where a proposition is a possible state of affairs, and a true proposition is an actual state of affairs.

So there were actual states of affairs.

And more than that in your view? What I’m interested in, of course, is possible non actual states of affairs, or I think a good clear way of putting it is contrary to fact possibilities. These also were there in some sense, independent of our statements?

Stephen

[ Edited: 20 March 2010 10:10 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2010 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
StephenLawrence - 20 March 2010 10:08 AM

So there were actual states of affairs.

And more than that in your view? What I’m interested in, of course, is possible non actual states of affairs, or I think a good clear way of putting it is contrary to fact possibilities. These also were there in some sense, independent of our statements?

Yes. At the very least, they are constructed out of mereological additions of the things and properties that actually exist. (E.g., there are swans, and there is the color green, so there are possible but nonactual green swans).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2010 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
StephenLawrence - 17 February 2010 01:33 PM
dougsmith - 16 February 2010 07:32 AM

I’d put that a little differently. A proposition is an abstract object which basically is made up of a possible state of affairs. Each meaningful statement represents a proposition. If there were no people, there would be no statements, and hence a fortiori no true statements, but there would be an infinite number of true propositions. (= possible states of affairs which are actual).

Hi Doug,

I find this very difficult to understand, I hope I’m going to ask a couple of worthwhile questions.

1) How do we distinguish between true propositions and facts? What I’m getting at is presumably many of these “possible states of affairs which are actual” are contrary to fact.

2) Facts are timeless, things that are true today were true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. And so it seems to me these facts are somehow separate to the “possible states of affairs which are actual”, as they seem to be time bound. How does your theory account for this?

Hope I’m making some sense.

Stephen

Does the “cat in the box” have application here?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2010 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15304
Joined  2006-02-14
Write4U - 20 March 2010 02:18 PM

Does the “cat in the box” have application here?

I think Schrödinger’s cat is a separate issue.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Intelligent Design and Ethics      . ››