. How does one know that he knows? - One of the most relevant questions in all Philosophy.
The default presumption is to presume based upon intuitive probabilities. That is how people knew that the Earth was flat, floating in a bowl of ocean water supported by an elephant riding on the back of a turtle… until Atlas came along.
An “angel” in scriptural lingo refers to an idea, thought, or strategy (similar to a con man’s “angle”). And as it turns out there are three thoughts that provide proof of truth. There must be a unanimous vote of the three angels. The word “true” merely means “accurately aligned”, usually referring to the alignment between a statement or claim and objective, physical reality.
Given a specific ontology (and avoiding the common presumption that everyone is using the same ontology), one can certainly know that he knows with certainty if he can confirm that his thoughts have the following attributes;
A) Consistency/Coherence B) Comprehensiveness C) Relevancy
But then, how do I know that with certainty?
Because nothing else is Relevant concerning a proposed truth (aka “I don’t care about anything proposed as truth if it doesn’t meet that standard”) and I maintain that concern consistently and comprehensively. It is my Definition of “a truth” (thus “true by definition”).
Years ago, I was surprised to see those angels appear in a small booklet given to a set of churches regarding the proper method for interpreting the Bible. The author expressed them as a means to check one’s presumption of interpretation. I recognized them a little differently as not merely a means to know of a proper interpretation, but a means to know of the truth within any given ontology (the Bible being merely one and a different one than Science and thus one cannot intermix the elements).
How can you know if what Physics says to be true, really is true? Faith in what you are told by a media service (a mediator)?
Look merely for the definitions of the elements they propose and verify a unanimous vote of the “Three Angels of Truth”. You will find that they don’t know those angels very well and espouse some truths that aren’t. And you can know it with certainty even without being a physicist (“don’t mess with a good metaphyscist” ).
This is interesting to see you go into more depth on your concepts. Perhaps we can all make this a very serious and fulfilling topic.
The first thing that came to mind was your concept of correspondence - and then looking at the reality of the situation - which is that our pointers demonstrably never correspond to what they are pointing to. Referrent and that to which it refers.
So already we have lack of correspondence before we even begin discussing such things. You can’t properly call it a synthetic system, because there is no “real” system of reference from which to construct the synthetic.
You can call it a form of quantum entanglement, where we fuse an equality to things not equal…
All cars are the sky: and then we understand this quantum fusing even though it is absolutely an inequality - people say not to confuse the referent with the object, but taken literally on every level, we cannot even have this discussion !
So, I think the matter of correspondence lends itself to being more complex than you stated in the op.
Do you believe that anything call “true” should at least be consistent and/or coherent? If, as you say, “all cars are the sky”, then shouldn’t Ford’s and Chevy’s be the sky, else the statement “all cars are the sky” could not be true?
What I’m saying is that referential systems don’t have inherent universal mapping. And actually mages, people who practice dark/cursed arts will make driving cars effect the weather. But that’s a bit off the topic. The issue here is that we know the symbols we use to make correspondence theories, map arbitrarily. So to some extent it is a farce to approach truth in this way.
If you’ve ever watched the tv series and movie spin-offs for " stargate", I’m basically Daniel Jackson, someone who ascended and came back… That’s how I know all these things about mages and reference and other stuff. I dropped dead in august, and was resurrected. I still remember my time in the land of the dead pretty well.
I’m thinking of my other thread too…
But it’s important to understand that mages do this type of thing to referents, and the hell realms love to haze people with mixed referents.
Referents are the pointers. Then there is that to which we refer, sometimes called the referant (with an “a”). The referent of all referents is “referent”.
Well, if it was inconsistent or incoherent, wouldn’t it be obviously untrue?
If 4+4 = 4 it can’t also equal 3, right? That doesn’t mean that it IS equal to 4, but you know that something isn’t right if two statements are given that disagree with each other.
To normalize this discussion a bit, rather than get very odd on you, say you have multiple grids where position 4,4 is 4 on one and 3 on another …
Then it would be a matter of interpreting the grid being used, but what if 4,4 has infinitely different grids that yield 4 or 3. Then it becomes more difficult, to the point that we can’t even really say anything about it, even though we know something is true there.
The opposite of knowing and truth, is a braindead lifeless condition.
Even an ignorant creature can be conscious.
Death is like the lowest evel of consciousness we can go to.
Being alive is one of the biggest evidences that you have thoughts and know some things.
To disguise an issue wherein one doesn’t know what is true has nothing to do with this discussion. Right now, I have merely asked if you believe that contradicting statements can both be true … ?
Claiming that you don’t know which is true and thus “perhaps under the right circumstances the other will be true” is avoiding the question. Can both of contradicting statements be true at the same time, under the same circumstances, read the same way, by the same person, understanding them just as they were intended, knowing the language, and not seeking to merely be obstinate or self-centered.
Yes or No?
From what I understand, the longer you live, the more you discover that nothing you knew was real.
Ok James, there are instances where context can make contradictory statements both true… Such as color blindness and other instances where it can’t, such as I am typing this message, or this message is typed with the intent of being posted, which I know for sure right now.
Tell me how color blindness can cause contrary statements to be true.
Truth is about the statements made, not about physical reality. Physical reality is always 100% true with itself. There is no alternative for that. “True” means “perfectly aligned”. Statements that are perfectly aligned with reality are “true”. If the statement is not aligned with reality, the statement is “not true” [with reality]. Thus two statements made must both align with reality or at least one, perhaps both, is not aligned with reality and thus be not true.
That depends on what you mean by “possible”. That word is used in different ways.
We wish. Unfortunately math is also subject to misinterpretation (quite often), especially where quantum physics and relativity are concerned. Math is just logic applied to quantities. Any mistake that can be made using logic can be made using math (such as “2+2 = 22”). Neither logic nor math can ever be wrong, but either can be used in such a way as to convince others that it was wrong.
And how people test if something is wrong/untrue, is to see if it contradicts anything else known or accepted as right/true. People instinctively know that two statements cannot contradict each other and both be true (except quantum physicists).
).