Then im basically Jack Carter, or Jesus Christ, or MacGyver, the one who saves all of your asses when you’re delusional
We’re not really saviors, even the advocate knows when you’re guilty.
What do you refer to when you say “referents”? What is the referent of 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”.
What does that have to do with mages and witchcraft.
Because James is arguing correspondence, and mages can make all cars the sky through those cursed arts. That’s just barely scratching the surface.
It sounds off topic, but it’s very relevant.
It’s also something not many people know about, so it can sound like trolling.
Short answer: “you don’t want to experience these curses”!
Fine, but now answer my question.
Consistency and coherency work together to make something comprehensibly discernable, but is not about the veracity.
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.
If you’re alive enough, truth becomes obvious.
How about instead, just answer the question.
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.
For something to be physically true it has to be possible but that is all that is necessary
And so it does not have to be consistent or coherent or understood or anything else either
However if it is to be understood then it is necessary to know which methodologies to employ
So the two most reliable disciplines with regard to objective truth are mathematics and science
Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic which uses proof to validate its premises
It is the most rigorous discipline known to exist and is unique as it is immune to human interpretation
Science is marginally less rigorous because it is practised by human beings who are not incapable of error
Though the scientific method itself is as perfect a methodology as there is despite it being a human concept
And between them these two disciplines are the best for determining what may be labelled as objective truth
But this objective truth however only pertains to any observable physical phenomena or to mathematical premises
It cannot answer questions pertaining to anything else since that is the remit of disciplines like philosophy for example
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).
X is red, x is not red.
Simple. There are millions of examples of this.
Eating a peanut a day is healthy, eating a peanut kills
I can go on and on…
Well, assuming that you meant for the capital X and the small x to be the same referent, those are certainly contrary statements. But now, without adding special extraneous and biased interpretation of the words or sentences, explain how both statements can be true … and true to what?
Live and learn James …
Take a humble pill from a person you called psychotic beyond help in another thread.
That’s what color blindness is.
A) No, I did not.
B) you can’t answer the question?
You called me a true schizophrenic.
And yes, for some people red is red and for other people red us green.