The Three Angels of Truth

[James S Saint]

.
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" ).

From a prior thread:

Sometimes you have a very metaphorical way of expression and I don't always understand it. You wrote, for example:

By using what I call "Resolution Debating" an entire forest of truly rational thought can be generated wherein every angel is named and everyone can find likemindedness all within structured Science

.
What do you mean by "angel" in this context, or how do you define it? I should have asked you already when I translated the "Three angels of truth", but then I thought I had an idea what you mean, but couldn't really explain it. I never thought about that term very much.

An "angel" refers to an "angled branch of thought" or more simply, an idea or scheme. Quite often a con man is said to have an "angle" .. stemming from the same root concept, an "angel overlooking his plans" - a scheme. A Catholic nun would wear her "habit" so as to protect her from the "schemes of men"/"angels" (the very same reason women do not walk around showing too much of their body or masking their face ... not counting the possible embarrassment issue).

Scripturally, a "tree" is what today you might call an "orderly index of ideas" that branches from one central idea (directly related to the famous "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil"). And the original DOS PC operating system ("Disk Operating System") referred to its index of topics on the disk, not as "folders" but rather as the "index tree". An overarching central idea is also referred to as an "Archangel" (such as capitalism, socialism, Rational Metaphysics, and so on.

Now with all of that in mind, what I was trying to relay to those who could have possibly understood (very few), is that RD ("Rational Debating") automatically generates a tabled index of branching thoughts/ideas/angels such that every individual can see where their beliefs fit best and who their like-minded friends very probably are. Each initiating thought is referred to as the seed of a "tree" (scripturally and technically) - a "seed thought" or what some have referred to as a "pregnant idea".

When RD is the common practice among merely a few people (or even merely one with a good imagination and interest), many branching trees get formed from initial thoughts - an "entire forest" of such branching thoughts. Basically every hypothetical, every "what if", could initiate a new tree of thought.

These ideas and concerns go all the way back to the stories of Abraham (an ancient (somewhat outcast) philosopher) and the days of Genesis.

Angels were not originally mythological beings. Ignorant people's imagination (with the help of inconsiderate, if not evil, people's help) made them into mythology (just like everything else). Trees and angels have changed only in their name, not what they have always been.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that is a part of religion that wasn't born in that same way:
Someone's ontological philosophy into many people's misrepresented religion.

And:

An ontology is an understanding of existence and is built upon predefined concepts proposed to be useful in the long run. Many varied ontologies can be built and be useful but can only be valued as true if they conform to the following stipulations;

A) Consistent within the ontology
B) Comprehensive in including details
C) Relevant to the needs at hand

The word "science" means "the knowing". Rational Metaphysics is a method involving Definitional Logic, Scientific Methodology, and Resolution Debating for constructing ontologies that are necessarily true and empirically and logically verified. One essential definition for any ontology is its definition for existence itself. Objects and principles are then defined such as to build a complete coherent understanding, an "ontology".

[Ecmandu]

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.

[James S Saint]

So already we have lack of correspondence before we even begin discussing such things

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?

[Ecmandu]

So already we have lack of correspondence before we even begin discussing such things

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.

[Ecmandu]

So already we have lack of correspondence before we even begin discussing such things

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.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Then im basically Jack Carter, or Jesus Christ, or MacGyver, the one who saves all of your asses when you're delusional

[Ecmandu]

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.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

What do you refer to when you say "referents"? What is the referent of referents?

[Ecmandu]

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".

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

What does that have to do with mages and witchcraft.

[Ecmandu]

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"!

[James S Saint]

So already we have lack of correspondence before we even begin discussing such things

Do you believe that anything called "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.

Fine, but now answer my question.

[Ecmandu]

Consistency and coherency work together to make something comprehensibly discernable, but is not about the veracity.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[Dan~]

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.

How can you know if what Physics says to be true, really is true?

If you're alive enough, truth becomes obvious.

[James S Saint]

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 ...

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?

If you're alive enough, truth becomes obvious.

From what I understand, the longer you live, the more you discover that nothing you knew was real.

[Ecmandu]

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 ...

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?

If you're alive enough, truth becomes obvious.

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.

[surreptitious57]

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

[James S Saint]

Ok James, there are instances where context can make contradictory statements both true... Such as color blindness

Tell me how color blindness can cause contrary statements to be true.

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

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.

For something to be physically true it has to be possible

That depends on what you mean by "possible". That word is used in different ways.

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

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).

[Ecmandu]

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..

[James S Saint]

X is red, x is not red.

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?

[Ecmandu]

X is red, x is not red.

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.

[James S Saint]

X is red, x is not red.

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?

[Ecmandu]

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.