The Three Angels of Truth

[James S Saint]

You called me a true schizophrenic.

No. I said that your thread was for those inexperienced with true schizophrenia. And being "helpless" is entirely an issue of who is on hand to help, isn't it.

And yes, for some people red is red and for other people red us green.

So you don't believe in objective reality? Everything is merely whatever someone thinks it is regardless of whatever anyone else thinks it is? "All things are relative"? There is no actual truth?

[Ecmandu]

James, I've been pretty clear if you read my posts, I said in many cases simply stating x and not x is not always a verifier of truth and in many cases it is.

You're starting to be a bit of a butt about my posts to you, maybe it's just misunderstanding, but you pride yourself on understanding.

[James S Saint]

I'll ask one more time:

And yes, for some people red is red and for other people red us green.

So you don't believe in objective reality? Everything is merely whatever someone thinks it is regardless of whatever anyone else thinks it is? "All things are relative"? There is no actual truth?

Yes or no?

[Ecmandu]

I'll ask one more time:

And yes, for some people red is red and for other people red us green.

So you don't believe in objective reality? Everything is merely whatever someone thinks it is regardless of whatever anyone else thinks it is? "All things are relative"? There is no actual truth?

Yes or no?

Sure there's absolute truth, if rods and cones exist in a certain way, red is red, if a different way it's grey or green.

My point is that simply stating x and not x, is not in itself a verifier of truth from the law of contradiction.

[James S Saint]

Sure there's absolute truth, if rods and cones exist in a certain way, red is red, if a different way it's grey or green.

Color ......Wavelength......Frequency
green......495–570 nm......526–606 THz
yellow......570–590 nm......508–526 THz
orange.....590–620 nm......484–508 THz
red.........620–750 nm......400–484 THz

The color red has a specific EMR frequency range noted in the table above. When someone says that an object, X, is "red", he is saying that the object is emitting or reflecting primarily the frequency specified in that chart. Regardless of what the person has said, the object X either is or isn't primarily emitting that frequency.

So when a person says that the object, X, is "not red", he is saying that it is not emitting that specified range of frequency, perhaps one of the other ranges. But if in reality it is, he is either lying, colorblind (seeing colors incorrectly), or using an alternate language.

So assuming that he isn't using an alternate language (breaking the simple rules of communication - "a consistent language"), when he says that X is red, he is either correct or incorrect. And if correct, then saying that X is not red is incorrect. And vsvrsa.

My point is that simply stating x and not x, is not in itself a verifier of truth from the law of contradiction.

Not knowing whether X is emitting the frequency range called "red" is not relevant and certainly does not make the statement "X is and is not red" a true statement or a non-contradicting statement. The only truth and non-contradicting statement in the case of not knowing is "I don't know if X is red". The colorblind person doesn't know what color X is but perhaps believes that he does, being tricked by his senses.

So I see no means for you to come up with two contradicting statements and have them both true. Can you provide a different example?

[Ecmandu]

I used another one...

Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and peanuts are " healthy "... This the the same as red is not red: which is logically consistent ..,

Peanuts are healthy and not healthy.

[James S Saint]

I used another one...

Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and peanuts are " healthy "... This the the same as red is not red: which is logically consistent ..,

Peanuts are healthy and not healthy.

I agree that the statement "peanuts are healthy" is false. Peanuts are "sometimes, for some people, healthy" is true.

Thus the statement "Peanuts are unhealthy" has the same issue. It is a false statement because it is in-comprehensive (defying the second angel).

[Ecmandu]

I used another one...

Some people are deathly allergic to peanuts, and peanuts are " healthy "... This the the same as red is not red: which is logically consistent ..,

Peanuts are healthy and not healthy.

I agree that the statement "peanuts are healthy" is false. Peanuts are "sometimes, for some people, healthy" is true.

Thus the statement "Peanuts are unhealthy" has the same issue. It is a false statement because it is in-comprehensive (defying the second angel).

James, you do realize comprehensive and comprehensible mean two very different things???

Maybe you should use both words instead of conflating them when you see fit, and maybe you should find a way to elaborate them.

[James S Saint]

James, you do realize comprehensive and comprehensible mean two very different things???

Maybe you should use both words instead of conflating them when you see fit, and maybe you should find a way to elaborate them.

Or perhaps you should observe that I have only used one meaning. Can you not distinguish them?

) Comprehensive = complete in scope and detail
) Comprehensible = capable of being completely understood in scope and detail

I haven't been speaking of the ability to understand or be understood. The statements that are of the form "Peanuts are (or are not) healthy" are not comprehensive, not complete in detail, and thus not "truth", but merely a suggestion that is perhaps often the particular case but sometimes not.

Logically speaking, if a statement is not true in any circumstance other than alteration of language, then it is not true, meaning that it is not always true. Usually the circumstances are not mentioned, thus misleading the reader (due to defying the second angel - comprehensiveness = completeness).

So this isn't an issue of contradiction, but of incompleteness or in-comprehensiveness.

[Ecmandu]

James, you do realize comprehensive and comprehensible mean two very different things???

Maybe you should use both words instead of conflating them when you see fit, and maybe you should find a way to elaborate them.

Or perhaps you should observe that I have only used one meaning. Can you not distinguish them?

) Comprehensive = complete in scope and detail
) Comprehensible = capable of being completely understood in scope and detail

I haven't been speaking of the ability to understand or be understood. The statements that are of the form "Peanuts are (or are not) healthy" are not comprehensive, not complete in detail, and thus not "truth", but merely a suggestion that is perhaps often the particular case but sometimes not.

Logically speaking, if a statement is not true in any circumstance other than alteration of language, then it is not true, meaning that it is not always true. Usually the circumstances are not mentioned, thus misleading the reader (due to defying the second angel - comprehensiveness = completeness).

So this isn't an issue of contradiction, but of incompleteness or in-comprehensiveness.

So let's just take godel as an example..

Peano logic is incomplete, therefor we can add???

According to the law of non contradiction..

Either we cannot add, or the incompleteness is false.


At what level do we assume that we have reduced red is not red to a truth, rather than a visual translation of wave frequencies?

[James S Saint]

So let's just take godel as an example..

Sounds like a dumb idea, but okay...

Peano logic is incomplete, therefor we can add???
According to the law of non contradiction..

Either we cannot add, or the incompleteness is false.

I don't really think that has anything to do with Godel, but...

Something being incomplete doesn't mean that you can add. It means that there is something missing. But perhaps it must always be missing (Godel's theory). The theory of Relativity is incomplete in that it cannot handle spinning objects. But one cannot add anything coherent to it to make it handle those objects. The theory merely has a limited useful scope, not completely (or accurately) mapping all reality. It will always be incomplete (and at least slightly erroneous).

At what level do we assume that we have reduced red is not red to a truth, rather than a visual translation of wave frequencies?

I am pretty sure that there is no logical level where you can reduce "red is not red" to a truth. Why are you trying to?

[Ecmandu]

So let's just take godel as an example..

Sounds like a dumb idea, but okay...

Peano logic is incomplete, therefor we can add???
According to the law of non contradiction..

Either we cannot add, or the incompleteness is false.

I don't really think that has anything to do with Godel, but...

Something being incomplete doesn't mean that you can add. It means that there is something missing. But perhaps it must always be missing. The theory of Relativity is incomplete in that it cannot handle spinning objects. But one cannot add anything coherent to it to make it handle those objects. The theory merely has a limited useful scope, not completely (or accurately) mapping all reality. It will always be incomplete (and at least slightly erroneous).

At what level do we assume that we have reduced red is not red to a truth, rather than a visual translation of wave frequencies?

I am pretty sure that there is no logical level where you can reduce "red is not red" to a truth. Why are you trying to?

The axioms for number theory where show to fold on themselves. We either need better axioms, or we cannot add.

And likewise, there are many instances where x is not x... Red is not red and peanuts are healthy and not healthy are two examples. We have something beyond there mere logical statement that PROVES that they are both true and that there's more to simply saying x is not x is true is all instances.

There's at least another variable there.

[James S Saint]

The axioms for number theory where show to fold on themselves. We either need better axioms, or we cannot add.

I don't know who told you that theory, but I doubt it. I have been adding just fine for years.

And likewise, there are many instances where x is not x... Red is not red and peanuts are healthy and not healthy are two examples.

Both of your examples have been proven on this thread to be incorrect examples. I have yet to see an example of your theory that "X is not X" can be a true statement.

We have something beyond there mere logical statement that PROVES that they are both true and that there's more to simply saying x is not x is true is all instances.

I have yet to see a valid example.

There's at least another variable there.

As I said early on, if you have to add something to what is said, then what is said is not comprehensive enough to be called true and thus by default, is false. And if you have to add anything to the statement that "red is not red" in order to make it true, then as it stands, it is false.

You will never find a valid contradictory set of true statements anywhere. Playing with the wording/semantics to try to make them seem correct is just childishness.

[Ecmandu]

The axioms for number theory where show to fold on themselves. We either need better axioms, or we cannot add.

I don't know who told you that theory, but I doubt it. I have been adding just fine for years.

And likewise, there are many instances where x is not x... Red is not red and peanuts are healthy and not healthy are two examples.

Both of your examples have been proven on this thread to be incorrect examples. I have yet to see an example of your theory that "X is not X" can be a true statement.

We have something beyond there mere logical statement that PROVES that they are both true and that there's more to simply saying x is not x is true is all instances.

I have yet to see a valid example.

There's at least another variable there.

As I said early on, if you have to add something to what is said, then what is said is not comprehensive enough to be called true and thus by default, is false. And if you have to add anything to the statement that "red is not red" in order to make it true, then as it stands, it is false.

You will never find a valid contradictory set of true statements anywhere. Playing with the wording/semantics to try to make them seem correct is just childishness.

You're the one playing with the system.

Peanuts are healthy and not healthy is a true statement on the surface of it.

Somehow this bothers you, so you say, sometimes peanuts can be healthy...

And then accuse me of playing word games.

What you put forth was that x is not x can NEVER be true.

I refuted that.

Now you're back pedaling instead of refining your construct.

[James S Saint]

Well, I made no promises about changing your mind. We both know that wasn't going to happen. I am satisfied that I have sufficiently proven my point. You can continue to believe whatever lets you feel good.

[surreptitious57]

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

Two people are looking at an object at the same time but one of them
is colour blind and the other is not so they cannot see the same colour

[Lev Muishkin]

.
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").

There you go abusing language again.

This is bullshit.
An angel is a messenger, in scriptural lingo and literally in Greek, the language in which the scriptures were written. Nothing more or less.
You'd do well to check some of your ideas, lest you make a fool of yourself.

[Lev Muishkin]

Sure there's absolute truth, if rods and cones exist in a certain way, red is red, if a different way it's grey or green.

My point is that simply stating x and not x, is not in itself a verifier of truth from the law of contradiction.

This is not an example of 'absolute'. All truth is interested, and only has meaning through context.

But in sheer practical terms its not even true. Colour perception involves a lot more than "cones". It is cultural; it relates to ambient tone; it is relative to experience. Cones are just one tiny aspect of colour perception.
A person can be colour blind and have to same cones to you and I, and in different circumstances grey can appear red, and green can appear gray. It all depends.

[James S Saint]

There you go abusing language again.

This is bullshit.
An angel is a messenger, in scriptural lingo and literally in Greek, the language in which the scriptures were written. Nothing more or less.
You'd do well to check some of your ideas, lest you make a fool of yourself.

You are grossly naive .. on SO many subjects.

An angel was regarded as a "messenger" because it (the concept) was telling of the foundation cause of reality (aka "God") and springing from it. Socially a messenger from the highest dark authority in the land was referred to as "an angel" as well, unless he was creating trouble, then he was "a devil" or "demon" (depending). The Greeks were big into secret/dark manipulations, as were so very many (and still are). But I am not referring to the later development of social orders to represent prior ontological, conceptual entities, but rather the original entities themselves.

Your perspective is that of a simple mind, believing the complexity of Man and the world to be a trivial puzzle.

[Lev Muishkin]

There you go abusing language again.

This is bullshit.
An angel is a messenger, in scriptural lingo and literally in Greek, the language in which the scriptures were written. Nothing more or less.
You'd do well to check some of your ideas, lest you make a fool of yourself.

You are grossly naive .. on SO many subjects.

An angel was regarded as a "messenger" because it (the concept) was telling of the foundation cause of reality (aka "God") and springing from it. Socially a messenger from the highest dark authority in the land was referred to as "an angel" as well, unless he was creating trouble, then he was "a devil" or "demon" (depending). The Greeks were big into secret/dark manipulations, as were so very many (and still are). But I am not referring to the later development of social orders to represent prior ontological, conceptual entities, but rather the original entities themselves.

Your perspective is that of a simple mind, believing the complexity of Man and the world to be a trivial puzzle.

So in other words, You agree that I am right and you were wrong; an angel is not an angle; it is exactly what I said it is.

I fear for the processing capacity of your brain.

[James S Saint]

an angel is not an angle; it is exactly what I said it is.

I fear for the processing capacity of your brain.

You are hardly one to be talking.

An angel is a branching, angling off of, the trunk of the tree of life and/or knowledge. The words angel and angle are directly related.

[Certainly real]

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.

Yes! Not just physical reality. All reality is always 100% true with itself.

Thus the statement "Peanuts are unhealthy" has the same issue. It is a false statement because it is in-comprehensive (defying the second angel)

Exactly! It's in-comprehensive. Until all the facts are exposed or all premises related to a thing are revealed, it cannot be established if it is true or not. But then why would this be considered as false? If something is not completely revealed to us, it's not necessarily false.

Peanuts are healthy---in-comprehensive---(neither true nor false)
Peanuts are always healthy---comprehensive---(clearly false)

Peanuts are healthy for Jane. Jane has no allergies to peanuts. Zinc is extremely good for her health. Peanuts are a good source of zinc. Jane's need for zinc far outweighs any possible detrimental impact peanuts may have to her health (calories etc.)

All things considered: Peanuts are healthy for Jane---comprehensive---(true)

[James S Saint]

Thus the statement "Peanuts are unhealthy" has the same issue. It is a false statement because it is in-comprehensive (defying the second angel)

Exactly! It's in-comprehensive. Until all the facts are exposed or all premises related to a thing are revealed, it cannot be established if it is true or not. But then why would this be considered as false? If something is not completely revealed to us, it's not necessarily false.

Peanuts are healthy---in-comprehensive---(neither true nor false)
Peanuts are always healthy---comprehensive---(clearly false)

Peanuts are healthy for Jane. Jane has no allergies to peanuts. Zinc is extremely good for her health. Peanuts are a good source of zinc. Jane's need for zinc far outweighs any possible detrimental impact peanuts may have to her health (calories etc.)

All things considered: Peanuts are healthy for Jane---comprehensive---(true)

For something to be true, everything about it must be true. But for something to be false, anything about it can be false.

It isn't so much that we don't know enough in order to assess the statement. It is more that the statement cannot be always true (we already know that much). It is impossible that peanuts would be healthy for all people at all times. For peanuts to be healthy, there are conditions that must be met. At best, the statement could be a provisionally true (as you have pointed out).

The logical fallacy known as "Over-generalization" is very predominant throughout history, creating all kinds of misunderstandings, hatreds, racism (and just about every "-ism"), and even wars. Ir is the same thing as Presumption, the seed of ALL sin.

[Certainly real]

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

Two people are looking at an object at the same time but one of them
is colour blind and the other is not so they cannot see the same colour

I think James is right. 620–750 nm 400–484 THz. Call this x for short. Let's define red. Red = x

Two people are observing x. Although x is unchanged externally, the two people see x differently because they take in x differently based on their physical make up. Internally x manifests itself to these two people differently. Regardless of what the two people see internally, x is still x externally. So this is not a case of contrary statements being true. x is still x and the two people are both observing x but interpreting it differently. Of course this is provided that red is defined as x.

If red is defined as what someone internally sees when observing x, then it becomes a purely subjective or interpretive thing. Like beauty. In that situation it would have to be the case that statements such as "the box is red" would be in-comprehensive as red is a matter of interpretation and would need a subject before the statement can be considered as comprehensive enough to qualify as either true or false. In that case, two people can interpret x differently. But this still doesn't lead to two contrary statements as being true. At no point can the two people deny that x is x. They can only point out that their interpretation of x is different and this is not a case of contrary statements being true. This is case of two entirely different statements being true.

[James S Saint]

I hadn't seen that post, sorry surreptitious.

If red is defined as what someone internally sees when observing x, then it becomes a purely subjective or interpretive thing.

The problem with defining it as what someone internally sees, is that the name "red" is externally given to the person. So when Mommy points to an apple and says "red", whatever color the child sees, is [by definition] red. How else would they know to call it "red"?

The question is, how does a person get the names backwards?

I can think of only two excuses for that. Either they can't distinguish them well enough that they misunderstood which was to be called which (color blind), or perhaps their neurology became corrupted after learning the words such as to mismatch the words with what was being perceived (color stupid).