Edwin Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Only statements about something that exists can be true or false. (Assume for reductio) Bugaboos do not exist because Bugaboos, by postulation, are perfectly round, perfectly square creatures. "Bugaboos exist" is a statement about something that does not exist, namely Bugaboos. Therefore "Bugaboos exist" is neither true nor false. (By 1) But if Bugaboos do not exist, then "Bugaboos exist" is false. Therefore "Bugaboos exist" is false, in contradiction with 4. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, 1 is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Went wrong at step one with conceding "only", but what has this got to do with the correspondence theory of truth? Perhaps you should state that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin Posted December 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Went wrong at step one with conceding "only", but what has this got to do with the correspondence theory of truth? Perhaps you should state that as well. I agree with 1. in that only statements about something that exists can be true or false. For example, "kdfsd is pink" is absurd and neither true nor false because kdfsd does not correspond with anything in reality. I think this is what correspondence theory of truth says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Unicorns are frogs with beards. Unicorns don't exist, yet we know the above statement to be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin Posted December 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Unicorns are frogs with beards. Unicorns don't exist, yet we know the above statement to be false. What about sjkdhfskdfjh? Are they frogs with beards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 (edited) What about sjkdhfskdfjh? Are they frogs with beards? What about sjkdhfskdfjh? You stated, "Only statements about something that exists can be true or false." I provided a false statement about something (The Unicorn) that does not exist. Isn't that enough for you to concede that your proposition is flawed? How about: 1. Statements making claims about a subject described with random letters (gibberish) can not be evaluated for truthfulness. Edited December 12, 2010 by freestyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin Posted December 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 What about sjkdhfskdfjh? You stated, "Only statements about something that exists can be true or false." I provided a false statement about something (The Unicorn) that does not exist. Isn't that enough for you to concede that your proposition is flawed? How about: 1. Statements making claims about a subject described with random letters (gibberish) can not be evaluated for truthfulness. Unicorns correspond with various art in reality which have been with us since antiquity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 (edited) So, said clearly, "Unicorns exist". Ok, I'll accept that you are including Unicorns in your definition of things that exist. Can you provide me an example of some thing which you can make a statement about that does not exist? (Obviously, if you're using gibberish, we are not talking about something - so it cannot be evaluated at all.) If Unicorns are fair game, I'm wondering what you would define as outside of "something that exists". Edited December 12, 2010 by freestyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 I agree with 1. in that only statements about something that exists can be true or false. For example, "kdfsd is pink" is absurd and neither true nor false because kdfsd does not correspond with anything in reality. I think this is what correspondence theory of truth says. Nope. Only statements about something that exists can be true. Of course false statements can be made about things that do not exist, that is mainly what it means to be false, the non-existence of the referent is what makes it false. Statements that are contradictions are false because contradictions do not exist. Xall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Only statements about something that exists can be true. Hmm... I think you made the "only" mistake there too. How do you reconcile that statement with: "Contradictions do not exist." You seem to be saying that this statement cannot be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 "Contradictions do not exist." is like saying "False is false." Statements identifying what is false (statements about statements) are all justified by the law of identity or they are not justified at all. The law of identity is axiomatically true. "Contradictions do not exist" is a corollary proposition to "Existence is identity". Take each term in "existence is identity" and negate it, and reverse the order of subject and predicate (contraposition): "Non-identity is non-existence". In proper vocabulary "Contradictions do not exist", and it is true because it is a logical equivalent to a statement that is axiomatic and about something that exists (or in this case, everything that exists). icosahedron 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 1. The assumption that the fact something does not exist since there is no proof to it necessarily contradicts reality 2. The circular logics of 'since a claim is arbitrary and the arbitrary does not exist an arbitrary argument is a false argument' Summary: The existence of an arbitrary thing is not a false proposition, but rather the thought that the arbitrary exists in essence. The proposition: a pink rabbit does not exist is a default. You can prove it otherwise and then it shall become falsse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darylium Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 (edited) I would say that this statement is wrong: "'Bugaboos exist' is a statement about something that does not exist, namely Bugaboos." It -is- a statement about something that exists, namely existence itself. It becomes obvious when you rewrite "Bugaboos exist" as "Bugaboos are part of existence". As bugaboos are not part of existence, the statement is false. Edited December 12, 2010 by Darylium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q.E.D. Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 (edited) "Bugaboos do not exist because Bugaboos, by postulation, are perfectly round, perfectly square creatures." This needs to be broken into its assumptions. DEF A - A Bugaboo is a perfectly round, perfectly square creature (A requires BOTH B and C) DEF B - A perfectly round creature contains no edges DEF C - A perfectly square creature contains edges (B and C are contradictory) The axiom of non-contradiction states that contradictions do not exist and so the bugaboo does not exist by definition. In fact, asserting the existence of the Bugaboo is the same as asserting the existence OF a contradiction, since it has contradictory properties. Please reread the last two sentences. You begin by asserting a contradiction exists and then proceed to "prove" things based on that point to create another 'contradiction'. However, the argument's premise in pointing out the second contradiction is that contradictions do not exist, thereby revealing a contradiction in the author's thinking. Edited December 13, 2010 by Q.E.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q.E.D. Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Look at the argument rephrased: 1. Only statements about something that exists can be true or false. (Assume for reductio) 2. "Contradictions exist" is a statement about something that does not exist, namely contradictions. 3. Therefore "contradictions exist" is neither true nor false. (By 1) 4. But if contradictions do not exist, then "contradictions exist" is false. 5. Therefore "contradictions exist" is false, in contradiction with 4. 6. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, 1 is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 "Contradictions do not exist." is like saying "False is false." Statements identifying what is false (statements about statements) are all justified by the law of identity or they are not justified at all. The law of identity is axiomatically true. "Contradictions do not exist" is a corollary proposition to "Existence is identity". Take each term in "existence is identity" and negate it, and reverse the order of subject and predicate (contraposition): "Non-identity is non-existence". In proper vocabulary "Contradictions do not exist", and it is true because it is a logical equivalent to a statement that is axiomatic and about something that exists (or in this case, everything that exists). I don't disagree, but doesn't the above serve as an exception to this statement, "Only statements about something that exists can be true." (i.e. Unless the statement is confirming, as true, the non-existence of the subject.) Anyway, I still don't see what is trying to be established in the statement. Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts? And further, Contradictions DO exist in a very specific context. They don't physically exist, but there are many examples of metaphysical contradictions held by individuals. People often pursue values and goals in contradiction with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 I don't disagree, but doesn't the above serve as an exception to this statement, "Only statements about something that exists can be true." (i.e. Unless the statement is confirming, as true, the non-existence of the subject.) Statements themselves are existents, even the false ones. The common element is that the act of reference succeeds for true statements whether that referent is outside of consciousness or within it. Referring fails for false statements. A statement about unicorns fails because no referent for unicorn can be found outside of consciousness. A statement about a statement about unicorns succeeds when it finds that statement, the referent is resolved. Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts? Yes, because arbitrary words do not correspond to anything. And further, Contradictions DO exist in a very specific context. They don't physically exist, but there are many examples of metaphysical contradictions held by individuals. People often pursue values and goals in contradiction with each other. Thoughts, values, goals and statements are all existents in the mind of some subject, so they are epistemological contradictions and some of them are about metaphysics (existents outside the mind). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 Good post Grames. I think one of the most common mistake folks make is forgetting that concepts are mental existents , including invalid ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted February 4, 2011 Report Share Posted February 4, 2011 Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts? Yes, because arbitrary words do not correspond to anything. I would have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly challenge this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icosahedron Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Good post Grames. I think one of the most common mistake folks make is forgetting that concepts are mental existents , including invalid ones. Exactly. And thanks Grames from me also, your posts have been very clear and to the point. I only seem to be able to experience EXAMPLES of concepts; concepts are like class types in Java, whereas I can only experience instances of a given concrete type. - ico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m082844 Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 I like this thread I hope you don't mind me posting so I can store it under "my content". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.