Quote:
Originally Posted by bobleplask  Hello Shaun!
Thank you for your reply - I like it very much and it has good points  |
No problem. Absolute truth is one of my favourite things to study.
Quote:
|
I am not sure what you mean by a "absolute truth claim" to be honest because if it is a claim it has no valid wight? Could you define it for me please?
|
An absolute truth claim is a statement by someone where they claim something is always true, all of the time, in itself. (that sentence was an absolute truth claim; so is this one)
For example: A giraffe is a giraffe is an absolute truth claim.
Quote:
|
A sidetrack however: Your statement that "0 is not 1, no matter how much you try and state it" can be proven with mathematics which never seem to fail us. On the other hand We do not have anything that verifies mathematics to be correct.
|
Sure we do, we know first principles, the very basis for mathematics as we know it.
If 1 does not equal 1, then mathematics fails. But since it is self-evident that 1 = 1, we can then assume and go forth from there using inductive logic proofs. This is all basic stuff you learn in a philosophy of logic class.
Quote:
|
Why does it not mean that I can never observe it?
|
If you are going to say "never", you are thereby
required to prove to me that in
all possible cases that you can never observe it. You have not done so - you simply stated you could, and left it there. That's a jump in logic, also called a non sequitur fallacy.
Quote:
|
I would like to thank you for your input. That my argument fails in its attempt to define itself is a valid statement as I find it hard to say that truth can not be found and expect it to be taken as truth. Does it mean that what I said is not true?
|
Yes, by its very nature. A cannot be non-A.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun 1. A is A (law of identity) | If everything on the planet points to something being true - how does that actually make it true? Most likely the moon is the moon, but we do not have anything but our senses to verify it?
|
Forget senses - you're still thinking that truth is defined by perception. I am arguing that it is not; that truth is exclusive. You can use logic to prove such without using physical senses. Knowing truth is a whole other topic that is unrelated to absolute truth.
A = A is a
tautology - a propositional formula that is true in any possible valuation or context.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun 2. A is not Non-A (law of contradiction) | Could be?
|
Could be what? No, A cannot be Non-A. If you want to say it can, you must prove otherwise. I have shown that A is A, and therefore cannot be non-A.
The proof is: ~(P v ~P)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaun 3. Either B or Non-B (law of excluded middle) | Why not?
|
Because of the law of non-contradiction that says that A is not non-A, and therefore by deductive reasoning it logically follows that it is either A or non-A.
Quote:
|
These statements we more or less take for granted and it's hard to find reasons for them not to be true. But can it be doubted that A = A? Or does there exist something that tells with out doubt that A = A?
|
These laws are
a priori - they are self-evident and self-proving. If you doubt First Principles, then all knowledge and philosophy breaks down and you cannot deduce anything. The statement that A = A might not always be true without First Principles, specifically the law of identity.