Yep, hinges can become propositions and propositions can become hinges — Luke

This is an important point I tried to make earlier in the thread, and it's where a lot of confusion happens. Moore's propositions (not really propositions if they are hinges) for the most part are hinges, but W. gave e.g.s, where in some contexts, they are not hinges, and therefore propositions. It's this back and forth that causes many interpretative errors in my view.

If Wittgenstein did indeed understand 'true' to mean something such that ""I've never been to the moon" is true iff I've never been to the moon", then you're right, but I've never read anything to that effect so I'd be grateful for a pointer in the right direction. — Isaac

Wittgenstein had a more pragmatic idea of truth. It was never outlined as some are doing in this thread. It was never, something is true, iff such and such (unless you're thinking in terms of the Tratatus), at least as a general rule. This would be anathema to W.'s later philosophy. For W. one looks at a variety of uses within the context of our everyday lives.

The argument is invalid, its conclusion doesn't follow (as has already been pointed out to you) and the "force" of an invalid argument can't really "end the discussion", obviously. If you want to end the discussion, you could venture a reply to my post here. — Seppo

You apparently haven't studied logic. The argument is a hypothetical syllogism, which means that it's valid. What you have to demonstrate is that one of the premises is false, i.e., that it's not sound. So, the valid form of the argument is...

If p, then q.
If q, then r.
Therefore, if p, then r.

And, since you apparently don't know the difference between a valid deductive argument and an invalid one, I'm not even sure you're qualified to say whether the argument is good or not. And, by the way, your statement that the conclusion doesn't follow is also false, because given the premises, and the validity of the form of the argument, the conclusion follows necessarily. Again, the only way to defeat the argument is to show that at least one of the premises is false.

So, maybe you should rephrase your statements.

As I understand it, Wittgenstein's concern is not with a theory of knowledge banno @Seppo @Sam26. He is examining how ordinary (non-philosophical) claims of knowledge function in our language games and with one of his ongoing concerns, how philosophers confuse themselves: — Fooloso4

I agree with you on this point. Wittgenstein is not concerned with a theory of knowledge. And, he definitely believes that ordinary use (not to be confused with every utterance the ordinary man on the street makes), viz., a kind of general picture of how language is used in our ordinary forms of life, can keep us from philosophical (I'm using philosophical in a very broad sense, because even the man on the street is subject to these confusions) confusion.

No, it doesn't, unless one also adopts an anti-realist view that is not found in Wittgenstein. Hence ↪Seppo is correct. Conflating knowledge and truth is an error. Wittgenstein is saying that Moore's knowledge claimed are not incorrect because they are not true, but because they are unjustified. — Banno

Where did I conflate knowledge with truth? The problem is in how you're interpreting what I'm saying, not that I'm conflating knowledge with truth.

A proposition standing alone, i.e., without justification, can have a value of either being true or false, it's a simple claim or belief. Thus, we say propositions are truth-apt. Knowledge on the other hand, refers to propositional claims that have been justified in some way (evidence or good reasons, for e.g.). In my argument I make this clear. At least it should be clear with a little thought.

(1) If knowledge claims are necessarily about the process of arriving at truth, then Moorean propositions are necessarily about truth claims.
(2) If Moorean propositions are about truth claims, then necessarily W.'s attack is an attack on the truth of Moorean propositions.
(3) Hence, if knowledge claims are necessarily about the process of arriving at truth, then necessarily W.'s attack is an attack on the truth of Moorean propositions. (Hypothetical Syllogism) — Sam26

The first premise in my argument says, "knowledge claims are necessarily about the process of arriving at truth." The process of arriving at truth, is any process (I use the word process because there are many different ways of justifying a claim) that justifies that claim, belief, statement, or proposition. I've said this plenty of times, so to say I'm conflating the two, isn't so.

The force of this argument ends the discussion as far as I'm concerned. To deny that Wittgenstein's attack on knowing isn't an attack on justification and truth, fails, in my opinion, to understand the gist of what W. is arguing. Moreover, it fails to understand the implications of W. attack on Moore's claims to know.

Happy Hunting!

Don't spin my argument into what it isn't, since it's about justification and truth. Justification and truth are necessarily intertwined. What in the world do you think I mean by the process of arriving at truth if not justification? The process of arriving at truth, is the process of giving evidence or reasons, for example, to support the truth of the claim.

Or about justification claims. Truth is only one aspect of knowledge claims. Knowledge claims are also claims about justification. — Seppo

Of course there about justification. Why do you think I say there about the process of arriving at truth. That is the justification process.

Wittgenstein is saying that Moore's claim to know such propositions is incorrect, not because the claims aren't truth-apt, but because they are not justified. — Seppo

It's not that justification stands alone in this process, apart from truth, the very act of justification is supposed to lead to the the goal of knowledge, viz. truth. You're stuck in a contradictory place. The goal of knowledge and the justification process, is, again, the truth of the claim; and here it's Moorean claims.

Knowledge claims are logically intertwined with justification and truth claims.

Knowledge is a success word, it refers to a process that achieves its goal. What is that goal? The goal is simply the truth. So, an attack on knowledge is necessarily an attack on truth, and the process of arriving at truth. It follows by extension that W.'s attack on Moore's propositions, viz., that he doesn't know what he claims to know, is an attack on the process Moore uses to determine the truth. Therefore, if you agree that W. is correct in his assessment of Moore's propositions, i.e., that they are not knowledge claims, then it follows by necessity that they are not truth claims either.

Put in argument form it looks like the following:

(1) If knowledge claims are necessarily about the process of arriving at truth, then Moorean propositions are necessarily about truth claims.
(2) If Moorean propositions are about truth claims, then necessarily W.'s attack is an attack on the truth of Moorean propositions.
(3) Hence, if knowledge claims are necessarily about the process of arriving at truth, then necessarily W.'s attack is an attack on the truth of Moorean propositions. (Hypothetical Syllogism)

It also follows from the above argument that Moorean propositions are not propositions at all, since they have no truth value (they are not truth-apt either) in Moore's context, i.e., they have no epistemological status. They are simply contingent arational bedrock beliefs based on our interactions between mind, body, and the world.

I would further make the claim that this argument is definitive. A denial is contradictory, and strips from W. anything of value, in terms of his attack on what Moore is claiming.

"Here is a floor, here is a broom" - this statement is an act that expresses the same certainty as sweeping the floor. Sweeping and stating are both acts that are grounded on hinges.

I don't think you would disagree with this. I'm just making it explicit. — Banno

It depends on what you mean by grounded? Are you using grounded as a synonym for justification?

If I utter, "Here is a broom," to someone familiar with English they would probably say, "Ya, what's your point?" So, one way of seeing a context where such a statement would be useful, is in the context of teaching the word broom to someone who doesn't know English. We are justified or grounded in calling the object a broom, because that is part of the language-game associated with the concept. In other words, it's justification or grounding lies in linguistic training, or in its grammar.

All linguistics are depended on hinges or basic/bedrock beliefs, i.e., they grow out of these beliefs necessarily, so in this sense they are grounded in hinge's. However, I'm not sure if I would say that the hinge's justify their use, so, grounding here is a bit different than justification. This would get into the development of language against the backdrop of these basic beliefs. This relationship has to be seen as a kind of evolutionary process, which eventually leads to very sophisticated language-games, including the language-game of epistemology.

I wouldn't agree that sweeping the floor and the statement "Here is a floor," have the same certainty. They both express a certainty, that's true, but in different senses. My act of sweeping the floor shows a kind of certainty that's grounded in the world itself, so any act of knowing, and by extension justification and truth claims, is dependent on this backdrop. Moreover, any act of doubting is also dependent on this backdrop (contingent states-of-affairs). One can see the difference, as a function of certainty, in these two acts, if one compares the doubting of one (the act of sweeping) with the doubting of the other "Here is a floor." I don't see the language-game of doubting getting any footing as I sweep the floor, but I can see in certain contexts how I could doubt "This is a broom," viz., in contexts where I'm unsure of how to use the English word broom.

The act of sweeping the floor shows my certainty. It's not the kind of certainty that is justified in some sense, it's a certainty has it's footing in the very act itself. One could say they are almost one and the same thing.

So, would I disagree with your statements? It depends on a more careful assessment of what you mean.

Finally, as a side note, we must keep in mind that W. never finalized OC, so almost any dogmatic assessment of what he's saying is problematic. We don't know what would have been left in or out once edited. Although we can compare OC with his other writings and get a clearer picture of some passages.

Then best to stop referring to them as such. Better to call them just "hinges". Moyal-Sharrock uses "Hinge certainties", a small improvement over "Hinge propositions", although to my eye a certainty is propositional. — Banno

I've referred to them in multiple ways, especially as bedrock beliefs.

For me, the language-game of certainty is wider in its scope. In particular, one's certainty expressed in acts apart from language. When I sweep the floor my actions show my certainty (the certainty of the existence of a broom and floor for e.g.), apart from any expression of that certainty. Language is something I add on to that basic certainty, it's a further linguistic action.

For myself I don't think of hinge-propositions as propositions, which is why they're referred to in a number of ways (bedrock propositions, basic beliefs, foundational beliefs, hinge certainties, etc). For me, and I believe for W. they are just very basic certainties or beliefs that lack a truth value or justification.

You seem to be confusing the mathematical propositions with their application. It is because the mathematical propositions 1+1=2, 100+100=200, 12x12=144 an so on are true that we can calculate a bank balance correctly. — Fooloso4

I don't learn to calculate because 1+1=2 is true, no more than I learn to move a bishop because it's true that bishops move diagonally. I act in accord with how others act when they calculate or move bishops. It has nothing to do with truth or falsity. Sure, in some language-games I can say that it's true that 1+1=2 or that it's true that bishops move diagonally, or that it's true that a given statement, which at times doesn't have a truth value (Moorean propositions), can at other times have a truth value. When we learn to calculate we simply learn a skill, like learning any language, i.e., we apply the grammatical rules that others use, and we learn to use them in ways that accord with particular language-games.

There is a certainty to mathematical propositions, but that certainty is a way of acting, not a certainty based on truth or falsity. What are the truths that language sits on? There are no prior linguistic truths, no more than there is something prior to the rule that bishops move diagonally. In a sense it's just an arbitrary grammatical move that we choose to use as part of the language-game of mathematics. It's a useful tool like any of our concepts.

You're right, there is a sense where they are incontestable, but that's not because they are true, it's because we choose to act with these propositions in ways that are incontestable - not because there is some intrinsic sense of truth. They have a bedrock function that's completely devoid of truth. They are arational beliefs, so they function apart from ratiocination in their bedrock role.

The mathematical propositions you're referring to are not bedrock. Their use in terms of your bank account have nothing to do with what I'm am talking about, and definitely nothing to do with what W. is trying to communicate in OC.

Not all hinges should be regarded as the same. The hinge proposition that 12x12=144 is true. How could such propositions not be true? — Fooloso4

Because the basic propositions of mathematics function like rules, grammatical rules, it's not a matter of them being true or false, generally speaking, no more than a rule of chess is true or false in it's background setting. Can they function as truths, yes, in certain settings/contexts language-games they can. You're failing to see the dual function of these bedrock statements.

Take care and get well.

I'm just going to do a general post because I just don't have the energy to respond to all of you.

Much of the problem probably stems from the different ways we view beliefs. My contention is that beliefs can function quite apart from language (Wittgenstein's showing), i.e., we can observe beliefs in non-linguistic actions (even in animals). And, epistemological language-games (knowing, justification and truth), in terms of hinge's or bedrock beliefs, come later as language develops.

If we think of very primitive language-games (for e.g. W.'s example at the beginning of the PI), I think it follows, again, necessarily, that epistemology, and all the concepts involved (even truth), will not, and cannot obtain, until the conceptual framework develops. So, bedrock or hinge beliefs at their core, i.e., because of how they come about as part of the framework or backdrop of reality, have a status that excludes them from all epistemological talk (including truth - OC 204, 205, 206).

All epistemological talk (as arguments against my position), even truth, is always after the fact, we tend to bring it into the conversation as though its always been there. Even in young children, who learn what it means to know only later in their language talk, have these primitive beliefs long before they develop the concepts involved in epistemology.

Now some of you might argue that it doesn't matter that the concepts of justification and truth come later, that doesn't, in itself, negate the truth of these bedrock beliefs. If this, however, was true, then it would seem to follow that it wouldn't negate our use of justification either, or it wouldn't negate Moore's use of the concept know within the the context Moore is using the word.

One of the key features W. points out about Moorean propositions is that when seen against their negation (e.g. "I don't know this is a hand.") it's not clear what their sense is (OC 4). After all if we're not sure of the very backdrop of reality, then how can you be sure of the very words used to talk about such things (W.). It also seems clear to me that truth (as an epistemological function) has the same problem, viz., if Moore had said, as he held up his hand, "It's true that I have a hand," it would have the identical problem that Moore's use of know has, especially since knowing entails truth. Again, consider the negation, "It's not true that I have hands," this proposition also lacks sense in the same way.

One last point, W. pointed out through examples that Moore's use of "I know..." can have a sense in other settings or language-games, but this use is different from the use as a hinge, which is the use Moore is being criticized for. The same is true when speaking of bedrock or hinge beliefs when it comes to truth, in a bedrock setting, they are neither true nor false. However, in other settings or language-game, they can be true or false. I think to fail to acknowledge this is to fail to understand W. point about hinges, or as I like to refer to them, bedrock beliefs.

Sorry, I haven't been feeling well, so it's difficult to post.

Do I have to "kindly wait?" :wink:

Well, then we just disagree.

First, I want to say that my view, although much the same as Danièle Moyal-Sharrock, was arrived at quite independent of her. I gave the link because @jamalrob wanted to know what other philosophers thought that hinge's were neither true nor false.

You seem to think that hinge propositions are neither true nor false...

How can you validly make a deduction from a proposition that is neither true nor false? — Banno

It's not that hinge's can't be used in deductive logic (@Cuthbert @Banno), it's that hinge's, in the language-game of being a hinge (think of Moore's propositions), isn't a proposition in the normal sense. However, there are language-games, deductive and inductive logic, where the hinge, can be used as a normal proposition. So, hinge's are not stuck in one particular role, no more than our use of game is stuck in one role, say, only chess games or board games.

Hinge's, however, in there most basic form have quite a different role, especially if you look at them as non-propositional or non-linguistic, they have no connection with language (logic is a language obviously) in this role. However, they do have an important function as Wittgenstein points out in OC.

So, yes, @Banno I do believe that hinge's, basic beliefs, bedrock beliefs, foundational beliefs, have the role of not being true or false. So, it's not that I seem to think this, it can be correctly applied to my thinking. In fact, if you remember there was another thread where I said that 2+2=4 was a hinge, i.e., that it's not true or false. I hadn't paid particular attention to certain mathematical propositions, so I began to doubt whether I was correct about this, but after considering my position again, I'm returning to that belief, with the caveat that, it depends on the language-game the proposition (mathematical or not) is being used in.

So, just as we shouldn't confuse language-games in terms of presenting the same use, i.e., as having the same meaning or function, we shouldn't confuse the language-games of hinge's. Again, in some language-games they do function as normal propositions, but generally I would say, they do not. In cases where they do not, then they are by definition, not true or false, as per basic belief status.

I already explained it above.

To understand what hinge-propositions are, one needs to understand what beliefs are; and if you don't agree or understand this, then you won't fully grasp the nature of hinge-propositions.

Beliefs fall into two categories of actions, those that are non-linguistic, and those that are linguistic. Those that are non-linguistic, as the name implies, are acts that are quite separate from language. For example, the act of opening a door, shows that you believe that there is a door, a hand, a body, and all the surrounding things enabling you to perform the act within the world. Specifically, we're referring to contingent states-of-affairs that make up the world (this idea has it's roots in the Tractatus). These kinds of beliefs are not limited to humans, but can also be seen in animals, i.e., in their actions too.

The second category of belief is the one most of us are familiar with, viz., beliefs that are a function of language (statements/propositions). These are necessarily dependent on the first category of non-linguistic beliefs, without which, there would be no linguistic acts of believing. So, linguistic beliefs are born out of non-linguistic beliefs, and all the contingent surroundings that enable such beliefs. Non-linguistic acts (beliefs) are necessarily prior to linguistic acts and all that amounts to language.

Hinge-propositions, which Wittgenstein identified in OC, are not propositions in the strict sense, although in certain language-games they can function as propositions. I identify them, as do other philosophers, as basic beliefs, or foundational beliefs. However, one must be careful not to think of them in terms of the traditional ideas of foundationalism (for e.g. Plantinga's epistemology).

Once we see these non-linguistic basic beliefs (hinge-beliefs) in this way it follows that they are outside any talk of epistemology. This means that any reference to these beliefs in terms of knowledge, true or false, is meaningless. The problem of course, is that as soon as you start talking of these beliefs, you bring them into the linguistic arena and change their nature in some respects. You change their nature because now they have different functions depending on the language-game. Also, there is no precise way of defining these basic beliefs within language because they have so many different functions. It's like trying to define the essence of a game (as per Wittgenstein). There are just a group of family resemblances tying together the many uses that define hinge-propositions or basic beliefs.

What has intrigued me about hinge-propositions is that they usher in, I believe, a new kind of foundational epistemology. One that answers many questions about the nature of epistemology, and solves, for example, the infinite regress problem, and the problems of how to refer to such foundational beliefs. My epistemology now revolves around the ideas presented here, and gives epistemology a more solid footing.

Another similar paper in line with my own thinking of this subject, at least generally.

https://www.academia.edu/61206520/Wittgensteins_Hinge_Certainty

Pay close attention to how she talks about hinge-propositions and truth.

I find that I agree with much of her interpretation.

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant philosophers and their work? — jamalrob

There is much being written on this subject, but here is some of what I'm talking about. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/17388/Moyal_Sharrock_Animal_in_Epistemology_pre_imp_PdF.pdf?sequence=3

Okay, well, I've said my peace, that's all I can do. Have a good one.

On this we agree. But their special standing isn't due to anything intrinsic to the propositions themselves, but rather due to the role they play: hinge propositions form the bedrock upon which our entire process of knowing, evaluating, and justifying is built. But I (and jamalrob) are suggesting it is their inability to be justified, not an inability to true, which distinguishes them from ordinary propositions (and their inability to be justified is directly due to this peculiar role- or "special standing" as you say).

And there isn't anything contradictory about propositions or truths that cannot be justified, whereas the idea of a proposition which cannot be true is contradictory, or at least highly problematic (given the ordinary usage of the word "proposition"). — Seppo

Oh no, we've gone backwards. Truth is included with knowing and justification, because, again, knowing entails truth, and what is it that you're justifying, other than the truth of the statement. So, no knowledge, justification, or truth in terms of these Moorean statements.

Moorean beliefs are prior to epistemic (knowing, justification, and truth) talk. Just as the rules of chess provide the context whereby we can talk of the fact that bishops move diagonally. In other word, we can say, based on the rules, that it's true that bishops move diagonally. The rule provides the background that allows truth to get a foothold.

Or on these propositions ability to be justified. Knowledge entails not only truth, but justification, and it is our ability to justify hinge propositions that is lacking... due to the fact that hinge propositions are the background against which our process of justification takes place, and so justifying these propositions would become circular. — Seppo

Yes, except, it's not a matter of them being circular, it's a matter of the statements being meaningful. Damn Seppo, it seems you have understood my point. I don't feel like I'm banging my head against a wall afterall.

I hate to be the one to hand-wring over definitions, but I don't think I understand what you mean when you use the word "proposition" (and that is, perhaps, at the root of our disagreement here): can you tell me how you define this term? — Seppo

No, you're quite right to point this out. Wittgenstein's wording, viz., hinge-propositions, bedrock proposition, etc., is pointing out something special about these statements. They aren't normal propositions, or normal statements, they have a special standing in our language-games. This is why the normal definition of a proposition doesn't work when applied to these kinds of statements. This is why we should look at their function in our language. I happen to think, and so do other philosophers, that these statements form a kind of arational belief system that allows our language-games to take root. Without them there would be no talk of knowing, justification, or truth. They form the bedrock from which we form our linguistic acts.

Keep in mind that Wittgenstein never sorted this out, and it's difficult to say how much of what's written in these notes would have remained after he edited it.

But it's obvious. From your not knowing that the capital of Vanuatu is Port Vila it doesn't follow that it isn't true that it's the capital. To question a claim to know is not "by extension" to question the truth of what is claimed to be known.

Things are somewhat different in the case of hinges, but you haven't shown relevantly how. How does it follow "almost by necessity"? — jamalrob

The fact that you're saying, "From your not knowing that the capital of Vanuatu is Port Vila it doesn't follow that it isn't true that it's the capital," demonstrates that you're not following my point. Obviously not knowing the truth of a statement, doesn't mean the statement isn't true. It just means that you have no justification, or no epistemic right to claim it's true. Any claim, without some kind of justification, is a claim that can either be true or false, not just true, as some want to say about Moore's propositions.

Knowledge entails truth, by definition, so if knowledge entails truth, then Wittgenstein's attack of Moore's use of know is also an attack on the truth of those same propositions. This is why I believe it necessarily follows that to attack know, as W. does, is to also attack the truth of those same propositions. Otherwise, Wittgenstein's attack on Moore's use of know would be meaningless or vacuous.

By the way, this interpretation, which is an interpretation I primarily arrived at on my own, is confirmed by other philosophers, who have arrived at the same interpretation. This doesn't make the interpretation right or wrong, but does, I think, show that it certainly seems to follow from one's reading of the text.

Oh well, I know, everything I'm saying doesn't follow. From where I'm sitting it follows almost by necessity.

That's funny!

I appreciate your take, but I don't think that is what Wittgenstein is saying in OC. Moreover, I don't think that hinge-propositions are propositions in the normal sense, i.e., they don't have a truth value (generally speaking). In other words, there are uses where we can assign a truth value, but if the proposition is being used as a hinge, bedrock, or basic belief, then not only can we not talk about them in terms of knowing, but we can't talk about them in terms of truths either. They are outside our epistemological language games, which means that any talk of knowing, and by extension any talk of truth or justification, is meaningless (again, generally speaking, there are exceptions). They are arational beliefs. These beliefs function as the building blocks of our language-games of epistemology, and of language generally.

If W. is saying that Moore's use of know is senseless, then by extension truth is included, for what are we talking about, if not the truth of Moore's propositions. To say that Moore knows X, is to say that Moore knows the truth of X. What else would knowing mean in Moore's context, if not, that his propositions are true? So, again, when W. attacks Moore's propositions, he is not only attacking the use of the word know, but all that goes along with it, including truth and justification (repeating for emphasis).

It would be like asking, while coming up with a rule in chess (as the game is invented), "Is it true that bishops move diagonally?" It's just a rule. It's not about true or false. Now later, in a given context, you can speak of the truth of a rule, but note this is only after the rule has been established. The rule that bishops move diagonally is a kind of ground for the game, a bedrock statement. It has nothing to do with truth.

The status of W.'s hinge-propositions depends on it's status in a given language-game, which is why in some language-games it's appropriate to talk of these propositions in epistemological terms.

You would deny, upon seeing said boulder, that one of these is true?

The weight of the boulder is 5000 kg
The weight of the boulder is not 5000 kg

Before you tell me that we don't normally talk like that etc., try this one: there is life on other planets. It could be true as far as we know. If it is, then it's currently true but nobody knows it yet.

We sometimes seek to prove statements to be true. This doesn't make any sense without this concept of truth. Your position implies that a proposition becomes true only when we come to know it, which seems confused. — jamalrob

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not denying that there are claims that are either true or false. I'm denying that there are unknown truths, there are facts that are unknown, but to say that X is a truth, but is unknown doesn't make sense. Ya, and we seek to prove statements to be true, but that's not what's being claimed here. We are not saying there is a claim, which can be true or false, and we are seeking to prove it's true. Here, what is implied is that there is a statement X, that is true, but we don't know it's true. How could you say it's true if you don't know it?

It's as if we have these propositions existing in some metaphysical realm that are true, but we don't know their true. We can say that of facts, but not of truths, which are just claims by themselves that can be either true or false.

There are claims that I don't know are true, but others do, but that's still different from what's claimed here.

To understand that the phrase "unknown truth" is nonsense or senseless, all we have to do is think of cases where in our ordinary use we speak like this. Ordinarily, we might say, "It's unknown what the weight of some random giant boulder is," not, there exists some unknown truth X, that is the weight of the boulder. This kind of talk is what Wittgenstein was fighting against, it's a kind of philosophical jargon that seems to say something, when in fact it represents a confusion.

I'm inclined to agree with Luke. In fact, I would go so far as to say change is analytic to time. For there to be time, there would have to be a change of some kind, and that change has to be measurable in some way. This is why it makes no sense to talk of persons outside of time, timelessness is completely static, because there is no measurable change. I don't think we could make any sense of a universe outside of time or change.

Although change is analytic to time, I'm not sure time is analytic to change. Maybe there is an abstract use of change that isn't measurable, but this would seem not to be a real event.

Here's another way of making my point. If there is a proposition X that is an unknown truth, then the proposition, "X is true, but unknown" is true. If this is the case, then the proposition "X is true, but unknown," would be known to be true, leading, again, to a contradiction.

It seems we're ascribing some metaphysical existence to these "unknown truths," such that there is some future proposition X, that is not only true now, but true in the future, albeit unknown now, but known at some future time. It's as if the proposition is necessarily true, not contingently true. For if it were contingently true, then proposition could be false, which would violate the necessity of it being true.

I haven't completely thought the logic of this through, but there still seems to be a problem with this line of thinking.

Maybe hinge-propositions could have some third value, such that in some uses they are neither true or false, but have some other logical status.

I'll try one more time. Statements/propositions have two possible values (true or false), i.e., they either match with the facts or they don't. The claim that your truck has a particular weight, is a claim about a fact or state-of-affairs; and it's the state-of-affairs that is unknown. A statement that is true, is one that would line up with the fact (the correct weight of the truck). There is no statement or claim that's true independent of the facts. There are statements that have the potential of being true, but they also have the potential of being false. I believe that what's happening here is that people are trying to separate statements that are true (not intentionally) from the corresponding fact, and it can't be done. Again, it's a linguistic confusion.

I guess I fail to see what is contradictory about an unknown truth. My truck has a certain weight. I don't know what it is, but it has one. So there is some truth, i.e. "my truck weighs X lbs/kg", I just don't know it. Similar examples aren't difficult to multiply: I don't know what the temperature is right now in Paris, but there is a temperature (and so a truth corresponding to that). I don't remember Wittgenstein's birth date, but there is some truth RE when he was born. So I don't see what is difficult about that. — Seppo

The proposition that, "My truck has an unknown weight," is true, but that proposition is known to be true, viz., you know that you don't know the weight. This is still a confusion, and it's not an example. You still haven't given a truth that you don't know is true.

I don't have time right now to answer the rest of your post. I'll answer later.