Truth is an emergent property of these unlimited instances of the faces of transformation without change. — ucarr

I agree with this. But what about something not observed yet, but is, beyond doubt, projected to happen? Will it be considered truth, or not because of the lack of patterned observations?

Logic is the time-zero expansion-convergence, or dynamism, of the faces of transformation without change. — ucarr

Is logic truth or argument based on observation (projection)?

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

Are you sure, you have access to the axiomatic science?

Physics, noble and meticulous, charts this ocean of being with instruments built from its own assumptions. It seeks absolutes through relative senses, universals through parochial measures.

Our instruments, no matter how advanced, are extensions of our biology — our range of frequencies, our temporal window, our cognitive scale. We calibrate our machines to perceive as we perceive, and then marvel that they reveal the world as we imagined it.

Thus, even our most precise equations are anthropic dialects of cosmic truth. They describe not what the universe is, but what it looks like when filtered through human proportion.

When we claim the cosmos is “too complex” to model, we reveal not its imperfection, but the mismatch between infinite reality and finite intellect. The breakdown is not in the atom, but in the observer’s abstraction.

Every failure of theory is a reminder that the universe has not erred — only that we have presumed to be its final interpreter.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259

"The cat is on the mat." Is that true?

"The cat is on the mat." Is that true? — Hanover

Good one. There are more areas to attack, though. The problem with his proposition is that it's entirely mathematical.

Logic is the time-zero expansion-convergence, or dynamism, of the faces of transformation without change. — ucarr

Is logic truth or argument based on observation (projection)? — Copernicus

Truth, logic and argument are words connected in a deep interweave of meaning. Logic is reasoning from known facts. Argument is judgment emergent from reasoning applied to objectifiable phenomena. Truth is identity across mirroring symmetry and transformation without change. — ucarr

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

Are you sure, you have access to the axiomatic science? — Copernicus

Axioms are distinct from science. They are the necessarily unreasoned assumptions upon which science is founded. — ucarr

They are the necessarily unreasoned assumptions upon which science is founded. — ucarr

I said it from the mathematical standpoint. Nonetheless, are you sure your science is absolute?

"The cat is on the mat." Is that true? — Hanover

Let's suppose the cat's position on the mat lies within the range-domain of an objectively established Cartesian Coordinate system; it is a defined neighborhood within the borough of Brooklyn in New York. If an investigator can write an equation that plots an ordered pair valid with respect to the existential cat_mat, such that it maps to them, then by this means the truth of the statement can be established.

Let's suppose the cat's position on the mat lies within the range-domain of an objectively established Cartesian Coordinate system; it is a defined neighborhood within the borough of Brooklyn in New York. If an investigator can write an equation that plots an ordered pair valid with respect to the existential cat_mat, such that it maps to them, then by this means the truth of the statement can be established. — ucarr

If I suppose the cat is in a specific place in New York, then why does an investigator have to appear and write down his coordinates for the cat to exist? Does the potential cat await patiently on the mat for the final equation to be written down by the investigator before the cat actually exists?

I feel like what we're getting at is that "the cat is on the mat" is true if it correlates with reality.

They are the necessarily unreasoned assumptions upon which science is founded. — ucarr

I said it from the mathematical standpoint. Nonetheless, are you sure your science is absolute? — Copernicus

As for the math component of an axiom, if the math is internally consistent, then it is true to the interrelations of numbers as they apply to observable phenomena. This supports the mind's truth assessment of the math per the axiomatic system grounding the math.

Beyond the scope of the axiomatic system, refutation of the interrelations of the numbers of said system might occur, but the local truth within the system remains unperturbed. This is exampled by the comparison of Newtonian physics with Einstein physics. The older physics, being internally consistent within its limited scope, remains valid and true, as evidenced by its continuing use by today's physicists.

Unrestricted absolutism should not be the sine qua non standard for truth. The relativity of elapsing time across different inertial systems does not lead us to say their respective time measurements are not true.

If I'm getting this right, according to your theory, truth beyond observation (you need to observe to prove) is deniable, and anything showing uniform (unchanging across the spectrum) patterns is true.

My question is, are you certain that observers' (humankind, per se) subjective observations are credible?

even our most precise equations are anthropic dialects of cosmic truth. They describe not what the universe is, but what it looks like when filtered through human proportion.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Infinite Symmetry: On the Illusion of Scale and the Fallibility of Human Physics [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17357259

If I suppose the cat is in a specific place in New York, then why does an investigator have to appear and write down his coordinates for the cat to exist? — Hanover

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

My self quote above is how I've addressed the profound issue of the impossibility of reasoning to the naked fact of existence. Our existence must be assumed axiomatically. Part of the puzzle consists in the fact we cannot reason without assuming unexamined our sentient existence as a necessary precursor to all reasoning.

Does the potential cat await patiently on the mat for the final equation to be written down by the investigator before the cat actually exists? — Hanover

Schrödinger's Paradox teases toward examining your question seriously. More to the point, no examination of truth, including the possibility of truth's existence, can proceed without the unexamined assumption of a rational examiner. Some suggestion here, therefore, pictures the absolutist pursuit of truth as an infinite echo chamber. Be content with the local truths the intelligibility of your life depends upon.

Our existence must be assumed axiomatically. — ucarr

I'm not suggesting we challenge our own existence. We're talking about the cat. We don't just assume the cat exists. We have to see him first.

More to the point, no examination of truth, including the possibility of truth's existence, can proceed without the unexamined assumption of a rational examiner. — ucarr

So you withdraw your previous response that said an examiner was required for the statement about the cat to be true?

So you withdraw your previous response that said an examiner was required for the statement about the cat to be true? — Hanover

Philosophy aside, do I now need to hire detectives or observers to know if my boiled egg is real or not?

If I'm getting this right, according to your theory, truth beyond observation (you need to observe to prove) is deniable, and anything showing uniform (unchanging across the spectrum) patterns is true. — Copernicus

Observation, as Sherlock Holmes establishes, might be a priori. As for uniform patterns establishing truth, one must ask, "Do they extend from and converge to an identity, such as 7=7?" Truth is symmetry and transformation rooted in identity.

even our most precise equations are anthropic dialects of cosmic truth. They describe not what the universe is, but what it looks like when filtered through human proportion. — Alam T.B.

The Infinite Symmetry revisits a persuasive argument rooted in anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, we have to be cautious to avoid the solipsism gutter. I choose to believe that now, as I'm dialoguing with you, I'm not really dialoguing with myself. In your dialoguing with me, don't you assume likewise? Well, if we can establish within the human realm that distinct individuals exist, might we not also assume distinct individuals elsewhere? Moreover, the argument we can't get beyond our own biology supports the supposition our incapacity to know beyond ourselves makes moot the question, "Are we alone?" If the question can't be resolved, there's no reason to assume we're wrong to assume human distinction, on the basis of an existentialist fiction, isn't a worthy empiricism.

People in 1000 BC couldn't see infrared. Was it fake?

Humans and their inventions will forever be limited. And even if they were infallible beings with unquestionable conclusions, the information paradox poses an important question: are you sure that the universe, in its entirety, has presented itself to you for proper inspection?

We don't just assume the cat exists. We have to see him first. — Hanover

And math does a good job of measuring and systematizing our seeing of cats. Truth, being an emergent property of the mind, is more abstract cognition than empirical experience, except that when a map leads you to your presupposed destination, your sense of reality and well being are gratified. So, the measuring and systematizing ride atop the assumption of our shared existence. We both know that when a brutal beast comes charging towards us, we don't assume our senses are projecting a mirage really a part of ourselves.

Even if our cognition is a closed system unreal beyond itself, its local reality is worthy of "as if" engagement.

And math does a good job of measuring and systematizing our seeing of cats. Truth, being an emergent property of the mind, is more abstract cognition than empirical experience, except that when a map leads you to your presupposed destination, your sense of reality and well being are gratified. So, the measuring and systematizing ride atop the assumption of our shared existence. We both know that when a brutal beast comes charging towards us, we don't assume our senses are projecting a mirage really a part of ourselves.

Even if our cognition is a closed system unreal beyond itself, its local reality is worthy of "as if" engagement. — ucarr

And so I'll translate this line by line:

We can measure cats mathematically. Truth is a creation of the mind and it's a concept, not a direct experience. You are happy when a map takes you to the right place. The measuring of something helps us understand it to make us believe we both live in the same reality. If an animal attacks us, we don't take a moment to decide if it's real.

Even if I am the only person in existence, I still act like other people exist.

Ok, now that I've translated it, tell me which of these things must necessarily exist for there to be a cat on the mat:
1. A mind, 2. a cat, 3. a mat.

My next questions:
If there is no mind, can there still be a cat?
What has to happen for a mind to perceive a cat? Does there have to be a cat to make the mind see the cat, or do just sometimes minds see cats and then we pretend there are cats, even though there aren't?

If an investigator can write an equation that plots an ordered pair... — ucarr

So you withdraw your previous response that said an examiner was required for the statement about the cat to be true? — Hanover

No need to withdraw my statement of conditions for determining truth via math. As I've implied with...

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

...science can't get started without assumptions as self-evident truths beyond the reach of reasoning. This being so, conditions for the practice of science toward establishing true relationships must be specified. The important word here is relationships. Truth, as I'm spinning it out, is rooted in relationships. Logic, being continuity governed by inference, checks and verifies the continuity linking the symmetrical handshake of truth across transformation without change.

People in 1000 BC couldn't see infrared. Was it fake? — Copernicus

Can you give reasons why infrared couldn't be measured in 1000 BC, or 1,000,000 BC?

...the info paradox poses an important question: are you sure that the universe, in its entirety, has presented itself to you for proper inspection? — Copernicus

Does the question of the loss of info due to black hole evaporation raise a question about the complete accessibility of info, or does it raise a question about the completeness of existence, a larger set containing info?

Let's suppose the loss of access to info is non-equal to the loss of info itself. If existence is a necessary precursor to info, and yet existence itself is incomplete, then the info paradox is merely more info about incomplete existence. Instead of focusing on lost info due to inaccessibility (and the supposed resultant unreliability of cognition), perhaps we should focus on the info suggested by the paradox as a revelation of the incompleteness of existence, and thus a gain of info about what cannot be known existentially.

We can measure cats mathematically. Truth is a creation of the mind and it's a concept, not a direct experience. You are happy when a map takes you to the right place. The measuring of something helps us understand it to make us believe we both live in the same reality. If an animal attacks us, we don't take a moment to decide if it's real.

Even if I am the only person in existence, I still act like other people exist. — Hanover

Ok, now that I've translated it, tell me which of these things must necessarily exist for there to be a cat on the mat:
1. A mind, 2. a cat, 3. a mat. — Hanover

As I read your narrative, it hovers at the cusp of undecidability. If so, with your narrative you militate against necessity. Undecidability vacates the binary foundation of necessity. "To be or not to be," is arguably our greatest binary. Undecidability elides the authority of the binary whilst shaking hands with QM.

Incompleteness of existence might be another fundamental term in our ontology here: being/non-being, undecidability; existential incompleteness.

So, truth is rooted in relationships; relationships ride atop a binary-ist foundation. If you can stop relating to the natural world around you as a distinct and interrelated self, then perhaps you can live true to a principled skepticism about utilitarian truth local.

Your interpretation in bold at top indirectly invokes a useful definition of reality: the mirroring of cognition and its objects. Living in the same reality is a shout out to identity in the sense of 7=7. As we navigate what we call reality, we see things and strive to understand them as a mirroring of ourselves, albeit disguised as the other.

• Truth is an emergent property of the dynamism of identity. — ucarr

Does this say more than that a=a is true? That doesn't tell us what truth is.

Clever words can trick one into thinking that what one is saying is profound, when it is actually superficial.

Sorry. You asked.

Does this say more than that a=a is true? That doesn't tell us what truth is. — Banno

a=a examples a true relationship in the context of symmetry. The self can't express itself outside of symmetry. You only see the mirror image of yourself. The mirror image of you is simultaneously you and not you, but mirror-image you.

From this beginning, thinking mind spins out from a=a to a=c because a equals b and b equals c. Logic guards against false continuities that break interrelations that would, according to the grandest scheme, spin out the universe from an immeasurable singularity.

Identity expresses the conservation laws in a nutshell of symmetry. You have a personal history. In the identity supported by your personal you are conserved. If someone, say, an online troll, posts to social media a fake news report linking you to a murder you didn't commit, you might mount a defense that demonstrates the absence of any symmetry between the fake report and you. Your argument would reside in logic demonstrating there's no mirror-imaging between your personal history and the report.

If the universe spins out from a point immeasurable in a history governed by symmetry and conservation laws, then Werther’s travels, and his sorrows are but one personal history among countless, and yet the artifice of art tricks us into identification with what, at first glance, appears foreign to us.

We love to escape from the tyranny of our mundane selfhood, piqueishly scorning core facts like a=a as pettifogging fuss until someone or something threatens it, then we're at pains to show a=a, not a=¬a.

Clever words can trick one into thinking that what one is saying is profound, when it is actually superficial. — Banno

Yeah, you see I re-wrote what he wrote into what I thought it was saying.

But this is evasive because I asked very specific questions and you didn't provide answers. I didn't ask the questions in a way with the intent to force you into an untenable position, but I asked them the way I did because I honestly am seeking clarity that I truly find lacking in your posts.

For example, this statement:

As we navigate what we call reality, we see things and strive to understand them as a mirroring of ourselves, albeit disguised as the other. — ucarr

I interpret it this way: "When I walk around my house, I try to understand the things I see as being like me but dressed up like my wife."

I think that's a fair reading, making the abstract descriptions concrete.

I'm sure you didn't mean that though. A common rule of thumb for writers is that you can never blame your reader for misunderstanding, but you have to blame yourself for not being clear.

Clever words can trick one into thinking that what one is saying is profound, when it is actually superficial. — Banno

Yeah, you see I re-wrote what he wrote into what I thought it was saying. — Hanover

Do you argue that your translation expresses trivial facts?

Do you argue that your translation expresses trivial facts? — ucarr

Less than I argue, I just seek clarity from you. You started a thread about truth, and such threads tend to be interesting, so I was trying to figure out what you were saying.

Ok, now that I've translated it, tell me which of these things must necessarily exist for there to be a cat on the mat:
1. A mind, 2. a cat, 3. a mat. — Hanover

As I read your [translation], it hovers at the cusp of undecidability. If so, with your narrative you militate against necessity. Undecidability vacates the binary foundation of necessity. "To be or not to be," is arguably our greatest binary. Undecidability elides the authority of the binary whilst shaking hands with QM. — ucarr

But this is evasive because I asked very specific questions and you didn't provide answers. I didn't ask the questions in a way with the intent to force you into an untenable position, but I asked them the way I did because I honestly am seeking clarity that I truly find lacking in your posts. — Hanover

All three must exist. The identity of each of the three is complicated by the interrelations numbers describe in measuring them. The truth content of the numerical narrative involves positioning of each in a calculable ecology that entails degrees of codependence and emergence.

My next questions:
If there is no mind, can there still be a cat?
What has to happen for a mind to perceive a cat? Does there have to be a cat to make the mind see the cat, or do just sometimes minds see cats and then we pretend there are cats, even though there aren't? — Hanover

The first question begs the question, "How can there be a question about the existence of a cat in the absence of a questioning mind?" Ditto for the second question; since you must have a mind to ask the question, you can't stipulate the mind's exclusion in the answering of it. The third question, which operates in the shadow of the question-begging of the first two questions, asks for the type of complicated narratives appropriate for consciousness researchers; they're neuroscientists, not philosophers; suffice it to say, for now, that the mind can recombine received data into cognitions separate from their natural world correlates; I doubt it can conjure cognitions from nothing.

As we navigate what we call reality, we see things and strive to understand them as a mirroring of ourselves, albeit disguised as the other. — ucarr

I interpret it this way: "When I walk around my house, I try to understand the things I see as being like me but dressed up like my wife."

I think that's a fair reading, making the abstract descriptions concrete.

I'm sure you didn't mean that though. A common rule of thumb for writers is that you can never blame your reader for misunderstanding, but you have to blame yourself for not being clear. — Hanover

I mean to say that epistemology gives quarter to skepticism, even to solipsism because the reasonings against universal truths find their durability by making a close approach to undecidability. The price paid for this defense is the weakening of the binary mindset of non-contradiction. This weakening, in turn, supports QM.

Maybe my post below provides you with some clarity.

a=a examples a true relationship in the context of symmetry. — ucarr

Ok, but again, the relationship is true - but does it define truth?

I asked ChatGPT to pull out the argument in your post, and it offered:

Condensed Argument Form

• The law of identity (a=a) expresses a symmetry fundamental to logic and to being/selfhood.
• Logical reasoning (relations among terms) expands this symmetry outward into the relational world.
• Logic preserves genuine symmetries — falsehood is a broken symmetry.
• Personal identity mirrors physical conservation: the self is what persists through transformations.
• When false identifications occur, reason (logic) restores symmetry by distinguishing self from non-self.
• Art and imagination temporarily play with symmetry by allowing false identifications.
• Thus, our intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic lives are structured by a tension between the conservation of identity (a=a) and the imaginative violation of it (a=¬a)

.



Now it seems to me that a=a can function as a definition of "=", but not of "...is true".

So instead, perhaps consider the T-sentence. It has a longer pedigree but remains pretty tautologous.

T-sentence: "p" is true if and only if p.

As definitions of truth go, this is The One.

Veritas est adequatio intellectus et rei



This seems to me a definition of essence but not truth

Ha, you've pulled Nietzsche: each of these ideas stand on their own in a way, and they do relate to truth and identity. You've done a pretty good job of this kind of exercise as well, it's hard to argue with these (which is pretty rare for this forum).

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

Yeah, it's basically like saying that to human is to need creativity, even if it seems "pointless". However, as far as science an art are concerned, to a high degree, they result from material accumulation to sound like a Marxist for a second.