I think that is where we disagree most when it comes to truth.
You believe that where you lack any doubt then there is truth.
That is not my view of truth. — m-theory

Seriously, what the fuck? I'm not saying anything about doubt or certainty. PERIOD.

Right. You understand my view.

Yes, the conditions of a conditional statement that leads to contradiction do not have to be met in actuality.
The argument is still a contradiction, even if the conditions of the argument are not met.

Then it is neither true or false that there is no logic in world x

Then it is neither true or false that there is no logic in world x — m-theory

(1)
IN POSSIBLE WORLD X
"There is no logic in world x"

(2)
IN POSSIBLE WORLD Y
"There is no logic in world x"

That's true (in my view) in (2), and neither true nor false in (1), correct.

Yes but we are talking about world x not world y

Sure, it's neither true nor false in (1). We agree on that.

If there is no truth value to obtain in world x then there is no truth value to obtain in world y.

If there is no truth value to obtain in world x then there is no truth value to obtain in world y. — m-theory

That's certainly not my view. What would the argument be for that?

The reason there is no truth value to obtain is because of logic, the logic in world y would not permit you to simply obtain a truth value where there is none.

I disagree with the premise that logic is what "permits" or "doesn't permit" truth values. (A fortiori because I'd say that logic isn't in the permissions business.)

The argument is still a contradiction, even if the conditions of the argument are not met. — m-theory

There is no contradiction whatsoever in my last post.

Yes but we are talking about world x not world y — m-theory

We are talking about world x within world y (our actual world), where there are minds, truths, logic, etc. Obviously no one would be talking about world x within world x, where there are no minds.

Yes I realize that.

You are comfortable with your beliefs and that is fine.
But I am merely pointing out why I do not accept your beliefs as logically valid.

Guys I am tired now, I say we just chalk it up to agree to disagree.

because nothing is true in world x. — aletheist

This cannot be true in logic without contradiction.

But I am merely pointing out why I do not accept your beliefs as logically valid. — m-theory

The only place where logical validity enters the picture is that if one accepts the premises that truth values are identical to judgments about propositions, and one accepts that judgments only obtain when there are creatures with minds, then inside of world x, it validly follows that there are no truth values.

That would simply be (semi-)formalized like this:

a is identical to b
b only occurs when there are Fs.
In domain x, there are no Fs.
Therefore, in domain x, a doesn't occur.

This cannot be true in logic without contradiction. — m-theory

What the heck does "true in logic" even refer to in this context?

No I have already pointed out the issues with this argument.

It means an argument with a valid or sound form.

This cannot be true in logic without contradiction. — m-theory

There is no logic in world x. There is logic in our actual world, and thus we can assert in our actual world that nothing is true in world x. The only way to contradict this is to assert in our actual world that something is true in world x. @Terrapin Station is not asserting this, so his view is not self-contradictory - which, again, is not to say that it is correct.

In fact, you are the only one asserting that something is true in world x, because you believe that truth is mind-independent; i.e., there are truths in all possible worlds. That is why you see a contradiction - you are (perhaps unconsciously) imposing your own view as a hidden premiss, rather than sticking to what @Terrapin Station is actually advocating.

Yes you can assert that, but it is still a contradiction in world y.
There are no contradictions in world x.

But in world y to say that there is no truths in world x still leads to a contradiction in world y because the contradiction is being caused by the logic in world y.
So in world y it can't true about world x that in world x there are no truths, that would be a contradiction about world x.

Also I never claimed truth is mind-idependent.

I claimed it is reasonable to say truth is mind dependent and world dependent.
So far nothing I have encountered in this thread has caused me to doubt this view..

I also agreed that it maybe that we can't know if there is or is not truth in a world without minds because it may be the case that there are no truth values in a world without minds.

The only thing I am advocating, my only hiden premise, is that perhaps you guys should consider the possibility that you cannot prove the things that you believe with logic. At least so far you have not done so without issues.
There is no shame in that I don't think.

It means an argument with a valid or sound form. — m-theory

Well, then "x can not be true in logic without contradiction" is just nonsense, unless we're talking about some weird paraconsistent logic with necessary contradictions.

I am glad I did not make that argument then.

perhaps you guys should consider the possibility that you cannot prove the things that you believe with logic. — m-theory

Empirical claims are not provable period. I'm not at all talking about proofs, I'm not at all claiming that anything empirical I believe is proved or has anything to do with proofs, etc.

Also, even with proofs, they're only relative to particular systems of logic.

I am glad I did not make that argument then. — m-theory

You said that something can't be "true in logic without contradiction."

By the way, in your view, the following isn't a valid argument?

a is identical to b
b only occurs when there are Fs.
In domain x, there are no Fs.
Therefore, in domain x, a doesn't occur.

I pointed out that a is not identical to b.
I also pointed out that if a is identical to b and a has no truth value then neither does b.

That would mean that b only occurs in F's has no truth value

in domain x there are no F's is fine

Therefor in domain x a does not occur has no true value

So in world y it can't true about world x that in world x there are no truths, that would be a contradiction about world x. — m-theory

Why would that be a contradiction?

P = In world x there are no truths.
not-P = In world x there are some truths.

@Terrapin Station is asserting P. He is not asserting not-P. Therefore, there is no contradiction. To get one, you have to add another premiss; for example, "If there are no truths within world x, then there are no truths (in any possible world) about world x."

... perhaps you guys should consider the possibility that you cannot prove the things that you believe with logic. — m-theory

My beliefs have nothing to do with anything being discussed here. I am only evaluating the formal logic, not the propositions themselves.

I pointed out that a is not identical to b. — m-theory

Two problems with this comment:

(1) You have no idea what a and b are. They're variables. I'm not asking you to plug anything into the variables. That's why they're presented as variables.

(2) I'm asking whether you think the argument, as presented, with variables, is a valid argument or not. Whether premises are false has nothing to do with whether it's a valid argument.

In world y there is logic, hence there is a contradiction when you claim that it is true that there are no truths.