• m-theory
    1.1k

    ~P = if there were not minds in our actual world
    then
    ~Q = there would not be truths in our actual world

    Is the inverse of

    P = If there are minds in the actual world
    then
    Q = there are truths in the actual world

    But this part in particular is self refuting in my view
    "There are no truths".
    I can make no sense of the notion that it can be true that there are no truths.
    I can make sense of this as false.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    I can make no sense of the notion that it can be true that there are no truths.m-theory

    Because you're ignoring context.

    From world y, it's true that there are no truths in world x.

    At time T2, it's true that there are no truths at time T1.

    You're ignoring context.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    I am done with worlds.

    I will simply have to take your word for it.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    Well, I definitely agree that "In world x, it's true that there is no truth in world x" is contradictory. But that's not what's being said.

    As I suggested long ago, substitute the word "judgment" for truth, and this should be far less confusing to you.

    "In my judgment in 2016, there were no judgments made on Earth 4.3 billion years ago."

    That doesn't seem contradictory to you, does it?
  • aletheist
    1.5k
    But this part in particular is self refuting in my view
    "There are no truths".
    m-theory

    That would indeed be self-refuting ... but it is not what I said. My statement did not assert anything about what actually is the case, but rather about what would be the case under a certain condition - IF there were no minds, THEN there would be no truths. There is simply no way to construe this as self-contradictory.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    No I don't agree with that view.

    The argument is the combination of both statements
    ~P--->~Q
    And not Q is still self refuting
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    Why should we have to substitute these terms if they are equivalent?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Why should we have to substitute these terms if they are equivalent?m-theory

    For purposes of understanding on your part. The word "truth" is confusing you.

    And you're not answering the question:

    "In my judgment in 2016, there were no judgments made on Earth 4.3 billion years ago."

    That doesn't seem contradictory to you, does it?
  • aletheist
    1.5k


    You changed the statement. We agree that "there are no truths" is self-refuting. The statement was, "If there were no minds, then there would be no truths." Here the consequent, "there would be no truths," is NOT self-refuting. Consider this statement:

    If there were no truths, then there would be no truths.

    This is necessarily true - if P, then P - and thus obviously not self-contradictory.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    Sure that seems reasonable, if it were that judgments and truths were the same thing.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    I still see that as self refuting because would not be true that there were no truths
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Sure that seems reasonable, if it were that judgments and truths were the same thing.m-theory

    Okay, but understanding that on my view, truth values are simply judgments, when we put the word "truth" back into the statement, I'm saying the exact same thing. So that's why it's not contradictory on my view.
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    This is necessarily true - if P, then P - and thus obviously not self-contradictory.aletheist

    No the argument is not if P then P

    The argument is if ~P then ~Q
    where p if there is there are minds
    and q then there are truths
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    Yes except it is contradictory to say it would be true that there would be no truths for example.
    In logic at least that is contradictory in the sense that it is self refuting.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Yes except it is contradictory to say it would be true that there would be no truths for example.m-theory

    That is certainly the case when the context isn't different between "it's true" and "there are no truths."

    However, ALL that I'm saying is that it's my judgment that there are no judgments in some particular context--some other time, some possible world, etc.
  • aletheist
    1.5k


    I have clearly been wasting my time. Cheers.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    That is fine.
    I just don't agree with the logical form of the argument you used to get there.
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    P therefor P is a circular argument.
    To my understanding circular arguments are not regarded as valid justification of claims.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    i don't think that you're disagreeing with logical form. I think you're disagreeing, at least intuitively, with what "truth" denotes. You don't buy that truth is just a judgment that particular individuals make, and you're having trouble reading "truth" so that it would denote that and only that. You're intuitively thinking that there are going to be things true or false in worlds where no persons are around to make judgments.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    Well actually that is why I was discussing the argument with aletheist in symbolic form.

    But we can't even agree what the argument being made is.

    If you wanted to discuss the argument in logical form I would be happy to do that.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    Would there be any actuality; that is, would anything at all be the case in a world that contained no percipients?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    Obviously I'm not any sort of ontological idealist.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    Thats not an answer to the question.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    In other words, why would I believe that the only means of there being something in a world is via there being creatures to have perceptions?
  • Janus
    16.2k


    Now you are countering a question with a question. Why don't you just give an honest answer to the question instead of bullshitting around?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    I gave an honest answer in the first place. If you want a particular (kind of) answer, either specify your limitations better or just have a conversation with yourself (since you'd be supplying the answer anyway).
  • Janus
    16.2k


    It was a straightforward question that could be answered 'yes' or 'no' and you did not answer it. And I suspect I know very well why you didn't answer it
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    It was a straightforward question that could be answered 'yes' or 'no' and you did not answer it. And I suspect I know very well why you didn't answer itJohn

    Actually, your comment above made me realize I misread your question (because at first I was like "It was a yes or no question? Wha??) I read your question as
    Why would there be any actuality; that is, why would anything at all be the case in a world that contained no percipients?John

    Re the simple yes/no question you actually asked, my answer is "Yes." The reason why I think that is that obviously I'm not an idealist. I'm a realist. I don't believe that the existence of anything but a very unusual possible world would depend on the existence of persons.
  • Janus
    16.2k


    OK, no problem. So what then, according to you, is the difference in a mind-empty world between it being the case that X, and it being true that X?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    "It is the case that" denotes a fact. Facts are states of affairs. "Ways the world is" in other words.

    Truth-value is a judgment about the relationship of a proposition to something else--the something else being dependent on just what truth theory someone subscribes to. It could be correspondence (so that truth-value is a judgment about the relationship of a proposition to facts), it could be coherence (so that truth-value is a judgment about the relationship of a proposition to the rest of the propositions the person assigns "T" to), it could be consensus (so that truth-value is a judgment about the relationship of a proposition to propositions that are assigned "T" by consensus of relevant populations), and so on.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.