‘Exists’ is the wrong word here. Consider the etymology of the word - ‘ex-‘ outside of, apart from (exile, exterrnal) and ‘ist’ to stand. When you say that 2+2 =4, the ‘=‘ in that expression means ‘is’. But it doesn’t mean ‘exists’. This is in some ways a vagary of language, but it still indicates an important philosophical matter. An island to the south of continental Australia exists. A large deposit of ice on the Moon is now said to exist. But the solution to the question of what two and two equals does not exist, it simply is.

Not trying to follow you around Wayfarer, we may just have common philosophical interests. =)

The = symbol does not mean "is". It means "The left side is the same as the right side". "Is" is involved in the definition, but the equals sign is only about equivalency in comparing two sides. I taught high school math for about 5 years. That being the case, language is often contextual. Many people view it = the same as "is", because it works for the most part.

"Is" and "exists" are arguably synonyms. I say arguably, because depending on people's contexts, they might use them slightly differently. They are not tightly defined words, so we should be careful in making tight arguments with them.

To leo, the problem is people have to accept your definition of truth. No one has agreed that truth is what is eternally unchanging. I think most commonly people view truth as what "exists" (Now you see why I addressed Wayfarer) despite our will and intentions. Sometimes truth is concurrent with our will, sometimes it is not. But that is all it is. If something happens to be eternal, then that is its truth. If something does not happen to be eternal, then that is its truth.

So lets alter your propositions to fit.

Define Truth as what "is/exists".

Assume that nothing exists. If that is the case, then we cannot put forward the proof that nothing exists, because the proof would then exist.

Therefore, it is certain that there is at least one thing that exists. If people agree that truth is viable synonym for "is/exists", then the use of truth with this definition describes a logical reality.

But this does not prove that something eternal exists. It also does not prove that truth must mean "what exists/is". After all, what we ascribe to words is our choice, and nothing inherent in reality dictates this. But, if we do with to ascribe this meaning to truth, we have proven that the meaning itself, is something logically concluded as something which cannot be contradicted.

All fair points. There is not much recognition of the distinction of 'being' and 'existence' in current English, and they're generally regarded as synonyms, but that is, as I say, partially due to the way language has evolved.

I think the substitution of 'is' for 'equals' is unproblematic. But you wouldn't say that two plus two exists four, would you?

A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? You might say, there is the number 7, that obviously exists, I'm pointing at it. But what you're pointing at is a symbol. The same number can be represented by many different symbols. If you use a different symbol, like VII, the symbol is different but the value is the same. So the value is different from the symbol.

This opens out into the age-old debate about the nature of number. Is it a product or a discovery? I'm inclined to the latter, which is, loosely speaking, platonist. But of course it is not an argument that can be resolved.

this does not prove that something eternal exists. — Philosophim

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts?

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

Quantum fields, perhaps.

I think that's close. Interesting that it's a discovery of mathematical physics, isn't it?

The OP is just a piece of closed reasoning. It tells us nothing.

Further, the definition is wrong. Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing. It is not god nor is it eternal.

Because quantum. Risible.

To expand a bit on what @Banno just said - if you are a witness in a court of law - when you swear to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth? What this means is that your statements will (to the best of your abilities) accurately describe events/facts.

Correspondence Theory of Truth

A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? — Wayfarer

Its a good question that touches on language and identity. One ability we all have is to take the sum of experience we have, and then create discrete identities within it. You can see a field of grass with a sheep, but take that image and identify a blade of grass, and a piece of grass. Basically we can take and parse that image however we like.

Language and symbols are the attempt to communicate the ability to discretely experience. "1" as the concept is the idea that in a picture of experience on a portion. That is the "1" within the infinite. "2" is the concept that if we take 1 identity, and 1 very similar identity, we then create a new identity of including them together.

Numbers as the concept describing this ability to discretely experience are things most of us can easily reproduce, so they are easily communicated. The symbol is just a medium of communication through sight, sound, smell, etc. that are distinct enough to recognize that we can trigger the concept within us again.

One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts? — Wayfarer

I don't know. And that may be because of our ability to discretely experience anything. A part is an identity we create. Normally this is because that part has some function that is different form that around it. Yet if I think of even a perfectly round sphere, someone will try to make a North pole, a South pole, and divide it up. =)

As for time, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "beginning". Time is really a concept we invented to note that what is now is different from a memory of what was then. As for something which does not end, that is also not likely to be known. So far existence has existed for billions of years to our limited knowledge. Yet even that is such a small time compared to "never ending".

Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.

Is there such a thing?

Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.

So something is eternal. Some call it God.

I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists. — leo

"There is nothing that never changes" can't be true if this is truth.

So you end up with a neat, beautiful paradox, not with a proof that something eternal exists.

I think that's close. Interesting that it's a discovery of mathematical physics, isn't it? — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's incredibly close, for beyond its mathematical origin the precise predictions have been realized in experiments, and so the standard model came forth.

In this poem of analysis, we see how the other candidates gradually fell away:

— The Answers to Everything —

On What ‘IS’

(Particles as excitations of fields)

An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.

There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists at once.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.

The particles, etc., are temporary;
The Basis is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null!

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields went mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

Proposed …

There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.

An island to the south of continental Australia exists. A large deposit of ice on the Moon is now said to exist. But the solution to the question of what two and two equals does not exist, it simply is. — Wayfarer

Why do you make this distinction? There is an island to the south of Australia. There is a large deposit of ice. 4 is a solution to 2+2=x. The island exists. The deposit of ice exists. 4 exists.

To better understand where I’m coming from : I used to see truth as relative. I made some threads on that a long while ago. The idea that my truth may not be your truth and that we can’t say one is more valid than the other because we may not have the same experiences.

But not everything can be relative, for if everything was relative then that would be an absolute. That’s a logical necessity. I’m going with a similar train of thought here. Not everything is temporary, for if it was then that itself would be eternal and not temporary. That’s a logical necessity as well.


Those who define truth as “in accordance with facts” get stuck when they go deeper. What is a true fact as opposed to a false one? What makes something truly in accordance with a fact? ...

Deep down the idea of Truth is that of something unchanging, that remains the same, that we can hang onto no matter what. And the point of this thread is that logical necessities show that there is something Absolute and Eternal. Call it Truth, call it the Absolute, call it God or whatever, the essence matters more than the label.

Deep down the idea of Truth is that of something unchanging — leo

It's six o'clock. It is true that it is six o'clock.



Now, it's one past six. It is no longer true that it is six o'clock.

Sometimes truth changes.

It's six o'clock. It is true that it is six o'clock.



Now, it's one past six. It is no longer true that it is six o'clock.

Sometimes truth changes. — Banno

You cannot make truthful statements like that about time. By the time you say "it's six o'clock" that time has past. And, as Einstein proposed, what time it is, is relative to your frame of reference, so there is no such thing as the truth about what time it actually is.

I’m gonna phrase it differently

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. Either this is true for a limited time, or for all eternity.

If the assumption is true only for a limited time, that means that when it isn’t true there is something that is eternal. But if there is something that is eternal then “nothing is eternal” is always false.

If the assumption is true for all eternity, then there is something that is true for all eternity, which isn’t nothing, so “nothing is eternal” is always false.

So the assumption “nothing is eternal” necessarily leads to a contradiction. Thus it is false. Proof by contradiction. So something is eternal ...

But the solution to the question of what two and two equals does not exist, it simply is. — Wayfarer

I've been attempting to draw the distinction between "real" and "exists" in multiple threads. Seems a useful line of inquiry here.

A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? — Wayfarer

And why does the question matter? Because the overwhelming vast majority of reality is a real phenomena, which doesn't meet our definition of existence. Whatever label we wish to attach to that circumstance, it's a very big deal.

Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing — Banno

That's a common definition of truth. But that definition does reduce truth to being a pile of little symbols in the minds of a species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies. Thus making truth, in the grand scheme of things, very close to non-existent. Kind of a demotion for a word with such grand pretensions.

Let’s assume nothing is eternal. Either this is true for a limited time, or for all eternity. — leo

Your options are incorrect. If it is eternal, it is either eternal for all time, or it is not eternal. You can't be eternal for a short amount of time.

But let continue with your modified premises.

If there is something that is eternal, then it is false that nothing is eternal. And this statement of false, would be eternal.
However, if there exists absolutely nothing that is eternal, then our statement is true. And this statement of true, would be eternal.

So what can we conclude from this? That the conclusion of logical, deduced statements which are fulfilled perfectly, are eternally true, or eternally false.

We can therefore conclude the general statement "At least one thing is eternal, therefore eternal things can exist."

Of course, this only applies to statements that accurately reflect reality, so I'm not sure how useful this is. Perhaps you can extend this or think of a use?

I've been attempting to draw the distinction between "real" and "exists" in multiple threads. Seems a useful line of inquiry here. — Hippyhead

See this.

I believe the distinction between reality and existence was lost in Medieval Europe, as a consequence of the debate between (Scholastic) realism and nominalism. According to Scholastic realism, universals are real but they're not existent in the sense that individual particulars are existent; they're 'intelligible objects'. They're real as operative principles of the intellect and as universal principles in nature. But they don't exist 'out there', they're not objectively real, and for modern theory, they're simply non-existent, or as nominalism says, names only, contrivances of the human mind.

Well, this seems one of those definitional battles, as people wish to use the word "exists" in different ways. Perhaps we can find different words for distinguishing space from a can of soda?

In any case, imho the truth is that if we're going to be discussing phenomena as large as reality, that's overwhelmingly space at every scale. Space is the main event, everything else is a tiny detail.

So if one wishes to have a philosophy aligned with the nature of reality, less is more.

...pretensions... — Hippyhead

Indeed.

Nailing jelly to a wall.

You cannot make truthful statements like that about time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can; I did. Ergo, you are wrong.

There's nothing in a statement's being true or false that renders it it eternal.

Philosophical confusion often consists in mixing stuff that shouldn't be mixed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And in any case it started, so it must have started at some time. — tim wood

This is an unjustified assumption. Any existing thing, or event such as your "appointment", requires a confluence of numerous things coming together in unity. Not one of those, individually, can mark the beginning of the specified occurrence, and a judgement as to when they become unified as one event, to mark the beginning of that event, would be arbitrary.

When does your doctor's appointment begin? When the doctor asks the receptionist to send you in? When the receptionist signals to you? When you enter the examination room? When the doctor enters the room? When the doctor speaks to you? I don't think the doctor's billing practise is sufficient to justify a supposed beginning to your appointment.

Step up and tell us what you mean! — tim wood

I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. By the time you say "it's two o'clock", it's past two o'clock, unless you say "it's two o'clock" before it's two o'clock. If you do not see the truth to this obvious fact, or desire to deny the obvious truth, for some unknown reason, then I'm afraid I cannot help you to understand the reality of time.

If, on the other hand, you want to understand the reality of time, then you ought to be able to quickly recognize the fact that there is no such thing as a point in time, which we can say corresponds with "what time it is". "What time it is" does not indicate a point in time, it indicates a period of time, and that period cannot have boundaries marked as points, because the points are not real. So we ought not use the phrase "what time it is", as if it refers to a point in time. There is no empirical evidence to suggest points in time are real.

Or are you lost in Zeno-esque confusion. — tim wood

It appears like you are the one lost in such confusion, claiming that 2:00 could refer to an actual point in time, when there are no such points in time. Assigning numbers to time in this manner is just a convention of convenience which has no bearing on the reality of time.

I can; I did. Ergo, you are wrong. — Banno

Yes sir, President Trump, when you make a statement and insist that it's the truth, and it must be the truth, because you spoke it, and therefore anything to the contrary is false, I will have great respect for the truth of that statement.

If there is something that is eternal, then it is false that nothing is eternal. And this statement of false, would be eternal.
However, if there exists absolutely nothing that is eternal, then our statement is true. And this statement of true, would be eternal. — Philosophim

The point is there cannot be nothing that is eternal.

If there was nothing eternal, then “nothing is eternal” would be eternal, and “nothing is eternal” isn’t nothing, which contradicts the premise, so the premise is false. So there is something that is eternal.

We aren’t proving it is the statement “nothing is eternal” that is eternal, since the premise that led to it is false.

We are proving something is eternal, without specifying what that something is. This goes beyond statements. This applies to reality. There really is something that is eternal out there.

If there was nothing eternal, then “nothing is eternal” would be eternal... — leo

This claim does not seem to be based in any logic. If it is true that there is nothing which is eternal, this makes the statement "nothing is eternal" true. It does not make the statement "nothing is eternal" eternal. In fact, that would contradict the premise that there is nothing which is eternal.

This goes beyond statements. — leo

Well no, it doesn't really get beyond statements, because your claim is that a statement, "nothing is eternal", is something which is eternal. But you have provided nothing to justify this claim. And, it actually contradicts the stated condition "if there was nothing eternal".

If one believes that truth "does not exist", then they believe that axiom to be "true", rather than false, right?

So it's an oxymoron.

But if you assume “Truth doesn’t exist outside of this sentence and outside of things that are true by definition” then you have no issue. And this is what is meant usually when people say “Truth doesn’t exist”