What is true or false of a fictional universe is only dependent on what its creator thinks about it. — aletheist

No. What he says about it. — tim wood

Fair enough, but the point is that it does not depend on what anyone else thinks (or says) about it.

Indeed, if it's a fictional universe, then no proposition about it is true - except the proposition that it is a fictional universe. — tim wood

No proposition about it is true of the real universe, but certain propositions about that fictional universe are true within that fictional universe. The proposition "Hamlet was the prince of Denmark" is false in the real universe, but true in the fictional universe of Shakespeare's play.

But you have evaded the point. Truth and falsity are assigned to propositions. If no propositions, or, if no one to assign truth or falsity, then no truth or falsity. You need the assigner. — tim wood

I did not realize that this was the point, and in any case I disagree. Truth and falsity are not assigned to propositions, they are properties of propositions. The proposition "the earth revolves around the sun" was true before there were any humans around to express that proposition or to assign truth to it.

Nobody has mentioned the Stadium paradox. If the two moving columns are made of 3 discrete parts each, and pass another other column from opposite sides in a discrete second, is the relative time between the moving columns even a thing? Wouldn't the relative time be less than a pure instant then? How does modern physics theory on time and motion deal with this? Maybe I should start a new thread. I've read that "A History of Greek Mathematics" by Heath discussrd this neglected paradox of Zeno in Chapter VIII. I personally haven't thought of it in awhile

The proposition "the earth revolves around the sun" was true before there were any humans around to express that proposition or to assign truth to it. — aletheist

No. And this is just the language - but it makes a difference. The proposition that the sun - and everything else - revolved around the earth was a proposition propounded by folks who believed and had proofs of it. For them it was a true proposition. But just one not altogether in accord with the facts.

Now, to be sure, we say the earth revolves around the sun and hold that as true. And as an expression of fact it's a lot closer than the Ptolemaic model. But it's still not the fact itself. The distinction here is between truth and fact. The world is fact and nothing true in it. Our propositions, those that are, are true, and when they are about the world, never in themselves facts. Confusing the two puts one on the road to confusing the world with what we say about it, which are two different things. I suppose it doesn't help that observations that are taken to be factual are always propositions.

The proposition that the sun - and everything else - revolved around the earth was a proposition propounded by folks who believed and had proofs of it. For them it was a true proposition. But just one not altogether in accord with the facts. — tim wood

Truth or falsity is not a matter of human belief. A proposition that is "not altogether in accord with the facts" is not a true proposition, no matter how many people hold it to be true. A proposition about the world is true if and only if it denotes a reality as its object and signifies a fact as its interpretant.

A proposition about the world is true if and only if it denotes a reality as its object and signifies a fact as its interpretant. — aletheist

A little slow in reply, sorry about that. What is "a" reality? And can you record here even one fact, any at all, as you describe fact?

What is "a" reality? — tim wood

Whatever is such as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

And can you record here even one fact, any at all, as you describe fact? — tim wood

The earth revolves around the sun--provided that it really does, as I believe to be the case.

And how is it, apart from how it is thought of? That is, how would anyone know? And you aver as fact that which you believe to be the case? I invite you to reconsider this:

A proposition that is "not altogether in accord with the facts" is not a true proposition, no matter how many people hold it to be true. — aletheist

You seem to be conflating knowledge with truth. The standard philosophical definition of knowledge is justified true belief. I can believe a proposition, and even be justified in believing it, but that is not what makes it true.

Until you're clearer on just what a fact is and what it means for proposition to be true, your

A proposition that is "not altogether in accord with the facts" is not a true proposition, no matter how many people hold it to be true. — aletheist

is incoherent. That's why I invited you to reconsider it. Never mind what I'm thinking, because that's not the topic, and you're not correct.

On the contrary, it is quite clear to me that a fact is the real state of things that a true proposition signifies.

How do you know what is real? You present as a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. It doesn't. Yours just a convenient fiction - a non-truth.

How do you know what is real? — tim wood

Whether I know that something is real is irrelevant. Again, the real is that which is such as it is regardless of what anyone (including me) thinks about it.

You present as a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. — tim wood

I explicitly stipulated that this is a fact if and only if the earth really revolves around the sun. Like all our beliefs, this one is fallible.

It doesn't. Yours just a convenient fiction - a non-truth. — tim wood

So, you believe that the earth does not really revolve around the sun? Like all beliefs, that one is also fallible. Since they are contradictory, one of us affirms a true proposition and the other affirms a false proposition; but which is true and which is false does not depend on what either of us (or anyone else) thinks about the matter.

So, you believe that the earth does not really revolve around the sun? — aletheist

I know that it doesn't. But I suspect you have no honest interest in the discussion. But maybe you do. Let's start with this: does the earth revolve around the sun?

So, you believe that the earth does not really revolve around the sun? — aletheist

I know that it doesn't. — tim wood

How do you know this? I am not asking how you justify that belief, but on what basis it is (purportedly) true.

But I suspect you have no honest interest in the discussion. — tim wood

I would prefer that you just come out and make whatever point is on your mind.

Let's start with this: does the earth revolve around the sun? — tim wood

So many posts on this thread. Here's a question for those who are entranced with the notion math should begin with continua: From the OP is there a continuum of discussion relating Gabriel's Horn with the Earth revolving around the sun? :chin:

I would prefer that you just come out and make whatever point is on your mind. — aletheist

I have been doing exactly that. One more time:

A proposition about the world is true if and only if it denotes a reality as its object and signifies a fact as its interpretant. — aletheist

I asked you what you meant by "reality." You answered,

Whatever is such as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. — aletheist

If reality is whatever it is notwithstanding what anyone thinks of it, then it is not a thing determined in any way by anyone's thinking. I ask again, what is reality, and how does anyone know what it is? And no thinking allowed in your answer.

And, I asked you to provide a fact. And you said the earth revolved around the sun. And that it's a fact if it's true, as you believe it to be. If you're not getting the nonsense here, there's not much point in continuing.

And as it happens, the earth does not revolve around the sun. If you doubt that, do a little research. In the meantime, think about your ideas of fact and truth and reality, because as you're using the terms, they don't make sense.