Jb,

Facts are, by definition, not subjective. They are states of universal affairs. There's that language limit again.

You agreed that one's definition of the term "truth" is subjective.
So that would also mean that one's definition of the term "fact" is also subjective.

agreed?

Does anyone (any individual) know the true state of universal affairs?

No I haven't done that. Obviously your not understanding my posts. Which doesn't surprise me in the least as you have seldom shown signs of understanding them in the past.


See Jeannie's Post:




No I was referring to your stance that truth is a state of affairs, and then acting like there can only be one state of affairs. (i.e. one truth)

Let's look again at the Twin Brother's Paradox.

What is the state of affairs here?

Well, the state of affairs is that they are both correct. Both of their claims are true with respect to their very own subjective experiences.

Thus the state of affairs is that their subjective truths are simultaneously both true, (they are both facts). Both of their "claims" represent their state of affairs accurately.

Yet, their subjective truths state of affairs is obviously quite different.

Older Brother: "We haven't been together for over 30 years!"

{That is a true statement - (i.e. it reflects the true state of affairs for the older brother)

Younger Brother: "We were together just 1 year ago!"

{That is a true statement - (i.e. it reflects the true state of affairs for the older brother)

So here we have to subjective truths that both represent the correct state of affairs. Yet they conflict with each other in any absolute sense.

So which is TRUTH?

That they have been apart for 30 years? Or that they have only been apart for 1 year?

Both are TRUTH!

This is an example where two different subjective truths are both TRUE!

In this case truth is indeed subjective! There can be no doubt about it.

Perhaps this will clear up everything.

What do you mean when you say, "They are states of universal affairs."

What do you consider to be a "universal affair"?

Are you thinking in terms of classical physics where every question must necessarily have a singular answer of truth?

What about the Twin Brother's Paradox. It appears that in that case the state of "universal affairs" has indeed become inextricably entangled with the subjectivity of the bothers involved.

In other words, your very limitations of what you consider to be a possible "universal affair" may be misguided if you are presuming that such states of affairs must be limited to the Classical Physics notion of things like absolute time, absolute space, absolute now, etc.

These notions of 'absolutes' are falling out from underneath the picture. Therefore speaking of a state of "universal affairs" as though this should have some "absolute undeniable value" is the flaw in this line of thinking.

The very state of universal affairs is as malleable as Time, Space, and the Now. It no longer makes any sense to try to hold this notion up as being some sort of absolute concrete way to judge the "absolute truth value" of things.

It seems to me that all you are really doing is attempting to demand that a notion of absolutism can be maintained in spite of the fact that we have come to the realization that those classical notions can no longer be supported.

I'm just saying that this certainly appears to be the case that you continually present repeatedly.

Obviously not.

I can sympathize with Creative's dilemma, and his quest to find an absolute in 'something'. It appears that he feels that this absolute can be found in a notion of "Truth" as being defined as the "Absolute State of Universal Affairs".

I used to have that dream myself many years go.

It's natural for people who have fallen in love with classical notions to want to keep those alive and kicking. I was certainly in that camp myself many years ago.

We were taught to believe in a concept of absolute space and absolute time. Most people still think like that today. It's just our common sense experience of the world and on an everyday level we have no reason or need to abandon that kind of thinking.

But obviously with the discovery of time dilation all that fell away. Space and time became malleable and not absolute at all. It came down to the fact that it's meaningless to even speak in terms of an absolute "now".

I tried to keep the concept of an absolute "now" alive in the face of relativity, but in truth that is an extremely difficult thing to do. At best we can imagine a concept of an 'absolute now' in terms of being referenced to the mass of the universe as a whole. But even that ultimately becomes problematic and reduces to nothing more than a selective subjective vantage point.

So we no longer have such things as absolute space, and absolute time, nor can we even speak in terms of an absolute "now", unless we want to equate "now" with "eternity". That's the only case in which is can work, but that's a meaningless case because the "now" can no longer be thought of as a dimensionless point in time, but rather it needs to be realized as all of time infinitely simultaneously.

So it's a wild concept that we, as humans cannot wrap our minds around.


So the next place to search for an "absolute" (something to put our finger on) is in the concept of "TRUTH", surely there must be an absolute truth. A truth that is indeed the ultimate final say of whether something is true or false.

But that very notion goes up in smoke itself. It has to. Because the very things that we attempt to assign "Truth Values" are indeed nothing more than situations in the physical world.

What temperature does water freeze at?

If you fall off a building will gravity always pull you down?

If you point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger will they die?

We can try to assign "Absolute values of truth" to these kinds of questions. And we can claim that if anyone doesn't agree with these truth assignments then they just have bogus opinions that aren't worth giving the time of day.

But let's face it. Even that approach fails in the long haul.

We already run into problems with the Twin Brother's Paradox where the relative nature of space and time find its way into TRUTH.

That had to be the case because what is "Truth"?

Truth is nothing more than assignments we give to the "universal state of affairs" of various things.

Therefore TRUTH can never be more dependable or absolute than the actual state of affairs.

So if we can't put our finger our an 'Absolute Now" in spacetime, then we certainly can't put our finger on any "Absolute Truth" associated with any absolute now in spacetime.

In other words, if "TRUTH" is dependent on the Universal State of Affairs, and the Universal State of Affairs cannot be narrowed down to a precise absolute state, then neither can "TRUTH".

Truth about a Universal State of Affairs can never be more absolute than the Universal State of Affairs itself.

That's the bottom line.

Shirley Temple - My duck can do a wonderful trick! My duck can lay an egg!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STvgrW1wncg

My truth is not subjective but yours is!!!!

Oh, My Goodness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCOp3_G169Q&NR=1

Ok Abra.

Then tell me, what is a fact, what is a belief, what is personal preference/taste, and most importantly what is the difference between these things and how do they work in conjunction with one another?

Abra,

Speak for yourself, and about the claims...

WILL YA?

States of affairs... the way things are... the case at hand... the events taking place... the events that have taken place.



No, and I would not use such redundant language to describe it if I were. Some questions have more than one true answer. The focus is upon what makes them true, not how many there are.

Bro,I'm fond of using meaningfull emoticons at wright time at wright place.I think u r being personnel like that.

Well I already got what u were upto,but I think u know well how easily can anyone support my claim & how easily can anyone falsify your claim "A true statement can never be meaningless"

For example
How if the angel told "There is gold".

I hope you are getting my point.I know you are more mastered in english & can play easily with words.

I ask again:

Does anyone (any individual) know the (true) state of universal affairs?

What does that even mean? Saying "the true state of universal affairs" makes no sense in the context of facts being states of affairs.

The moon orbits around the earth. That is the way things are. Those are states of affairs.
The earth orbits around the sun. That is the way things are. Those are states of affairs.
The cup is on the table. That is the way things are. Those are states of affairs.
My feet are slightly sunburned. That is the way things are. Those are states of affairs.
The dog has fleas. That is the way things are. Those are states of affairs.

None of those states of affairs are affected in any way, shape, or form by what we think/believe about them.

According to this, beliefs can be facts and facts can be false.



Muddling meaningful language leads to misunderstanding.

That would've been both meaningful and true.

What's the problem?

A true statement cannot be meaningless because true statements correspond to fact/reality. Truth requires meaning. That is why if a listener knows what it would take for a speaker's claim to be true, then they know what the speaker means.

WRONG. (How on earth did you come to that conclusion?)

I said beliefs can be false.

I never once stated that Facts can be false.

Only that beliefs can be false, and that some beliefs can be facts.

Each of these statements stand on their own.

This is not an argument.


If a belief happens to be a fact, both the belief and the fact are true.

((If this is an example of how you think, its no wonder that you totally confuse people.)) geeeze

If 3 and 5 are true, then facts can be false.

But I did not claim that the state of affairs are affected in any way shape or form by what we think or believe about them did I?

I simply asked the question: Does anyone (any individual) know the true state of universal affairs?

You do not know what the states of affairs are. The only thing you know is what you believe about them.

If you observe the sun, it really seems to revolve around the earth just the same as the moon does. So as an individual observer, why would you believe anything else?

Why do you believe that the earth orbiting the sun is the true state of affairs?

You can only assume what the true state of affairs are, or believe and agree what they are. You do not know.

That is why I ask the question, does any individual really KNOW what the true state of affairs is?

Nope they don't.