[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

Lloyd,

We all agree that truth is parallel to nature. But do we all agree that it is parallel to logic? Pascal once said 'Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sing of truth.' We are confident when we say that -1x-1=1=1x1 but we are also confident when we say that -1 is not the same as 1. This is strange, as nxn doesn't equal mxm if it's not the same number, and -1 and 1 are not the same number. But both assuptions are true, therefore Pascal is correct in his statement.

Guille, not meaning to be contradictory, but this is where I see the modern world has made its gravest error. True enough, nature should be worshipped, but not at the expense of mathematical truth. Mathematical truth, as our highest human tool, must be used to equilibriate man with nature. It is our only possible solution. Nature is not the problem, but dis-equilibriated man is.
Now, how is this possible? It is not possible if we are going to purposely confuse positives and negatives - they are still true unto themselves, and as Ayn Rand stated, "There are no paradoxes, only men seeming to make them so." When truth is talked about, we must be very clear that formal agreements to formal language use are required for any successful outcomes. Otherwise, we just spinning in circles.

To talk truefully about truth, requires the acceptance of one of the formal scientific languages. General logic languages can not be mixed in as you only get the isomorphic{things are[seemed] the same but different} confusion you mentioned above. Formal logic requires formal language excluding, the middle, general logic as Aristotle{third law of logic} long ago showed us. Though this is not a good reason for exclusion, the inconsistencies of the human language permit no other sulution, sorry.

What I mean is that NOTHING is completelly logical just as nothing is completelly unlogical, just as nothing is compeltelly good or complletely bad.

Mathematics is completely logical if Godelian completeness of first order logic is respected. Mathematics is absolutely and completely logical if equilibrium mathematics is our centerpiece of discussion, all the way to both balances of infinity, positive and negative. Infinity is not an epistemological limit as has been often postulated. It is the open universe understanding of even physics newest thoughts and math, i.e., infinite space and finite matter.

I meant hat nature is a dimensions of events, a line. And truth is a line which is parallel to it. The thing is that truth is what we have to look at nature, to get on nature, to know nature. It's a disposition for us, subjects to nature and it's objects.

The true definition of truth that I work with is logic, the complete mathematics of logics, of man, technology and nature, not the incomplete view of nature alone. Logic and mathematics pre-existed nature, as the pre-structure of matter. There is nothing logical to prove this was not purely logical, as I accept it was. There is nothing epistemological which can prove nature and life had to be produced by nature. Therefore we differ as to whether science could have produced life, as I think it did, or life had to produce life. There is further nothing to prove, we as humans, are nature or purely quantum mechanical beings. This epistemological, ontological, and teleological question is still unsettled.

However, we can never have the turth, or know the truth. Truth is there always, if you get some truth data from the dimension of truth, then this truth data is now knowledge, liek science or philosophy. But it's not truth anymor,e for it's in disconection from nature, althouh it has an origin from connectedness iwth nature.

As I mentioned above this is beyond our epistemological limits of proving and knowing, with the present state of knowledge. I know many would like to think we are more human than we may be, but science dictates we stay within the bounds of known logic systems when discussing real scientific truths. Nature/life is outside our knowing. My personal deffinition is I am a full-fledged living natural human being, but I can't prove it, and I admit it. Furthermore, I know my logic comes from my emotional spirit, but I can't prove it, thus it is not scientifically known. It is only philosophically, and mataphysically known - that's not science or epistemology, per-say.

These questions, I'm afraid, will haunt the world until we finally define the total TOE. We must re-include the mathematics of infinity. The total equilibrium of positive and negative infinity. This I am positive of. And finally, in order to communicate precisely as to topics chosen, we must accept the formal languages of historical presedence, and the principles of. As bad as the newer thinkers and younger generation wants a simpler language, of say isomorphic metaphoric logic, it has not yet been developed. Any suggestions?

[subversion]

truth=how I define it

I define truth as being true, but how it is represented depends on how I say it or how I write it down. How I define it or write it down does not change the fact that it is true, as long as I say that it is true. For example, I could say that the TOE=!

That would mean that I'm defining the TOE as an exclamation mark and so this is a true statement.

do you absolutely agree or disagree?

[michellemfry]

For example, I could say that the TOE=!

That's not an unattractive equation.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by subversion

truth=how I define it

I define truth as being true, but how it is represented depends on how I say it or how I write it down. How I define it or write it down does not change the fact that it is true, as long as I say that it is true. For example, I could say that the TOE=!

That would mean that I'm defining the TOE as an exclamation mark and so this is a true statement.

do you absolutely agree or disagree?

Very Good, SubVersion! I absolutely agree!

My scientific deffinition of a toe is; "Equilibriation to the universal `center', is the logical truth of all things!"

just a hint,
Lloyd

[michellemfry]

I am as true as I am false. What am I? A statement.
A statement can be either true or false. A statement just is. We assign to it a degree of truth or falseness. Can we know a statement? Yes.

[mkirkpatrick]

Not only can we know truth,in truth we are it,And we know it not,until we
become fully self-realised this reality will elude us.
Truth is the simple and elemental fact that all life is endowed with it,we are
chock-full of truth=reality,it is only our ignorance and lack of inner knowing
that hides it from us.When we expand our consciousness and become Being,
thenthe REAL-(Lies)ation will become apparent to us,until then most will
keep on arguing about what they think truth is.



kindest regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by michellemfry

I am as true as I am false. What am I? A statement.
A statement can be either true or false. A statement just is. We assign to it a degree of truth or falseness. Can we know a statement? Yes.

Statements are true if they are either truth by definition (like 'all black cats are black') or truth by matching the state of the world ('the cat is on the mat' is true only if it happens int he world, in natur,e that the cat is on the mat). Therefore NO, statements are not true and false, in fact they are either true or false.

Originally Posted by subversion

truth=how I define it

I define truth as being true, but how it is represented depends on how I say it or how I write it down. How I define it or write it down does not change the fact that it is true, as long as I say that it is true. For example, I could say that the TOE=!

That would mean that I'm defining the TOE as an exclamation mark and so this is a true statement.

do you absolutely agree or disagree?

Someone that realizes the true meaning of ideas knows this one is of the worst. We all have arrived to a conclusion of yours. But it's simply terribly wrong. If it is true, then I can say you are stupid and because I say subversion=stupid you are stupid as it must be true. But I'm sure you disagree that you are stupid, and so do I. Moreover, I can say the theory that everything said is true, is false, then this must be true, so it is false that it is true that everything is true, therefore not everything is true and the theory that everything is true is false.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Heraclitus stated, "The entire universe and divine understanding, in unity with that which we are logical, is the essence of truth." My simple interpretation of this is that, "Truth' is the mathematical logical equilibriation of all the truths and facts." The problem is we never possess all the truths and facts, i.e., the incompleteness of human understanding falling short of, truly true, truth. The web is helping, and we're getting closer.

Keep on keeping on,
Lloyd

I agree Lloyd the web is helpingusget closer to the truth of what
really IS!thanks for your comments,
kindregards michael.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Someone that realizes the true meaning of ideas knows this one is of the worst. We all have arrived to a conclusion of yours. But it's simply terribly wrong. If it is true, then I can say you are stupid and because I say subversion=stupid you are stupid as it must be true. But I'm sure you disagree that you are stupid, and so do I. Moreover, I can say the theory that everything said is true, is false, then this must be true, so it is false that it is true that everything is true, therefore not everything is true and the theory that everything is true is false.

Everything is only untrue if that's how you're defining it.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion

Everything is only untrue if that's how you're defining it.

You have made a very good point there Sir,I will take note,thanks.

regards michael,