[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

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.

what about contradictory statements like the only constant is change itself?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion

what about contradictory statements like the only constant is change itself?

This one of the problems. Quine explained that the distinction between truths by definition and truths by the world is not that easy. In this case, we could say it is a truth by definition because we might define change as something that is constantly occuring, but it might not, and might simply be a truth by the world in that all things in the world are in constant change. From what do you derive the statement, from the definition of change, or from the observation that all things are in constant change?

[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

You have made a very good point there Lloyd,the web is speeding
up the process I feel.

kind regardsmichael.

[harmonygirl]

Sub, Is that really a contradictory statement or one that requires a larger view? Guille, I haven't read Quine, but wouldn't truth by definition be derived from truth in the world ?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

This one of the problems. Quine explained that the distinction between truths by definition and truths by the world is not that easy. In this case, we could say it is a truth by definition because we might define change as something that is constantly occuring, but it might not, and might simply be a truth by the world in that all things in the world are in constant change. From what do you derive the statement, from the definition of change, or from the observation that all things are in constant change?

Basic arithmetic never changes, it is eternally constant, even if waves must, hypothetically, add themselves up, to make it eternally so. Arithmetic can always verify logical truth - either constructed arithmetic, or self-equilibriating-math - the math our natural self-logic uses.

Regards

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Sub, Is that really a contradictory statement or one that requires a larger view? Guille, I haven't read Quine, but wouldn't truth by definition be derived from truth in the world ?

That is part of what I was saying. In the example "the only permanent thing is change" is truth by definition due to the fact that it is truth by thew world, and truth by the world due to the fact that it is truth by definition. It's not a perfect distinction. However, still we can't say it's a useless one: for when we read "All red cars are red" seems a much more direct truth than "the cat is on the mat", even though the fact that red cars are red depends on the world in which the red cars are indeed red, and the cat is on the mat actually depends on the definition of the cat and what it is, but still the red cars are red for it is conditional by the name, whiles the cat isn't on the mat by conditioning.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>>

That is part of what I was saying. In the example "the only permanent thing is change" is truth by definition due to the fact that it is truth by thew world, and truth by the world due to the fact that it is truth by definition. It's not a perfect distinction. However, still we can't say it's a useless one: for when we read "All red cars are red" seems a much more direct truth than "the cat is on the mat", even though the fact that red cars are red depends on the world in which the red cars are indeed red, and the cat is on the mat actually depends on the definition of the cat and what it is, but still the red cars are red for it is conditional by the name, whiles the cat isn't on the mat by conditioning.

Very good observation. SO certain statements can be made which are universally true according to the statements themselves. Now what I was showing is that some universally true observations can also be contradictory in appearance, such as the observation that the speed of light is a constant rate of change. Would a constant rate of change be considered constant, or be considered changing?

What about the notion that the best objectivity is absolute subjectivity? What about the notion that naievety is the same thing as true understanding?
What about belief in a proven fact?
What about how crying and laughing become the same sound when expressed at their most audible extremes?

All these things are contradictory, are they not?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion

Very good observation. SO certain statements can be made which are universally true according to the statements themselves. Now what I was showing is that some universally true observations can also be contradictory in appearance, such as the observation that the speed of light is a constant rate of change. Would a constant rate of change be considered constant, or be considered changing?

What about the notion that the best objectivity is absolute subjectivity? What about the notion that naievety is the same thing as true understanding?
What about belief in a proven fact?
What about how crying and laughing become the same sound when expressed at their most audible extremes?

All these things are contradictory, are they not?

Yes they are Sub,you are so right.
kind regardsmichael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by subversion

Very good observation. SO certain statements can be made which are universally true according to the statements themselves. Now what I was showing is that some universally true observations can also be contradictory in appearance, such as the observation that the speed of light is a constant rate of change. Would a constant rate of change be considered constant, or be considered changing?

What about the notion that the best objectivity is absolute subjectivity? What about the notion that naievety is the same thing as true understanding?
What about belief in a proven fact?
What about how crying and laughing become the same sound when expressed at their most audible extremes?

All these things are contradictory, are they not?

The only way to avoid contradictions is to use sentential tautologies, large and powerful enough, yet concise enough, to avoid such contradictabilities. This is a most difficult task...

best of luck

p.s.
tautologies is to be interpreted as powerful sentential logical statements, of logic, within themselves.

[enton]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

What is truth,will we ever fully understand it.I think that to try and explain
truth,to talk about it,you are at once,caught in a lie.for truth is ever present
and forever now,therefore to explain truth,you are in effect,talking in past
tense,therefore a lie.
It occurs to me that,one has to become the embodiment of truth,to be truth
itself,then you will understand it.
It is said of old,that you can add to wisdom,but never to truth,for that
remains forever in the eternal now.

how then can I become truth?

regards,michael.

John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Anyway, we have websites that you may investigate truths about the Bible and truths in the Bible, http://www.churchofgodinternational..../bibtopics.htm (or www.theoldway.org ) and www.theoldpath.tv for webcasts.