Timeline for How does Logic define "true" and "false"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:59 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Done. Waiting for objection clarification, though.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:50 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This is going to take a few edits. Sigh.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:43 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This is going to take a few edits. Sigh.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:35 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
This is going to take a few edits. Sigh.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:25 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Trying to respond to an objection.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:20 | comment | added | elika kohen |
@Dennis - I started trying to address your objection, but, I realized that I could just avoid the whole matter if I just added "entailed" to - "which is [entailed]" and "must be [entailed]". I hope this clarifies and removes what seems like circular reasoning. Again, I am hoping to avoid the Red Herring about whether "Existence" and "Conclusions" are of the same "Form/Nature" existing in the same "Domain of Reality". Hopefully this is sufficient. This might be better suited for another question, or side-discussion. Let me know!
|
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:15 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Starting to answer objection.
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 3:08 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 695 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:47 | comment | added | Dennis | yes, that would address my worry/objection. I have doubts that the result would remain within the realm of logic, even if successful. The OP's question is really about a very formal/mathematical conception of logic, while what you have to say seems interesting I worry that it strays from that conception of logic. One reason to worry is Tarski's theorem on the undefinability of truth. See also, the page on a truth predicate. | |
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:41 | comment | added | elika kohen | @Dennis, I deleted the last comment because I am poorly trying to express something in a small space. I understand - I think - what your objection might be. IF it is believed that "What is" is synonymous with "Truth" - then my argument might be perceived to be "begging the question". However, I believe these two terms are wrongfully conflated. If it addresses your objection - I could show how "What Is" and "Truth" are necessarily separate concepts. Am I understanding the objection correctly? | |
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:38 | comment | added | Dennis | But "necessary" means "necessarily true", and "that which is" means "those propositions (or whatever you're assigning truth values to) which are true". The worry is that you're tacitly assuming the concept you're trying to define -- truth. You might be right that truth can be defined for various restricted domains, but that doesn't seem to be what OP is asking. Also, logic doesn't typically have anything to say about causality (though you might study the logic of causation) and does not define truth in terms of it. | |
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:35 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:20 | comment | added | Dennis | How do you define "that which 'is'"? Do you do it without recourse to what is true? Also, why think that what is true is necessarily so (i.e., "must be")? Maybe logical truths, but truths modeled in a formal language that aren't tautologies? | |
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:20 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2017 at 0:12 | history | edited | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 363 characters in body
|
| Aug 15, 2017 at 23:58 | history | answered | elika kohen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |