Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

If a truth 'transcends reality' then it is, by definition, an unreal truth. I'm not sure of either the validity or the utility of an unreal truth.

Boru

what I mean by that is it is true regardless of what changes are made to reality. they would still affect reality, but reality would not affect them.

I could be misinterpreting things though. Are the people you're looking to disagree with trying to say there are no truths at all? Like 1+1 equaling 2 isn't a truth? If that's the case, I rescind my complaints, and would like to join in the calling of those people silly.

those would be the kinds of objections i'm addressing in that objection. they would have to reject all knowledge to reject basic laws of logic and its use as a way to find truth of reality.

And objective truth means it is contingent upon reality - so it is possible for objective truths to be false.

that's not in any definition of objective I've ever read. why don't you try reading the definition yourself.

based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

none of that says it must be contingent upon reality.

Wrong. The third option is that the concept of truth or falsehood does not apply to the factor the truth is contingent upon.

then they are not statements of fact or propositions.

Wrong, in many ways - depending upon the theory of truth one subscribes to.

must I also teach you the definition of proposition?

Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity. This stipulation rules out certain candidates for propositions, including thought- and utterance-tokens, which presumably are not sharable, and concrete events or facts, which presumably cannot be false.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/

if it can't be true or false, it's not a proposition. that's a part if its very definition. it doesn't matter which theory of truth you subscribe because you can't go against the definition of the word, that would be what they call a contradiction.

and the wiki link you gave concerning the law of excluded middle counts ignorance as "third possibility" though it's not necessary since ignorance is not a degree of truth. furthermore, ignorance is not exclusive of the other two options, true or false. if the truth value of a proposition is unknown that doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value at all, which is what you are suggesting. and no, it doesn't mean its truth value is an option other than true or false either.