Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

Did you even read your own definition? Read the bolded part again - existing in real world. Which mean, it is contingent on reality.

when talking about reality it refers to what the world has, not the world itself. a world has no properties if it contains nothing so it's not fair to suggest it is contingent on a world. a world wouldn't be a world if nothing existed in it.

So what? A proposition contingent upon a non-proposition can be objectively true without relying on any necessary truths - which defeats your whole argument.

really? give an example of a proposition contingent on a non-proposition.

Read it yourself - specifically the bolded part. Clearly, the non-propositions that a proposition is contingent upon are not subject to truth or falsity.

a proposition can't be contingent upon a non-proposition. the only examples given by Stanford of non-propositions are thought and word utterance. so what does this mean? mind and communication can't be subject to true and false. so the mind must exist because we think and communication must exist because we communicate. great... how does that help you?

You really want me to bring up Liar's Paradox?

no need. I already know the difference between conceived truth and actual truth, as you should. do you ever hear someone say "the truth was this but not it has changed"? of course not. they always say "I thought this was the truth but I was wrong." the act of deception has no effect on actual truth.

Please add this to your argument for necessary (or as You coined transcendent) truths:

A necessary truth is not time sensitive (therefore it does not change over time).

no need. if it was "time sensitive" then it would not be necessary. it would be contingent upon time, which is also contingent. calling them necessary or transcendent truths already imply they are not time sensitive.