Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

If we're talking about semantics, then you should realize that your very definition of necessary truth indicates a contingency - "true in all possible worlds" - as opposed to impossible worlds, meaning, where modal logic is applicable.

by the very nature of an impossible world, nothing is true or exists in an impossible world. you claim it a contingency yet the only alternative you give is an incoherent one.

Further, you are equivocation between a necessary truth and existential necessity. The definition "true in all possible worlds" applies to propositions, not things themselves.

and as I've stated before, the existence of all things can be expressed in propositions. the two are as equivocal as a word and its definition.

Ofcourse, facts aren't necessarily true - did you miss the part where I'm using them to argue against the existence of necessary truths?

if facts aren't necessarily true, then they are contingently true. the argument still applies, they can't be contingently true based on an infinite chain of contingent truths; but there must be a necessary truth(s) that they are all ultimately contingent upon.

The sequence of events being conceivably different doesn't mean that we need any necessary truths. The problem of "why is anything true at all?" is easily answered by truth being a relation of a proposition to reality

that doesn't explain anything of the truth of reality itself, why some things are true of reality and some things aren't. if the facts of reality are contingent, then it can still be fit into the argument.

it is in the nature of a proposition to be true or false and without there being a mind to conceive of those propositions, nothing had to be true or false.

really? does the sun exist without us? no? is it there by the necessity of it's own nature? no? then it is contingently there, and that's probably because of another contingent factor. but those contingent factors need to end somewhere, they can't go on forever.

Asked and answered.

as I've told you, that's a change in reference due to your own ignorance of the reference. if you read a book written in 1985 claiming that the current president of the US is Reagan, would you claim the author wrong? no, because you know the reference. people don't say general things to make statements that change. they do so to be brief but still convey the message. if I tell you who the current president is, you know exactly what time i'm referring to. quit pretending there is no reference or context in those statements, you're just being dishonest.

Truth is not a body of facts

really, changing your mind again? you said in post #47 "your dictionary definition is correct" which was referring to the dictionary reference I made in post #46 "the body of real things, events, and facts" so are you really playing this inconsistency game with your words? perhaps your mind was forged imperfectly, which is why you constantly have to change it lol.

not even on truth as correspondence. Just what theory of truth are you mangling here?

I don't know, I gave you a definition and you agreed to it but seemed to have forgotten what it actually said. it's still there in post #46 if you want to take a look.

You revealed your own flaw several times. "Representatives of reality", in other words, correspondence. You are seriously confused about language if you don't see how this screws up what you're saying. Words refer to certain concepts, words are not the things themselves.

yet words are equated with what they represent to avoid confusion. when I talk about rocks, i'm not referring to a word, but the thing itself. likewise when i'm talking about truth, i'm not referring to the label but reality itself.

Truth is a correspondence between a proposition and a fact, not the fact itself. All truth would disappear if there were no minds, but not all facts would.

the correspondence would disappear, but reality would not. as I said to genkaus but a moment ago, the sun is there whether we are here to say it or not. it is not there by the necessity of its own nature, but by a contingent factor, thus there are contingent natures of reality which can still be applied to this argument.

Yes it was

nothing in that definition said it was correspondence, or was reflective of reality. it said 1. it is the state of being the case, which doesn't say anything about being correspondence of the case and 2. a body of real things, events, or facts; not body of statements that represent facts. you're putting your interpretation into the definition.

Clearly experience of reality is real (we already agreed that is incorrigible did we not?). Whether or not there is something 'behind' those experiences I take to be unanswerable, a la Kant

then that would make you an idealist or a solipsist. this argument would apply to those who believe our experiences are represented by what's actually there. if you think your experiences can't represent anything apart from your mind's projection, then obviously these truths would only be entailments of that mind... but then there's nothing else to claim "there is" apart from that.

Reality itself has no about, it just is. Only minds make abouts.

as I said, if that's the case then nothing we say or observe about reality can be real. you might as well claim solipsism.

Say for example you don't know when the sentence was written and have no way of finding out. If it says that Regan is the president, it is false. Why? Because the fact that statement refers to is no longer the case. In other words, facts change and thereby the truth of propositions do too.

I covered that at the end of the post, but it seems you're too self absorbed to see it.

the statement is only wrong if you remove its reference and context, which also removes its meaning forcing you to impose your own reference and context.

did you read that? it was certainly in the post from me that you quoted. do you know what that means? the statement itself is wrong not because the meaning changed, but because you falsely imposed your own meaning. in other words, you interpreted it incorrectly. as I've said, words represent meaning, so when you impose your own meaning you're not changing facts. learn the difference between a reference of a fact and a fact.

The underlined bits in particular are exactly what I've been saying.

the underlined parts aren't what I've disagreed with. what I have disagreed with is you stating the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, wouldn't be true without minds to say so. that would only be true if everything is derived from mind. taking a realist point of view, Jupiter would remain the largest planet in the solar system regardless of whether we are here to say so or not. unless you disagree with realism, you can't disagree with that.