Necessary Truths Exist

[Rational AKD]

I actually thought that definition was for 'fact', not truth (you didn't really specify. The reason I assumed it was the MW definition of fact is the first one, 'the state of being the case'. Regardless, even MW gives the definition I was using:

oh, I suppose that is my mistake for not clarifying. sorry.

There was a slight misunderstanding, but even then further Merriam Webster entries align with what I've been saying, i.e truth refers to facts.

yes, words have several definitions. that's why I posted applicable ones.

You're USING the words to communicate about that which ISN'T the word.

that's exactly my point. we don't use rocks to tell each other about rocks (at least not typically) but instead devise words we assign definitions so we can talk about something without using the thing itself. likewise, truth is a reference to reality itself assuming a realist perspective of reality (that reality exists independent of our perceptions of it).

No no no, and this is what Gen (I presume) and I have been trying to get through to you. Firstly, in the underlined bit you AGAIN confuse things. Truth IS the correspondence. If all minds are gone, and thus the correspondence, all truth is gone. However, as you note reality is still there (assuming solipsism is false). But that's IRRELEVANT. Truth accurately refers to reality. If there are no more minds, truth is GONE. In other words, truth is itself contingent in some real sense on reality, facts that is.

I think you confuse my entire post there. in that particular segment, I was making an "even if you're right" point by not talking about truth, but the nature of reality. did you notice how I never once used the word truth in that quote? that was intentional so you couldn't worm your way out with the whole "you're mis-defining truth" gag. instead, I referenced the nature of reality itself without the use of the word truth.
so, to recap I think we can agree the sun exists regardless of whether we are there to say whether it is true or not. I think we can also agree that the sun does not exist by the necessity of its own nature. but that must mean that it exists due to a contingent factor. it's logical and inescapable. 1. it exists. 2. it is possible for it not to exist. 3. there must be something that made it exist or brought it into being. this is proper application of the logic used in the argument. you'll notice it's a similar format as the Kalam, except instead of applying it to the universe it's applied to truth, not referencing the label itself, but what truth represents... reality... the way things actually are. and as I said before, I can speak of truth in a matter to where i'm talking about what it represents rather than exactly what truth is. not the word that represents, but the representation itself.

Well, not exactly. There is no theory of truth in philosophy that defines truth as such. Again, you're trying to hide behind the vagueries of ordinary language when we're discussing the philosophical aspect. And as I noted earlier in this post, even MW has the philosophical definitions of correspondence.

it again all comes down to what you're talking about in terms of truth. are you talking about truth, the representative of reality, or truth, what's actually being represented. just like how you can use words as what's actually being represented as opposed to referencing them as representations, you can use truth in the same manor.

Eh, no. The Kantian distinction between the perceived and the real is essentially acknowledged as undefeated by all philosophers, much to their chagrin. Nor am I a solipsist or any other kind of idealist.

that's not something I disputed. I already know there's a difference between perception of reality. what I was responding to was this:

Whether or not there is something 'behind' those experiences I take to be unanswerable

so if you were to believe there is nothing "behind" our experiences and everything we experience is not because of an independent reality, then you would be taking a solipsist or idealist view. a realist view is one that says there is something behind our experiences. that our experiences are our mind's recognition of actual reality through our senses.

Truth is an entailment of 'mind' to begin with, so that's just a non sequitur.

that's why I said, throughout that entire quote, that it is a representation of reality. if you're going to dispute that, then you would be taking up an idealist view.

Even if everything was just an illusion in my mind and solipsism were true, are you saying that the illusion doesn't exist?

no, I would be saying it doesn't have an independent existence. it would exist, but only in your mind. it would not exist if your mind doesn't exist. realists don't have this view of reality.

And here we go again. Is it a fact that Reagan is the president of the USA?

no, because you're using is to mean the present. your reference is different.

NO. It WAS a fact

now you're using was to represent the past, an entirely different reference than is. as I said, the facts don't change, references do. is was and will be are all words the represent tense. if you use tense to incorrectly refer to a fact in time, your use of tense or time reference is wrong. it's like me saying "Tokyo is here" when we're actually in NY. i'm not changing the fact by changing my position, i'm changing the place of reference in the sentence since the word "here" refers to where I currently am, just like how "is" refers to the present time. how ridiculous would it sound if you said "I can change reality, because when I say 'Tokyo is here' I can be right or wrong depending on whether i'm there or not"? the reality is, you're not changing the reality of the position of Tokyo by going there or not, and you're not changing the time of an event by saying a sentence at a different time. you should get a basic knowledge of the use of tenses in language.

Which means you DID disagree with that (and thus me), even if you did so inadvertently.

you said this whole time that truth is correspondence and wouldn't exist without minds, so how does saying "the correspondence would disappear, but reality would not" disagree with that? as I recall, you agreed with that particular sentence I said.

And now you're misunderstanding realism and idealism. Assuming solipsism is false, the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet would remain, but the PROPOSITION would not be true, and it would not be false.

did I say that? or are you putting words in my mouth... again? I said it would remain the largest planet... I said nothing about whether the proposition would remain true, since the proposition obviously wouldn't exist without someone to propose it. instead, i'm making references to reality without using words like "truth" or "proposition" since you obviously have a problem with me using them in this manor... as representations not representatives. the description of the word, not the nature of the word.

There would be NO MORE truth, because such is a property of propositions issuing from minds. So again, please realize you are disagreeing with the distinction between truth and fact, even when you affirm you are not.

again, no i'm not. you want me to still be disagreeing so you're interjecting words i'm not using. again, i'm making an "even if you're right" argument, that even if the words are as you say they are, there are actual facts of nature that are contingent. since that's the case, you can replace all the words "proposition" with "fact" and all the words "truth" with "real" and the argument will still be sound. if you still don't get what i'm saying, i'll recreate the argument to satisfy your objections.
Argument:
P1: in order for a fact to be real, it must be real because it is contingent upon a factor or it’s necessarily real.
P2: there must exist fundamental facts that can’t be real by a contingent factor (there can’t be an infinite amount of facts all contingent upon the former).
C1: therefore there are fundamental facts that can only be real because they are necessarily real (P1, P2)
P3: if a fact is necessarily real, then it is not contingent upon other facts of reality
C2: therefore there are necessary facts that transcend other facts of reality (C1, P3)
Conclusion: necessary transcendent facts exist.
notice none of this changes the nature of the argument, just the wording.

To say, as you admitted, that the correspondence would disappear if all minds were gone is an admittance that truth is a property of propositions formed by minds.

but you said by saying that, I was disagreeing with you... right? man, you're really inconsistent with your arguments.

You cannot hold that position while simultaneously not understanding that without minds, "Jupiter is the largest planet" would not be true in a possible world without minds. Those are entirely contradictory.

which is why I didn't say that... man you need to catch up.

---

I thought my meaning was clear - the contingency here is what you regard as a possible world, i.e. a world where modal logic is applicable.

Regardless, the incoherency of the alternative does not negate the contingency of your statement.

you obviously still don't get it. the statement "necessarily exists" contains the word "exists" which would mean it is a necessary part of every possible world. likewise, the statement "necessarily true" means the same. the possible world was implied in the word truth since something can't be true if it's not possible. a "necessary truth" is not contingent upon a possible world... it is an entailment of one. meaning you can't have a possible world without such necessary truths, and vice versa. but since possible worlds are also necessary (since the existence of truth itself implies it) neither are contingent. this is the case because if you have something A, which is necessary which entails B, then both A and B are necessary (since the existence of B is necessary for A and the existence of A is necessary itself that means there is no possible world where neither A or B exist).

But not all propositions are expressions of existence. Which is why the two are not equivocal.

the ones that are expressions of existence are equivocal, however. when I say "it is true that the sun exists" it can easily be taken as "the sun is real."

False dichotomy - the measure of true or false can be applied to propositions, for which facts do not qualify. As such, facts are neither necessarily true, nor contingently true, they just are.

then the statement "why does the sun exist" should be incoherent... but it's not. we know there is a reason that the sun exists, and those reasons can either be because it can't not exist (it's necessary) or there is something that brought it into existence (it's contingent). those are the only 2 explanations for existence, and if you think i'm wrong I challenge you to find another. and no, neither won't suffice. you actually have to present an option, not just disagree with what I say.

Once again, those "things" which are true or not happen to be propositions about reality. And their truth is determined by their correspondence to reality.

and as I've stated before, reality does not necessarily have to be as it is. there are things in reality that can be different. since that is the case, there must be a reason why things in reality are as they are. the reasons can't resemble an infinite chain but must end somewhere. therefore there are things in reality that are as they are because they are necessary. that's how the argument is applied.

Again - false dichotomy. Sun's existence itself is not a proposition, therefore the concept of necessity or contingency does not apply here.

are you saying it is impossible for the sun not to exist? if it is possible for the sun not to exist, then necessity and contingency also apply (since they're both degrees of possibility).

Given that the reference is not an inherent aspect of the fact, any fact stated without such a reference in subject to change.

given that the word "is" is a reference to the present time, any sentence that uses the word "is" does have an inherent aspect of referencing a point in time.