Necessary Truths Exist

[MindForgedManacle]

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

What you posted were ordinary applications of the word, which are vague and equivocate, which is a mistake given we're discussing the philosophical views on it.

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).

Truth doesn't necessarily assume a realist position, maybe correspondence does but even then it doesn't presume to know such is the case, it makes an assumption that it is (because it can't avoid it...thanks to Kant).

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.

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.

Here, you agree with the difference between truth and fact, while here:

he 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.

So you have in fact repeatedly made this mistake, and even talking about reality is itself, as I mentioned, irrelevant to the fact that truth is entirely dependent on minds existing, which make propositions. So talking about the nature of reality itself is a red herring here, as truth is that which refers to that reality via language.

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.

And you make the same mistake. To say that the proposition "the Sun exists" in a world without minds is incoherent, and tries to impose mind on a mindless world in order to make a creation of the mind apply in that world. This is another part where reading some Kant will help, as talking about a possible world without minds and subjective experience is meaningless.
I mean, in a possible world without minds, the law of identity isn't true (or false). After all, "A is A" is just a statement in the English language. However, the fact that law refers to would remain (that something is itself)

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.

For all the times you say you're not disagreeing with me on truth and fact, you make the same error every time. Truth is not what's being represented, facts are. What you said is circular: Truth is what is being represented by truth. Truth encapsulates facts, it's not the facts it encapsulates, which is why we have the correspondence theory of truth, not a theory of reality itself being true. Using truth in that manner in philosophy is sloppy and is the sort of thing that leads to equivocations, which is why no one in epistemology would actually do that.

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.

Okay, so now you're straw manning. Where did I say that there was nothing behind the experiences? Answer (underlined): I didn't. I said ascertaining the truth of what, if anything, is 'behind' those experiences is unknowable, I did not say there was nothing behind them. Again, that's what the Kantian distinction IS. It's not an affirmation or rejection of either realism or idealism, it's a recognition that such is ultimately unaswerable by necessity and is amenable only to an assumption.

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.

I didn't dispute that (I've repeatedly corrected your errors on it). You made statements like this:

he 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.

See the underlined? That's a confusion between truth and fact, and tries to impose mind on a scenario where none exists. Jupiter being the largest planet would be a fact in that state of affairs, but it would not be true as there are no propositions in that state of affairs.

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.

I didn't take the position that the would-be illusion was substantial.

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

So in other words (as I've said) the facts a proposition refers to changes, no? I've been trying to figure out why you thought there was a disagreement here.

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.

Now you're contradicting yourself. By saying facts don't change, you're saying a fact is always the case which, unless you're speaking in the context of a particular philosophy of time, is self-evidently absurd and contrary to speaking contingent facts as you have.
The proposition regarding Reagan being president is false because the fact regarding who is the president is no longer the case. That seems to be what you said at one point (but not consistently), so I'm still confused where the problem is.

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.

Because you also said this:

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

which seems to equate truth and fact. Either that, or it tries to impose mind onto a possible state of affairs where there emphatically isn't one. Which becomes even more worrisome when you bring up Kant's distinction between the perceived (all you have) the the real itself.

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.

Here (again):

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

It wouldn't be true without minds, but it would be a fact (assuming realism).

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.

Actually it does in a rather hilarious way: it doesn't even conclude as you wish it to now. These transcendent facts would merely be the necessary facts of reality, such as the fact of identity, the fact of non-contradiction and the fact of existence. None of these concluded necessary facts do anything for you, and certainly cannot establish a necessary being as your original argument sought to do (using a controversial and flawed philosophical principle, mind you).

Further, have you actually considered WHY those facts in particular are such? Because reality itself is such, reality is logical (in some sense). Of course, I must also mention that there are systems of logic that treat identity and non-contradiction as either contingent or true.

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

Can you resist straw manning? I was pointing out YOUR inconsistency, i.e disagreeing with me, then agreeing with me on the same topic.

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

Well, I guess this doesn't exist then:

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

Silly me.