A question about Truth

[JuliaL]

I wish to start a discussion about the existence of truth or the true.
I've found several definitions, none of which I prefer.

Dictionary.com: true=Being in accord with the actual state or conditions.
truth=the true or actual state of a matter
Meriam-Webster: truth=the state of being the case
Wikipedia: truth=in accord with fact or reality

My beef with each of these definitions is that they presume that there exists and we have access to the current state of reality.

I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:
1) There is a processing lag in consciousness. Reality may have moved on
2) There is a lag in information transit across space
3) Our observations of reality could be counterfeited

As a result, I would like to propose an alternative definition for the community to critique.
Truth is a property of propositions whose magnitude varies in direct proportion with how well the propositions serve to accurately have predicted the future once it arrives.
An unfortunate corollary of this definition is that nothing is currently true. It can only have been proved to be true at some future time.

As I have had few (well, to be honest, not any) original substantial ideas, I welcome links or references to other sources of similar essence I may investigate.

[bennyboy]

As far as people are considered, the only knowable truth is the stuff which is established by the context of our existence.

For example, I know it's true that gravity makes stuff fall. In this context, truth is defined by a body of memories, and of the ability to currently validate it by picking up a rock. Is the rock "really" there? Yes, as an experience. No, as I experience it. Maybe not, as an object with an existence independent of my experience of it.

Take a hammer. In the context of everyday life, a hammer is (sometimes dangerously) real. In the context of spacetime and quantum mechanics, the hammer as I experience it-- solid, flat, shiny-- doesn't really exist-- I'm really looking at 99.9999999% empty space, and the surface uniformity is an illusion.

In the context of ultimate truth, then the only answer is-- who knows? We don't have access to that.


So I'd say, yes there's truth, but no truth that can be independent of some context. Relativity ftw.

[JuliaL]

In the context of ultimate truth, then the only answer is-- who knows? We don't have access to that.
So I'd say, yes there's truth, but no truth that can be independent of some context. Relativity ftw.

My bold.

Agreed.

And I find it annoying that many people:
1) don't realize that there is a vital question whether Truth exists at all
2) believe in all aggressive sincerity that they own Truth and
3) want to push me around until I am forced to adopt their attitude

They may be:
1) stupid
2) ignorant
3) arrogant and stubbornly pigheaded

Only one of those is impossible to remedy through education. A patient and usually good natured version of which is found at this site.

[Angrboda]

[MindForgedManacle]

Correspondence theories of truth are my game. Basically, truth (as correspondence) is that truth is a property of propositions which correspond to a given state of affairs.

[JuliaL]

[Coffee Jesus]

I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:
1) There is a processing lag in consciousness. Reality may have moved on
2) There is a lag in information transit across space
3) Our observations of reality could be counterfeited

Our brain states are part of reality. If our brain states are mind, as the available evidence seems to suggest, then brain states a part of reality that we have direct access to.

To 2), This is why I suspect that mental states occupy intervals in time rather than distinct points in time, but I digress.

As a result, I would like to propose an alternative definition for the community to critique.
Truth is a property of propositions whose magnitude varies in direct proportion with how well the propositions serve to accurately have predicted the future once it arrives.
An unfortunate corollary of this definition is that nothing is currently true. It can only have been proved to be true at some future time.

You could say "that accurately predict events before they occurr", then use frequentist probability to argue that those which have predicted accurately so far will likely continue to predict accurately. Though this means we have to rely on memory to ascertain truth. Why should you trust your memory? Why should you even trust that there ever was a past?
Can you justify trust in your memories without simultaneously justifying a belief in external reality? If not, then your point about reality not being directly accessible is moot.

I have to make some assumptions before I can justly believe that I'm currently having a conversation, a conversation with another aware being. If any assumptions are necessary to justify this belief, then we might as well take them for granted in our language.

[bennyboy]

I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:
1) There is a processing lag in consciousness. Reality may have moved on
2) There is a lag in information transit across space
3) Our observations of reality could be counterfeited

Our brain states are part of reality. If our brain states are mind, as the available evidence seems to suggest, then brain states a part of reality that we have direct access to.

Maybe. But when we perceive, it's not because we are interested in our brain states. It's because we are connecting with an apparent external realtiy. There's no reason you could have symbolic representations of that apparent reality in another medium: in the Matrix, maybe, or encoded in the positioning of shells on the beach.

[Whateverist]

I wish to start a discussion about the existence of truth or the true.
I've found several definitions, none of which I prefer.

.
.

My beef with each of these definitions is that they presume that there exists and we have access to the current state of reality.

I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:

.
.

As a result, I would like to propose an alternative definition for the community to critique.
Truth is a property of propositions whose magnitude varies in direct proportion with how well the propositions serve to accurately have predicted the future once it arrives.
An unfortunate corollary of this definition is that nothing is currently true. It can only have been proved to be true at some future time.

I don't see any reason to change the definition of truth. Truth is potentially a property of any coherent statement.

Nor do I think we should hold the concept in such high regard. Truth is a bi-product of language. That's all. There is no The Truth. Of course there is the way things actually stand -and yes I accept that there is a reality independent of what we say about it. But truth is as much about the language as it is about reality. It is an approximation of reality at best.

Language is a little like the matrix. Don't settle for the word. Our entire being is interacting with reality all the time and is an integral part of it all. Language is representational. It provides a means of communicating with others about the world so that we can act collaboratively. Of course language will fall short. It certainly can't exceed the thing itself.

[bennyboy]

Our entire being is interacting with reality all the time and is an integral part of it all.

Hmmmmm. That's a very confident statement. How do you arrive at such confidence?