How many 'truths' are there?...

[Scott Mayers]

After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?

Exactly!!

And what is your response? If there is a fixed finite set of truths, how many more non-truths exist?

[Scott Mayers]

After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?

Like a cake you needs eggs to make it. Once the cake is made the eggs are gone.

Truth is like a cake and the eggs are lies.

This is the Forest Trump view of the world "Life is like a cake ..."

It's also like a product that sells itself as having NO cholesterol in some product that doesn't even NEED ingredients that use animal proteins (cholesterol being one of these). I also argued elsewhere about one trying to tell me that we should tax sugar on all products that contain them or encourage others to optionally put this ingredient in themselves at their 'taxed' expense. He gave "ketchup" as an example. But the essential ingredients to make such is Sugar (usually brown), tomatoes, and vinegar. Otherwise, selling us sugarless ketchup is just selling us a tomato paste for premium price (because it would no doubt be sold to us as a specialty item!)

I ask the same thing of you as No Ships: how many possible non-existent things exist compared to each specific thing?

[NoShips]

After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?

Exactly!!

And what is your response? If there is a fixed finite set of truths, how many more non-truths exist?

Scott, you remind me of Popper and his valiant attempt to give an account of "truth-likeness", or what he called "verisimilitude". Are you familiar with it? (It's relevant to what you said above)

[Scott Mayers]

After we solve this, can we discuss how many lies there are?

Exactly!!

And what is your response? If there is a fixed finite set of truths, how many more non-truths exist?

Scott, you remind me of Popper and his valiant attempt to give an account of "truth-likeness", or what he called "verisimilitude". Are you familiar with it? (It's relevant to what you said above)

I've partially read his works and am familiar but can't remember the context. I still have his "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" on a long line of 'to-read' material. But because I already know what I raise is not accepted on average today, while I KNOW it has been discussed many times and places before, I just prefer using my own terms. It might be partially repetitive. But I notice from reading many different works through time, each tends to redefine everything.

From a simple google search, the definition suggests that you are pointing to how you can suspend disbelief in literary works like science fiction. I would prefer not to adopt that term though it may be useful in some way. What did Popper say of this, if you recall?

[NoShips]

Here it is in a nutshell: Popeye, I mean Popper, would like to demonstrate that theories approach truth. A successor theory is supposed to have a greater "truth content" than its antecedent.

Now how would we show that?

This is where you come in and your insight above.

How many true predictions does, say, Newtonian mechanics (in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries) make? Ans: Infinity.

How many false predictions does, say, Newtonian mechanics (in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries) make? Ans: Infinity.

With me?

Edit: Hope I have Popper right. If not, corrections are welcome.

[NoShips]

P.S. This is our old friend Imre Lakatos speaking again. I'll try to find his exact words if you like.

[Scott Mayers]

Here it is in a nutshell: Popeye, I mean Popper, would like to demonstrate that theories approach truth. A successor theory is supposed to have a greater "truth content" than its antecedent.

Now how would we show that?

This is where you come in and your insight above.

How many true predictions does, say, Newtonian mechanics (in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries) make? Ans: Infinity.

How many false predictions does, say, Newtonian mechanics (in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries) make? Ans: Infinity.

With me?

Edit: Hope I have Popper right. If not, corrections are welcome.

I looked up the Wikipedia page on this and he was appearing to do this with an inequality of which may work. That is, to me, I would assert that to any truth A, there are always an infinite truths against A.

So -A > A, ALWAYS.

[It appears though that he was comparing two separate theories to determine veracity by comparison (as similar). My point is the above. There is always MORE non-truths to any single given truth and so totality by my definition is much necessarily greater than our contingent world.]

[NoShips]

I'll try to find the Lakatos work on this, Scott.

[NoShips]

Yes, I think you're right about A.

Popper claims truth content increases. Lakatos says no in Hungarian.

It gets a little technical (and I get lost). In "The Rationality of Science" by Newton-Smith there is an analysis.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes, I think you're right about A.

Popper claims truth content increases. Lakatos says no in Hungarian.

It gets a little technical (and I get lost). In "The Rationality of Science" by Newton-Smith there is an analysis.

I think you might see that I relate more to Hegel on this. See Hegel and the Trinity (PhilosophyNow). There I respond to the article written on this to explain how it relates to my use of argument above. But Lakatos looks interesting and I'll have to read his "Proofs and Refutations" as this process is definitely related.

[NoShips]

Oh dear. Hegel is terrifying. Just took a look. Erm, is there any way to summarize this, Scott?

[Scott Mayers]

Oh dear. Hegel is terrifying. Just took a look. Erm, is there any way to summarize this, Scott?

Given A, there will always be a not-A and collectively a (A and -A) [contradiction ('con- with, -tra third,...)

Normally we just treat the state of a contradiction as a means to turn and run. (kind of how you did just now)
Confusion is something, though, that can be a function WITHIN a system of logic that compels certain actions, not simply an END to an argument. Obviously the 'end' we normally treat is enough. But for some things, especially where the contradictions become real (= paradox), this must be resolved.

One way to do this is to accept that the paradox is 'real' but provide a distinct but separate place for it (a "dimension", for instance). This can then be resolved by treating the 'third' possibility as TWO, but in that new direction:

Dim present: A, -A, and (A and -A)

At (A and -A), we use "DeMorgan's rule of negation which just 'distributes' the negation inside:

-(A and -A) == (-A -and --A) == (-A OR A) <-- the reality to which appears in a different dimension AT (A and -A).

Diagrammatically, this is:

Resolving the Contradiction (A and not-A)

Collectively, this is:

A Trinity in logical processes...

This is also how I originate an argument to develop spacial dimensions from scratch. If A represents a number on the x-axis of some line (in space or model), then the contradiction of something BEING at point A and not-point A at the same time requires "dimensioning".

This process is constructive as a logic, not simply a static test of reasoning.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

As the title asks, how many 'truths' exist?

That is, we might notice that we cannot escape number when discussing anything in nature. So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

Or, is it all of the above?

If there are infinitely many things, than there are infinitely many useful paradigms for explanation. How many truths exist is simply a question of how many things can be predicated about.

[Scott Mayers]

As the title asks, how many 'truths' exist?

That is, we might notice that we cannot escape number when discussing anything in nature. So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

Or, is it all of the above?

If there are infinitely many things, than there are infinitely many useful paradigms for explanation. How many truths exist is simply a question of how many things can be predicated about.

I'm specifically pointing out that

(a) All three 'absolutes' of 0, 1, and 00 must COEXIST in reality and
(b) ONLY the absolute of 0 is one that could possibly ORIGINATE any reality.

Obviously, if reality is infinite (00), it includes both absolutes of 1 and 0; If an absolute of 1 is true, though, this UNIQUE possibility is precisely indistinguishable from absolute nothing except that it HAS one such 'law' at least. As such, it could not allow for neither 0 nor 00 to exist by being BOUND to its minimal meaning as requiring 'consistency'. So only an origin, if one must exist, can be of nothingness itself.

This is the foundational means for me to suggest a non-consistent logic based on absolute nothingness.

[webplodder]

As the title asks, how many 'truths' exist?

That is, we might notice that we cannot escape number when discussing anything in nature. So by asking how many 'truths', I'm asking to what can we say about things like Nothingness, versus, Somethingness, versus Everything?

If we speak of 'totatity', for instance, is it Absolutely Nothing? Did it arise out of absolute nothingness? Or is it Absolutely One thing? Is it just one OF many? Or is it Infinite?

Or, is it all of the above?

'Nothingness' is impossible, from a logical point of view.

This is because we could not exist to question this in the first place if nothing had existed, since what did we arise from?

From this, it follows that infinity is an inescapable conclusion.

Why? Because nothing can come from nothing.

[nameless]

As the title asks, how many 'truths' exist?

The question is absurd.
'Truths' and 'untruths' only exist in 'thought/ego'.
It is a matter of Perspective whether you find something truthful, or not.
What you find to be 'truth', another will see a lie!
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

So for every 'truth' there is a 'lie'.
As far as how many, just count the Perspectives (almost infinite!)!

How many 'truths'?
How many 'beliefs'?
Everyone infected with 'beliefs' imagine their 'beliefs' to be 'truth/Truth'!

Re 'infinite';
'Infinite' is a poor term as no one has ever witnessed such a thing.
Perhaps 'near enough' to be handily called 'infinite'.
How many photons have existed/exist in the Universe?
Now many neutrinos in the Milky Way Galaxy?
For all intents and purposes, 'almost infinite' is the more precise term.
Not anything is perceived that does not exist, and vice versa.
No one perceives the 'infinite'.
It is a useless a term as 'nothing'!

As far as capital 'T' Truth is concerned, there is only one ALL INCLUSIVE Truth/Reality!
One must start removing vast swaths of Reality (ignorance) to imagine lies.

[Lomax]

It is a matter of Perspective whether you find something truthful, or not.

Well, that's your perspective.

[wolfhnd]

Where does this infinity of which you speak exist? The problem with abstractions is they are abstract.

[Lomax]

Where does this infinity of which you speak exist? The problem with abstractions is they are abstract.

Doesn't that belie the irrelevance of your question? Numbers are not spatio-temporal things.

[wolfhnd]

Abstractions are real they just are not what you think they are. This is just a variation on Daniel Dennet's freewill is real it just isn't what you think it is. To think otherwise requires a belief in something other than physical reality.

Determinism is not something that I feel required to believe in religiously but evidence and reason leaves us no alternatives. The question comes down to complexity but not in the sense that people use to support Emergence. I would be Leary of Philosophies that explain something more complex than the explainer.

It's not unreasonable to pursue the principle of all things in moderation when pondering the big questions. Taking your philosophy to serious I do not consider wise.