Truth exists
Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.
Is there such a thing?
Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.
So something is eternal. Some call it God.
I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists.
Is there such a thing?
Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.
So something is eternal. Some call it God.
I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists.
Comments (42)
Not trying to follow you around Wayfarer, we may just have common philosophical interests. =)
The = symbol does not mean "is". It means "The left side is the same as the right side". "Is" is involved in the definition, but the equals sign is only about equivalency in comparing two sides. I taught high school math for about 5 years. That being the case, language is often contextual. Many people view it = the same as "is", because it works for the most part.
"Is" and "exists" are arguably synonyms. I say arguably, because depending on people's contexts, they might use them slightly differently. They are not tightly defined words, so we should be careful in making tight arguments with them.
To leo, the problem is people have to accept your definition of truth. No one has agreed that truth is what is eternally unchanging. I think most commonly people view truth as what "exists" (Now you see why I addressed Wayfarer) despite our will and intentions. Sometimes truth is concurrent with our will, sometimes it is not. But that is all it is. If something happens to be eternal, then that is its truth. If something does not happen to be eternal, then that is its truth.
So lets alter your propositions to fit.
Define Truth as what "is/exists".
Assume that nothing exists. If that is the case, then we cannot put forward the proof that nothing exists, because the proof would then exist.
Therefore, it is certain that there is at least one thing that exists. If people agree that truth is viable synonym for "is/exists", then the use of truth with this definition describes a logical reality.
But this does not prove that something eternal exists. It also does not prove that truth must mean "what exists/is". After all, what we ascribe to words is our choice, and nothing inherent in reality dictates this. But, if we do with to ascribe this meaning to truth, we have proven that the meaning itself, is something logically concluded as something which cannot be contradicted.
I think the substitution of 'is' for 'equals' is unproblematic. But you wouldn't say that two plus two exists four, would you?
A question that I think is worth considering is, in what sense do numbers exist? You might say, there is the number 7, that obviously exists, I'm pointing at it. But what you're pointing at is a symbol. The same number can be represented by many different symbols. If you use a different symbol, like VII, the symbol is different but the value is the same. So the value is different from the symbol.
This opens out into the age-old debate about the nature of number. Is it a product or a discovery? I'm inclined to the latter, which is, loosely speaking, platonist. But of course it is not an argument that can be resolved.
Quoting Philosophim
One question I would ask is this: is there anything that exists that does not have a temporal beginning and ending (i.e. begins and ends in time) and is not composed of parts?
Quantum fields, perhaps.
Further, the definition is wrong. Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing. It is not god nor is it eternal.
Because quantum. Risible.
Correspondence Theory of Truth
Its a good question that touches on language and identity. One ability we all have is to take the sum of experience we have, and then create discrete identities within it. You can see a field of grass with a sheep, but take that image and identify a blade of grass, and a piece of grass. Basically we can take and parse that image however we like.
Language and symbols are the attempt to communicate the ability to discretely experience. "1" as the concept is the idea that in a picture of experience on a portion. That is the "1" within the infinite. "2" is the concept that if we take 1 identity, and 1 very similar identity, we then create a new identity of including them together.
Numbers as the concept describing this ability to discretely experience are things most of us can easily reproduce, so they are easily communicated. The symbol is just a medium of communication through sight, sound, smell, etc. that are distinct enough to recognize that we can trigger the concept within us again.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't know. And that may be because of our ability to discretely experience anything. A part is an identity we create. Normally this is because that part has some function that is different form that around it. Yet if I think of even a perfectly round sphere, someone will try to make a North pole, a South pole, and divide it up. =)
As for time, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "beginning". Time is really a concept we invented to note that what is now is different from a memory of what was then. As for something which does not end, that is also not likely to be known. So far existence has existed for billions of years to our limited knowledge. Yet even that is such a small time compared to "never ending".
"There is nothing that never changes" can't be true if this is truth.
So you end up with a neat, beautiful paradox, not with a proof that something eternal exists.
Yes, and it's incredibly close, for beyond its mathematical origin the precise predictions have been realized in experiments, and so the standard model came forth.
In this poem of analysis, we see how the other candidates gradually fell away:
— The Answers to Everything —
On What ‘IS’
(Particles as excitations of fields)
An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which composites can grow.
There can’t be other directions given,
To that which no start; it is undriven;
So, it is as Everything possible,
Either as linear or exists at once.
Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualifiy as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles, then more.
The particles, etc., are temporary;
The Basis is coterminal with stuff,
But is not cosubstantial with the things;
Its information content is the same as Null!
Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields went mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.
Proposed …
There are no ‘if nots’ for happened events;
That would be a fantasy world but meant
For simulations and playing mind games;
No use entertaining real replacements.
Why do you make this distinction? There is an island to the south of Australia. There is a large deposit of ice. 4 is a solution to 2+2=x. The island exists. The deposit of ice exists. 4 exists.
To better understand where I’m coming from : I used to see truth as relative. I made some threads on that a long while ago. The idea that my truth may not be your truth and that we can’t say one is more valid than the other because we may not have the same experiences.
But not everything can be relative, for if everything was relative then that would be an absolute. That’s a logical necessity. I’m going with a similar train of thought here. Not everything is temporary, for if it was then that itself would be eternal and not temporary. That’s a logical necessity as well.
Those who define truth as “in accordance with facts” get stuck when they go deeper. What is a true fact as opposed to a false one? What makes something truly in accordance with a fact? ...
Deep down the idea of Truth is that of something unchanging, that remains the same, that we can hang onto no matter what. And the point of this thread is that logical necessities show that there is something Absolute and Eternal. Call it Truth, call it the Absolute, call it God or whatever, the essence matters more than the label.
It's six o'clock. It is true that it is six o'clock.
Now, it's one past six. It is no longer true that it is six o'clock.
Sometimes truth changes.
You cannot make truthful statements like that about time. By the time you say "it's six o'clock" that time has past. And, as Einstein proposed, what time it is, is relative to your frame of reference, so there is no such thing as the truth about what time it actually is.
Let’s assume nothing is eternal. Either this is true for a limited time, or for all eternity.
If the assumption is true only for a limited time, that means that when it isn’t true there is something that is eternal. But if there is something that is eternal then “nothing is eternal” is always false.
If the assumption is true for all eternity, then there is something that is true for all eternity, which isn’t nothing, so “nothing is eternal” is always false.
So the assumption “nothing is eternal” necessarily leads to a contradiction. Thus it is false. Proof by contradiction. So something is eternal ...
I've been attempting to draw the distinction between "real" and "exists" in multiple threads. Seems a useful line of inquiry here.
And why does the question matter? Because the overwhelming vast majority of reality is a real phenomena, which doesn't meet our definition of existence. Whatever label we wish to attach to that circumstance, it's a very big deal.
That's a common definition of truth. But that definition does reduce truth to being a pile of little symbols in the minds of a species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies. Thus making truth, in the grand scheme of things, very close to non-existent. Kind of a demotion for a word with such grand pretensions.
Your options are incorrect. If it is eternal, it is either eternal for all time, or it is not eternal. You can't be eternal for a short amount of time.
But let continue with your modified premises.
If there is something that is eternal, then it is false that nothing is eternal. And this statement of false, would be eternal.
However, if there exists absolutely nothing that is eternal, then our statement is true. And this statement of true, would be eternal.
So what can we conclude from this? That the conclusion of logical, deduced statements which are fulfilled perfectly, are eternally true, or eternally false.
We can therefore conclude the general statement "At least one thing is eternal, therefore eternal things can exist."
Of course, this only applies to statements that accurately reflect reality, so I'm not sure how useful this is. Perhaps you can extend this or think of a use?
See this.
I believe the distinction between reality and existence was lost in Medieval Europe, as a consequence of the debate between (Scholastic) realism and nominalism. According to Scholastic realism, universals are real but they're not existent in the sense that individual particulars are existent; they're 'intelligible objects'. They're real as operative principles of the intellect and as universal principles in nature. But they don't exist 'out there', they're not objectively real, and for modern theory, they're simply non-existent, or as nominalism says, names only, contrivances of the human mind.
In any case, imho the truth is that if we're going to be discussing phenomena as large as reality, that's overwhelmingly space at every scale. Space is the main event, everything else is a tiny detail.
So if one wishes to have a philosophy aligned with the nature of reality, less is more.
Indeed.
I can; I did. Ergo, you are wrong.
Philosophical confusion often consists in mixing stuff that shouldn't be mixed.
This is an unjustified assumption. Any existing thing, or event such as your "appointment", requires a confluence of numerous things coming together in unity. Not one of those, individually, can mark the beginning of the specified occurrence, and a judgement as to when they become unified as one event, to mark the beginning of that event, would be arbitrary.
When does your doctor's appointment begin? When the doctor asks the receptionist to send you in? When the receptionist signals to you? When you enter the examination room? When the doctor enters the room? When the doctor speaks to you? I don't think the doctor's billing practise is sufficient to justify a supposed beginning to your appointment.
Quoting tim wood
I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. By the time you say "it's two o'clock", it's past two o'clock, unless you say "it's two o'clock" before it's two o'clock. If you do not see the truth to this obvious fact, or desire to deny the obvious truth, for some unknown reason, then I'm afraid I cannot help you to understand the reality of time.
If, on the other hand, you want to understand the reality of time, then you ought to be able to quickly recognize the fact that there is no such thing as a point in time, which we can say corresponds with "what time it is". "What time it is" does not indicate a point in time, it indicates a period of time, and that period cannot have boundaries marked as points, because the points are not real. So we ought not use the phrase "what time it is", as if it refers to a point in time. There is no empirical evidence to suggest points in time are real.
Quoting tim wood
It appears like you are the one lost in such confusion, claiming that 2:00 could refer to an actual point in time, when there are no such points in time. Assigning numbers to time in this manner is just a convention of convenience which has no bearing on the reality of time.
Quoting Banno
Yes sir, President Trump, when you make a statement and insist that it's the truth, and it must be the truth, because you spoke it, and therefore anything to the contrary is false, I will have great respect for the truth of that statement.
The point is there cannot be nothing that is eternal.
If there was nothing eternal, then “nothing is eternal” would be eternal, and “nothing is eternal” isn’t nothing, which contradicts the premise, so the premise is false. So there is something that is eternal.
We aren’t proving it is the statement “nothing is eternal” that is eternal, since the premise that led to it is false.
We are proving something is eternal, without specifying what that something is. This goes beyond statements. This applies to reality. There really is something that is eternal out there.
This claim does not seem to be based in any logic. If it is true that there is nothing which is eternal, this makes the statement "nothing is eternal" true. It does not make the statement "nothing is eternal" eternal. In fact, that would contradict the premise that there is nothing which is eternal.
Quoting leo
Well no, it doesn't really get beyond statements, because your claim is that a statement, "nothing is eternal", is something which is eternal. But you have provided nothing to justify this claim. And, it actually contradicts the stated condition "if there was nothing eternal".
If one believes that truth "does not exist", then they believe that axiom to be "true", rather than false, right?
So it's an oxymoron.
Well I thought I was showing the statement “nothing is eternal” is self-contradictory and thus false, but I think I realized my mistake.
If nothing is eternal, then at some point everything ceases to be, including time, so “nothing is eternal” would itself not be eternal.
In the view that nothing is eternal, the world appears, not even out of nothing since nothing doesn’t exist, and at some point ceases to be, and that’s it. In that view there is absolutely no reason for any “law” of physics, for any regularity observed, and these laws aren’t eternal.
The alternative view is that something was always there and always will be, and that there may be a reason behind the “laws” of physics and the regularities we observe.
Proportion is irrelevant. Whether you are talking about a huge portion of time, or a very small portion of time, there is still a duration, and therefore no such thing as a point which marks what time it is when this duration is passing. Therefore referring to a portion of time as a point in time such as 2:00 cannot be a true reference, no matter what the proportion is.
Quoting tim wood
Why do you insist on denying the truth? "Two o'clock" is just a name you use, which has no real reference. There are conventions for the usage of that name, but there cannot be anything specific which the name refers to, or else it would lose its universal applicability. The reason why I can say it is two o'clock where I am, and you can also say that it is two o'clock where you are, and it can be two o'clock all over the place, is that "two o'clock" does not refer to anything real. Have you not yet grasped this fact, that assuming particular points in time is just a convention of convenience? The only implied furniture is a mountain of conventions, which no matter how high that mountain is, only amounts to conventions without any real thing corresponding to the usage.
There are two very distinct uses of "eternal". One refers to existing forever, infinite temporal existence. The other refers to existence outside of time. Aristotle demonstrated that the first, infinite temporal existence, is a faulty concept. Following this, Christian theologians accepted the second meaning, "outside of time" as the description of the eternality of God. What exactly is meant by this is a subject for speculation.
I can't make any sense out of this sentence. What does the word "nothing" refer to? Is "nothing" a label for the null set? How can "nothing" have a property of being eternal?
As far as I can tell this is a nonsense sentence. Classic examples of a nonsense sentences are "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" or "Colorless green dreams sleep furiously". We recognize that these are grammatically correct and the words have reasonably well defined definitions - but we all recognize that these sentences do not express a coherent thought using the standard definitions.
Perhaps there is another way of phrasing this? Perhaps "There is no object in the physical universe that has the property of being eternal"?
From our point of view we only experience a portion of the present, which is itself an extremely small part of all that it, was and ever will be. I would say an eternal, infinite consciousness would experience it all at once forever. And maybe the whole is perfect, but it only appears imperfect from a limited point of view, especially when we're experiencing the difficult parts. But I would say also that difficulty is a part of perfection, if everything was easy there would be something missing.
Quoting EricH
"There is nothing that has the property of being eternal" yes, that's what I was getting at. But I don't subscribe to this view for various reasons. Though I now realize the reasoning I was putting forward in this thread was flawed, for I was implicitly assuming that something is eternal in order to disprove that nothing is ...
This depends on how you define "the present". I would define it as the division between past and future. It seems evident to me that my experience consists of some past and some future, so I would say that my experience encompasses all of the present, and also some past and some future. But if you define "the present" as consisting of an extended period of time, then it is likely that we only experience a part of the present. So to resolve this question as to "truth", there is a requirement to determine exactly what the present is.
Quoting leo
This appears to me to be an incoherent statement. "Consciousness" and "experience" are specific to the way that we experience time. To talk about a consciousness experiencing all of time at once doesn't really make any sense. Consider what it would be like if what we experienced as a thousandth of a second in time, would consist of the physical changes of a billion years. We don't notice the changes of a thousandth of a second because they go by so fast. So all the things which happen to the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe, in a billion years, would not be noticeable to this consciousness because they go by so fast. Now extend this to all of time. Everything which happens throughout the entirety of time would not be noticeable because it zooms by too fast. How does it make sense to talk about a scenario like this?
If something (God) never changes, then how does it cause change? How does an effect of change follow from a never-changing cause?
Truth is the relationship between statements and the state-of-affairs those statements are about.
Quoting BannoWhat is a "thing"? Is eternal a thing? If not, then how can predicate statements not be eternal if they both qualify as not-things?
I would say your experience consists only of some present. Your memories and expectations are experienced in the present, and they don't necessarily reflect accurately what you did experience in the past or what you will experience in the future.
As to why I said we only experience a portion of the present, is that the present consists of the present experience of all beings, not just mine, what I experience presently is a tiny part of all that's experienced.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The way I see it, our experience is limited both spatially and temporally. So for instance I don't see what's behind the wall in front of me, but someone on the other side of the wall does. Well what if all moments in time exist concurrently, and we only see a tiny portion of it as we're traveling along? This would mean that the whole future is already written, so from the highest point of view everything we are going to do is already written, but from our limited point of view we do have limited free will because we do make choices based on a set of inputs (experiences/beliefs/understanding/...)
What would it be like to experience a bigger chunk of time at once? Well we can't do it justice from our limited point of view, just like someone who doesn't see colors cannot get what it's like to see colors. It would be a higher dimension of experience.
So what would it be like to experience the whole past and future experiences of all beings simultaneously? Can't describe it. Infinite experience. And if that infinite experience is sustained forever then it wouldn't zoom by, it would just be permanent, eternal.
So of course there is a lot of speculation in what I just said, but I find it is an interesting way to view existence and I feel like there is something to it.
When you sense something, isn't the thing sensed, in the past by the time that it is sensed? This is how we came to know that light moves faster than sound. You see something in the distance, then the sound of that follows. But still, light takes some time, so the thing seen (experienced) is in the past by the time that it is experienced.
So I think it's not just a matter of saying our memories and anticipations are actually occurring at the present, I think our experience is really of the past and of the future. Think of anticipation in general. It is a natural instinct to expect the future. How could you anticipate unless you somehow knew there is a future. And how could you know there is a future unless you somehow were experiencing it.
Quoting leo
This would make sense, but it requires a mechanism which propels one along through time. So when you think about it, it makes a lot more sense to conceive of actual time passing in an active world, then to conceive of a mechanism propelling human beings through a static world. Consider all the scientific evidence which indicates that time was passing and things were changing prior to the existence of human beings. How does it make sense to think that the physical world was arranged in such a way so as to make it appear to us like time was passing and things were changing before human existence, but things were really static without some conscious being, actively being propelled through this simulation? And now, if you accept that this is a simulation, and change was not really occurring, you need to explain this mechanism which is exclusive to the human being, and propels the human being through this fixed world.
What you experience you experience now. If you assume that what you experience is an image of what was in the past, you're still experiencing that image now. It is in that way that I mean we only experience the present.
Also, there is nothing experienced without an experiencer, so in my view it is meaningless to talk of how things are while abstracting out the experiencer.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Interesting ... yes we do experience change, which involves a comparison between different moments. It's true there is a part of what we experienced that remains, and some of what we anticipate that we do end up experiencing. Well the anticipation is an experience itself, but we do have that ability to distinguish between what we call past and future.
If we say we're only ever experiencing a changing present, there is implicitly a notion of past and future in it. So yes I suppose we could say we don't experience a succession of instantaneous "nows", but a chunk of time that is evolving.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It isn't really that the being would be propelled through time. Also it wouldn't be exclusive to the human being it would apply to all beings that experience.
If you agree with the idea that we experience a chunk of time, then that means the past and future are at least partly determined. Now consider the idea that the whole past and future of all beings are already determined. And that they are all occurring simultaneously. Meaning the future and past "you" exist now, but not just one of each, an immense number of them, maybe an infinity, and they're all experiencing their limited chunk of time that is evolving, all flowing towards the end of the story that is already predetermined. And for it to be a continuous whole, the end would also be the start. Your story wouldn't start with your birth some decades ago and end some decades in the future, it would be much grander than that, we are more than material beings, much more than that.
The end of the story would be all beings realizing and experiencing how everything is connected and all reunited into the One infinite consciousness that they belong to. But the end of that story would be occurring at the same time as all the other parts of that story. And the end would circle back to the beginning. And the whole of that, that eternal whole would be what is timeless and perfect.