Existence and truth dont have any working definitions whatsoever

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
17
Posts
18
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 •••

"truth" definition


the quality or state of being true.


"true" definition


in accordance with fact or reality.


"reality" definition


the state of things as they actually exist


"exist" definition:


have objective reality



this was taken from dictionary on google, and the definition apparently just goes in circle. then I checked other dictionaries, and in each dictionary I checked, there is no definition of "truth" or "existence" which isnt just circular, and circular definitions dont work because they are not defining anything, but just using one undefined word to define another.


Because "existence" and "truth" are undefined, anything can be "existence" or "truth", and at the same time, nothing can be.

Edit comment

#2 •••

this simple argument clearly shows one thing: Because truth doesnt have a working definition, nothing can be true, or everything can.


Because of this, Meowism is as true as science.

Edit post

#3 •••

Become Meowist today, show that Meowists are good people!

Edit post

#4 •••
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#5 •••
@wylted
The way I would define it is as useful information that can be confirmed by others


Dont get me started on definition of "information", which is actually also circular in dictionary.


information:


"facts provided or learned about something or someone."


fact


"a thing that is known or proved to be true." - this brings us back to circle definition in original post, with definition of "true" in dictionary being just circle of verbal nonsense.


And dont get me started on definition of "useful", which is another circle of "A is B, B is A" type of definitions which I discovered are actually very common in every dictionary I find online.


I actually cant find a single dictionary which doesnt do this circle of nonsense.


And yes, you can define truth as something confirmed by others, but that too would result in circular reasoning where others can only be confirmed by others. And definition of "others" in dictionary is actually another circle.


Once you read enough definitions in a dictionary, and follow each word by word to get definitions of words used in first definition, you realize all dictionaries are using circular definitions.


And this is a very disappointing discovery.

Edit post

#6 •••

But just to explain where problem exactly lies:


Each word requires a definition. Each definition requires even more words to define the word. Each of those words require more words, and so on.


this creates unsolvable language problem where definitions can only be circular, infinite or undefined (Sort of like Munchausen trillemma).


Because infinite is impossible, and undefined looks ugly, dictionaries chose circular definitions.

Edit post

#7 •••
@SatanLucy
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#8 •••
@wylted

Sadly, there is no escape from this:


"definitions can only be circular, infinite or undefined"


When you think of a fourth option, let me know.

Edit post

#9 •••
@SatanLucy

Definition can also be the final goal which demand a commitment.

Edit post

#10 •••
@SatanLucy

Relative to the human condition, truth is an unequivocal fact...Other than that, ideas are not necessarily accurate but are possibly so.


And existence, relative to the human condition, was probably best best summed up by Rene Descartes.


Outside of the human shell is a sensory assumption.

Edit post

#11 •••
@SergeantLynch

Truth is relative. It is dependent on context, such as culture, language or personal perspective.

Edit post

#12 •••
@Debby

Hmmmmm


Not really, truth is actually truth...And then there is an assumed pseudo truth that evolves out of culture, language and personal contexts.


But, if truth can therefore be variable, then what is actually true and what isn't....And who or what has the authority to judge.

Edit post

#13 •••
@SergeantLynch

You have to trust but verify.

Edit post

#14 •••
@Debby

Would be a tad more sensible to verify first.

Edit post

#15 •••
@SergeantLynch
But, if truth can therefore be variable, then what is actually true and what isn't....And who or what has the authority to judge.


Sarge, there exists three primary kinds of truth:


1} absolute truths ex five and five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra can ever exist,


2} relative truths ex the sky is blue, well yes sometimes it is here sometimes not, as well as when it is blue here, on the other side of Earth it is not because its dark on that side ergo black or black with some shiny objects in the sky { planes, stars etc },


3} False narrative that is opposite of above 1 and 2 yet may include 1 or 2 in its narrative to mislead/misdirect others, whether intentionally or not.


Spirit:


1} Spirit-1 is meta-space concepts { mind/intellect/abstractions } of Space { two primary kinds }, God { multiple choices }, Time { multiple choices }, mathematics { ex geometric patterns }, Humans { most complex biologic } Toyotas { reliable vehicle for most part }, Footballs, Pool balls, Bowling balls, Tennis Shoes, AI, Toe Nails Stars, etc.


--------- conceptual line of demarcation ----------


3} Spirit-2, 3 and 4 { occupied space Universe }


......Spirit-2 Fermionic matter and bosonic forces and a newer third catagory that is hybrid of those two at very cold temperatures, so I mostly ignore it. These above are our quantised physical reality of occupied space and we observe as motion aka vibrational patterns of quantised energy integrities. Ex we see a young calf or colt running around in field jumpting and kicking and just so happy, that, we humans say, that animal is very spirited/excited etc.


..Spirit-3 is ultra-micro Gravity ( ) { occupied space } and is not quantised nor quantified yet by humans, ergo, meta-physical. Beyond our physical abilities to quantise or quantify at least so far,


...Spirit-4 is ultra-micro Dark Energy )( { occupied space } and is not quantised nor quantified yet by humans, ergo, meta-physical.


The meta-space Spirit-1 exists eternally in complementation to all of occupied space Universe, that also exists in eternal transformation aka the only perpetual motion machine, that is, naught created nor destroyed, only transformed.


I believe that the sum-total accounting of planckian bits may expand and contract in the following example, that does not create nor loose any of the occupied space bits. This process of expansion-contraction of Unvierse --if it is occurring-- is infolding and outfolding the whole Universe.


1} See this origami link to better grasp this infolding-outfolding concept. Scroll short distance to see the 5 second animation

https://github.com/HSSBoston/miura-fold


2} this 2nd one I actually forget sometimes when i consider this expansion-contraction of Universe question of how does it do it without creating or loss of planckian bits --or in most broad sense occuppied space energy--. This next two Synergetics link is to theB Fullers transformative jitterbug via its six square face pattern integrals collaspe, whereas the triangles, are stable structural integral shapes/patterns and remain in all of the transformations


.......1} 4-fold whole{ VE } >5-fold semi-icosa{20}hedron > 4-fold octa{8}hedron,

https://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f6008.html


.......2} octahedron > semi-isotropic truss pattern > 8 triangles bonded/valence{ infolded } as a subdivided triangle { seemingly 2D > out-fold to octa-bonded/valenced 3-fold tetrahedron { 3D volume } > or another tetrahedron { semi 2 frequency tet }.

https://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f6108.html


What is not shown in the synergetics links is the five, six or more other exotic transformations the jitterbug also will transform into.


3} Ex a Euclidean, negative curvature shape aka saddle-shape of one quarter or one half of a torus inner surface area,


4} transforms into two Euclidean sine-waves, at 90 degrees to each other, just as the EMRadiation of photon{s} does,

..attaching photo below hopefully...The one sine-wave is horisontal so all we can see is the vertex on right pointing toward us


5} complex octagonal sine-wave with four top vertexes { as potential square } and four bottom vertexes { as potential square }. Sorry I dont have photo of the jitterbug transforming to this shape. I need to do that. Im still figuring out how to get a photo of my phone onto my PC.


6} the flying hexagon. What the flying hexagon says to me, is that unlike the seemingly 2D flatten subdivided triangle, the hexagon is a larger area of seemingly 2D space. And there is this 7th tail wing triangle { two valenced/bonded } that wants to stay vertical, as if saying, I refuse to collapse into a 2D space only.



...however, the 4-fold VE will contract to a seemingly single triangle space { least area }, tho is it actually 8 bonded/valenced triangles. Sorry I dont have a photos of that, tho it is easy to imagine if you look at 2nd Synergetics link of the sub-divided triangle and just fold the three outer sets of bonded/valenced triangles, onto the central/nuclear triangle.


..It is this most contracted infolding of the VE that I associate with my Entropic Heat Death of Universe scenario, ergo, the beginnng unfolding as the next Big WOW! event. What is not consider in the above, is that if we start withe 4-fold VE, having one spherical icosahedron --ergo its 62 { left skew 31 and right skew 31 } l2D great circles/3D great tori, bonded to each of the VE's surface triangles, then,


...when the VE gets to this most contracted phase, there is 4 bonded/valenced icosahedron one side of the triangle, and because it is spherical, it overlaps with the four ---bonded/valenced as one-- icosahedra on the other side. We can also start out with a spherical VE, tho, without grpahic abilities, such animations etc are hard for to present to others.


...anyway, in the next graphic below is the bilateral heat death and the green line { the above mentioned, contracted triangle } in the middle is and ultra-large, ultra-longest wave frequency of single photon { ergo close to flat }, as { for the most part } all that will remain of our physical reality.


..Gravity Dark Energy remain as the 2D circles/3D space tori in the graphic as follows. I did not ask MS Co-pilot to create all of the internal circles, as I was only asking for an outer perimeter set of most compact tori as firewall between Universe { at heat death } and the outside macro-infinite truly non-occupied space { a true vacuum } that would always want to pull apart the finite integrity of Universe.


...as for what exists inside the two sets of bilateral 5-fold icosahedra, and where the overlap occurs --and we see the density due to overlap-- Ive had diffferrent ideas what that density could be if not just 3D space tori { Gravity and Dark Energy only }, so my lastest idea is that it is remaining Higgs field. I dunno!

It is also good recall, that, in the next link we see the total of 87 primary 2D great circles { both 4-fold VE's 25 and 5-fold icosas 31{ left and right skew total 62 } Synergetics, whereas I extrapolate these as 3D space and time tori. Tho at entropic heat death, I think some of them just become space only tori, an no invaginations occur as the reality { 0..3p..6..9..12...15...18/0...etc > }


..not clear in this Synergetics link is that the icosa's primary 20 triangles { 12 vertexes } and cojoined { bonded/valenced } with the spherical VE's 12 vertexes so this is at the 8 regular triangles of VE where they meet and overlap with each other before contracting collapse of the maximally expanded VE begins its contracting infolding collapse

https://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s11/figs/f3201b.html

Edit post

#16 •••
@ebuc, @SergeantLynch

there is actually a very simple definition deduction argument against truth itself:


P1. truth = definition of truth

P2. definition of truth = B

C. truth = B


these two premises and conclusion must all be true in order for something (B in this case) to be true.


However, P1 fails if there is no definition of truth, which casuses P2 and C to fail as well.


But that is not the only problem.


the deduction argument actually requires one additional step with definition of truth. While one can choose any arbitrary "something" and make it be "definition of truth", proving that equation is logically impossible.


Because anyone can make any definition and say "this is definition of truth". But to prove that it is indeed definition of truth, is a more difficult task.

Edit post

#17 •••

Three perspectives { viewpoints }:

X { birds-eye vertical },

Z - Y { Side-wise left and right 90 degrees }

/ { 45 degrees 4th-D into or out from internal volume },


Absolute truth { Cosmic - whole - all is one and connected }


Relative truth { Timing and Location },


and, False Narrative { Intentional or Non-intentional combinations of false-hoods and truths }.

Edit post

#18 •••

Looks like a kite flying sideways representing truth.

Edit post