This sort of construction has an antirealist bent.

So suppose our language were the whole of mathematics, and we adopted a constructivist position, such that a mathematical theorem is true only if there is a proof that it is true. We can adopt the antirealist position that the Goldberg Conjecture, since it is unproven, has the truth value "meh" - is neither truth nor false. — Banno

Something not quite right there. Did you mean (the Goldbach conjecture is) true XOR false? Any proposition is either true or false (principle of bivalence).

What would it mean to say Christianity is true? — Tom Storm

Good questions Tom :up: — javi2541997

Yeah, I second that. There's another thread here on what truth is?

Two plus two IS [equal to] four — Art48

Force IS equal to mass times acceleration — Art48

What I would say is

1. Not that force is mass times acceleration (metaphysics)

2. But that force is equal to mass times acceleration (mathematics)

Sure it can be defended – it works. The scientific method consists of an archive of practices, and is not a proposition. Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. After all, as the abductive saying goes: nothing fails like prayer. :eyes: — 180 Proof

By works I suppose you mean that predictions (made by scientific theories) come true which is to say we have some semblance of control over our environment; we would like nothing better than to be in the driver's seat which seems to be unoccupied as far as we can tell.

Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science. — A Christian Philosophy

I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please?

Well yeah, any human can with the greatest ease out-Devil the Devil; as for being better than God, dream on!

Things happen in a bathtub, too. — god must be atheist

:lol:

The theory says that a proposition is true provided there exists a fact corresponding to it. — Pie

This, is it a definition?, breaks down when we take into account the following facts:

1. How do we determine correspondence with reality? Via observation or more colloquially looking, sensu amplissimo. What about maya?

2. What about, as I already mentioned, some mathematical truths that have no matching counterpart in reality that has left us guessing is math invented or discovered?

3. Intriguingly we have the ability to assume a proposition as true, there being no requirement for an assumption to describe reality. Fideism?

4. Left for the reader as an exercise.

But then an idealist will say "If the world(x) is indistinguishable from a hallucination(y), then the world is a hallucination." — Yohan

Oh! But he can't say thaaat, can he now?

Heh, hopefully I'm just making a point about the domain of "P" -- though this is philosophy, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm on team anti-parade — Moliere

The correspondence theory of truth - necessary but not sufficient, ok, but in what sense? Logically, aesthetically, spiritually, for no apparent reason, on a whim, a fancy, what?

Ok but aren't you rainin' on my parade and on others' parades too? Is there no other way than to just poop at someone's party?

Beauty, to me, is the very cosmos itself!

I trust the mods, they know what they're doin'.

Precisely. That's what I've been advocating, too, on these pages. Only problem is, Agent Smith, we haven't found this Agent X that causes both. Nobody is even looking for it, the scientific community is so complacently satisfied that CO2 increase is what causes global warming, and that it's human created. — god must be atheist

When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO₂ bubbles out!

Human Rights in Islam

Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed all mankind ... — 5:32

What if someone had killed Adam or Eve?

The so-called generation gap manifesting via your dad in so embarrassing ways that it's hilarious = Dad joke!

Well, here's the deal.

1. Fiber optics: we can change the direction of light (EM radiation) by playing around with medium (making it flexible).

2. High frequency EM waves like $\gamma$ rays and X-rays have high penetrative power; so you can give up the idea.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. — John Keats (Ode to a Grecian urn)

There you go, from the great Keats himself!

Until later :flower: — Amity

Until later!

:rofl:

what would you say now? — Amity

I was/am one of the vipers! :sad:

ありがとうございます! — javi2541997

:smile:

pan-aestheticism — 180 Proof

Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. — John Keats (Ode to a Grecian urn)

Muchas gracias 3017amen (banned)!
:chin:

there are no facts, only interpretations — 180 Proof

I was close then.

I want some of that. :cool:

Although.
I think I might have had a slurp before... :chin:
Best wishes :pray: — Amity

Bonam fortunam.

So, did you show how to appreciate the flower in the moment.
Or did you cut the vipers down... — Amity

It was rhetorical! He didn't expect an answer. I didn't provide one; too dumb!

Without opinions TPF would be an arid desert. — Amity

To give the devil his due, this isn't deliberate and though this is not good, it ain't bad either.

It's how we cut into them that's interesting, don't you think? — Amity

I second that! Like this young fellow once asked my views on a certain scenario that involved a beautiful flower dead center in a nest of vipers. The objective: Retrieve the flower without getting killed.

You wot, got no Youtube video? — Amity

Metanoia!

OH GREAT! Another sex scandal, this time in outer space! — Bitter Crank

:rofl: Holy mother of God! What will aliens think of us? We've managed to sully the heavens with our shit!

The past is so full of mistakes/gaffes/goof ups!

Poatmodernism is, I was led to believe, a reaction against the enlightenment zeit geist; probably not in toto but in part, to be precise a specific interpretation of truth as universal and non-negotiable.

Nietzsche, what he did was inform us of God's demise; religion was just another way absolute truth manifested itself.

Enlightenment, post-Deus?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. — Daniel Bonevac

Scientism, the belief that “any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences. — A Christian Philosophy

I never could wrap my head around this alleged self-refutation that happens with logical positivism(?). It's a meta-empirical statement and so to bring it to bear on itself is a category mistake (N/A). It's justification lies in the fact that its rejection would be problematic in terms of claims that are unverifiable which simply means propositions whose truth value can't be ascertained at all. Philosophy would then become, inter alia, a speculative field, the exploration of pure possibility; there's a not-so-flattering name for this, day-dreaming. :snicker:

My only worry is that we could be barking up the wrong tree so to speak. There's a really good correlation between CO₂ levels and global average temperatures; it seems so obvious what's happening and therein lies the rub. What if this is a case of 3^rd party causation i.e. tertium quid (an unknown factor X causing both rise in CO₂ and global warming?

Arigato gozaimus for clearing that up.

Some should, some shouldn't ... have children!

truth is so much more than correspondence — Moliere

truth is so much more than correspondence
— Moliere

Exactly. — Tate

In a sous rature (under erasure) kinda way or in some other way?

An opinion, regurgitating the official position, is peculiar to the person, his/her bias causing a distortion of the truth which is, taking this to its logical conclusion in a in for a penny, in for a pound kinda way, objective i.e. of the thing itself. The point is rather simple: keep it real, dispel maya (illusion).

Opinions, are they then utterly useless? No, not if you wanna know how a person thinks, what a person knows, who s/he breaks bread with, and so on.

Th-th-th-that's all folks. — Porky the Pig

there is no 'true' self — Jack Cummins

Raise the bar and there's no self; lower the bar and there is a self. Clearly the Buddha was bang on target, vita is dukkha - we're obviously dissatisfied with who we are!

Quite true. — DA671

:up: If antintalism is false does that mean natalism is true?

To answer the OP's query we would have to

1. Figure out the hallmarks of a simulation. Just like how NASA looks for biosignatures, we too must first suss out and then search for simsignatures.

2. Reconstruct the mind of our creator (the coder who developed the sim) e.g. quite clearly His/Her moral compass needs work but that's only assuming the bad isn't a necessary evil, a software package sorta thing.

We can be as evil as the devil; we can't be as good as god. Still wanna find your true/authentic/whatever self?

What difference would it make to our existence whether or not "we live in a simulation"? — 180 Proof

That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

Pragmatic, I salute you!

Re Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz & his law of the identity of indiscernibles. As you can see, if I can't tell the difference between x and y then, in my world, x = y. That's all there is to it! From the uchi (inside), identical but from the soto (outside), not! We have to somehow exist the simulation safely (stay intact, sensu amplissimo) and then, only then, can we discover the truth of the matter.

Eerie similarities! — DA671

You can say that again!

In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client. — DA671

:rofl: Cuckoo bird?