Note specifically that a proposition being mind-dependent does not entail that its truth value is mind-dependent, which I think is where frank is making his mistake. — Michael
A platonist does, but I don't think that a realist must be a platonist. A realist can be a non-platonist by accepting that only the things we say are true or false but that some of the things we say are unknowably true or false. — Michael
But they sound like daemons escaping from Hell. — Banno
Stop stirring the possum. — Banno
I also don't think that a painting is accurate until someone has painted it. But that's because a painting being accurate (or inaccurate) before it is painted makes no sense. Just as a sentence being true (or false) before it is said makes no sense.
This isn't truth skepticism. — Michael
The anti-realist (at least of Dummett's kind) says that if a sentence is true then it's possible to know that it's true (subject to the appropriate restrictions as per Fitch's paradox), whereas the realist allows for the possibility that some true sentences are unknowably true. — Michael
And as the diagram shows, "there are no minds in World B" is a truth in World A about World B, not a truth in World B. — Michael
To me arguments for staying alive or for meaning only work if you HAVE to live. Filling life with good things, doing what you love, all that junk only has logical weight if one is unable to die until a set time. Baring that I see no reason for living. Desire for pleasures only applies if you are alive, if you die there is no need for any of that. Same with love, friendship, food, money, etc. — Darkneos
If you think that less goods with higher prices makes your life better, then let's follow the trade policies of the 1930's — ssu
There is a concentrated effort against trade unions and the labor movement, and this will surely continue during the Trump years. Just look at the billionaires that are the backers of Trump. — ssu
Heaven forbid that you would say something. :wink: — Leontiskos
I was simply explaining the ordinary grammar of the word "true". — Michael
Here's a post of mine from six days ago:
And the existence of gold does not depend on us saying "gold exists".
— Michael — Michael
If you're asking if planets exist that haven't been described, then yes. — Michael
You are asking this question:
Do you have to have those descriptions in hand in order for there to be true descriptions? Where no description is available (say about something across the galaxy), would you say there is no true description?
I don't even understand how to answer such a question. It's inherently confused. — Michael
I'm saying that a truth is something like a correct description, and that descriptions (whether correct or incorrect) didn't exist 50 million years ago. — Michael
Do they exist if language doesn't? This is the core of the issue. If sentences are features of language then even if sentences are abstract my point still stands: if there is no language then nothing has the property of being true or false, much like if there is no language then nothing has the property of being semantically meaningful. — Michael
There's no need to resort to Platonism. — Michael
Are they mind-independent? Do sentences exist even if language doesn't? — Michael
How can an abstract object have the property of truth? — Michael
How can a sound be "connected" to an abstract object? — Michael
Well, its a complex, multifaceted issue. A close approximation might be that being true is something we do with utterances, rather than saying that some utterances are true. It's not the noise or the marks that are true, after all - utterances are only true if a whole lot of other stuff is included. There's a tendency to try to make a messy process much neater, but the mess is perhaps ineliminable. — Banno
What I'm saying is what I've said above:
1. Truth is a property of truth-bearers, and
2. Truth-bearers are features of language, not mind-independent abstract objects à la Platonism — Michael
Well, yes. But is the set of all possible sentences different to the set of all sentences? — Banno
1. Truth and falsehood are properties of truth-bearers
2. Truth-bearers are features of language, not mind-independent abstract objects
Which of these do you disagree with? — Michael
We don't need to know that a sentence is true for it to be true. — Michael
I mean what the word ordinarily means. It is possible to say something truthful that answers the question.
How is this not clear? — Michael
I'm saying that it is possible to respond to the question by saying something true. — Michael
No, when I say "there's an answer to the question" I am saying that it is possible to answer the question with a truthful sentence. — Michael
There's an answer to the question "why did Yoon Park disappear?" — Michael
That depends on what they're talking about. If they're talking about the existence of aliens then either they're saying that the truth of the sentence "aliens exist" is unknown or they're saying that the existence of aliens is unknown. — Michael
Truth is (only) a property of truth-bearers.
Truth-bearers did not exist 65 million years ago.
Therefore, truth was not a property of anything that existed 65 million years ago. — Michael
Truth bearers didn't exist 65 million years ago. Do you agree or disagree? — Michael
You're just repeating the same fictionalist account.
Truth-bearers didn't exist 10 million years ago, even if our informal language implies that they did. — Michael