A
Archaea
Guest
According to Google the definitions of truth are:
Here are some quotes I ripped off of various threads, sitting said he was interested in these quotes:
Here's a good snippet from the information (theory) thread
In the information theory thread Shijing makes a short summary of some of the C's remarks regarding truth.
Also somewhere in high strangeness there's a snippet where the C's say something along the lines that they're not used to saying something is false, but they do say something is false when it doesn't connect with reality or something. I tried finding the session and snippet but I had no luck. But I think it's a good place to start. :)
Two statements can both be true on their own, for example the statements:
A is B
A is not B
Could both be true on their own depending on what A and B are, but when they are put together:
A is B and A is not B
The statement must be false. This is because the two statements are mutually contradictory.
If we have a series of statements, which all relate to each and when put together form a true statement, then each statement must be part of a higher structure or set, and they should (hopefully) be self-similar, at least to some extent. For example if we have the statements:
A is B
B is C
And they are both true when put together then we automatically get the statement:
C is A
So the two parts above are part of a bigger picture.
OK, so this is the tricky part, I think perhaps completely objective statements can't be given full justice in English (or any language.) I think they can only exist in terms of raw awareness. Here's a quote from RflctnOfU form the tread: Legominism and 'lawful inexactitudes' in Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson
Because the two understandings of the word "world" are different doesn't mean one of them has to be wrong, but it doesn't mean they both are right either. I think if both understandings are derived from experience with the world then they would both be correct understandings, however, if the understandings were dictated by someone else, then I think they could possibly be incorrect understandings.
I think this makes the above quotes a little clearer. The information coming from objective reality is by definition true so any experience which consists of raw awareness contains 100% truth. The C's statement (I'm paraphrasing):
"consciousness, information, and matter contain different concentrations of truth"
Would seem to imply that conciousness, information and matter contain different amounts of objective reality... and that's a bit of a tautology :P I think maybe conciousness contains 100% truth, so long as it's raw. Information can contain any amount of truth. And maybe matter contains some truth, but not all the truth, i.e. there are some things we can't see.
And now I've confused myself.
Here are some quotes I ripped off of various threads, sitting said he was interested in these quotes:
Here's a good snippet from the information (theory) thread
In the information theory thread Shijing makes a short summary of some of the C's remarks regarding truth.
Also somewhere in high strangeness there's a snippet where the C's say something along the lines that they're not used to saying something is false, but they do say something is false when it doesn't connect with reality or something. I tried finding the session and snippet but I had no luck. But I think it's a good place to start. :)
Two statements can both be true on their own, for example the statements:
A is B
A is not B
Could both be true on their own depending on what A and B are, but when they are put together:
A is B and A is not B
The statement must be false. This is because the two statements are mutually contradictory.
If we have a series of statements, which all relate to each and when put together form a true statement, then each statement must be part of a higher structure or set, and they should (hopefully) be self-similar, at least to some extent. For example if we have the statements:
A is B
B is C
And they are both true when put together then we automatically get the statement:
C is A
So the two parts above are part of a bigger picture.
OK, so this is the tricky part, I think perhaps completely objective statements can't be given full justice in English (or any language.) I think they can only exist in terms of raw awareness. Here's a quote from RflctnOfU form the tread: Legominism and 'lawful inexactitudes' in Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson
Because the two understandings of the word "world" are different doesn't mean one of them has to be wrong, but it doesn't mean they both are right either. I think if both understandings are derived from experience with the world then they would both be correct understandings, however, if the understandings were dictated by someone else, then I think they could possibly be incorrect understandings.
I think this makes the above quotes a little clearer. The information coming from objective reality is by definition true so any experience which consists of raw awareness contains 100% truth. The C's statement (I'm paraphrasing):
"consciousness, information, and matter contain different concentrations of truth"
Would seem to imply that conciousness, information and matter contain different amounts of objective reality... and that's a bit of a tautology :P I think maybe conciousness contains 100% truth, so long as it's raw. Information can contain any amount of truth. And maybe matter contains some truth, but not all the truth, i.e. there are some things we can't see.
And now I've confused myself.