Truths by Degrees, Grouped Conditionals

[The Voice of Time]

I've noted how human beings seems to speak about things which of themselves aren't "simple and straight-forward", but which, by complexes of Boolean conditions can still be proven true or false by degrees of the reasonableness to assume their truth.

In other words. Let's take any statement of reality, like "that house is blue", this statement isn't measurable itself, as the colour-scale isn't a real-world parameter but an artificial complex of Bools indicating that if all other possible colours are wrong this one must be the colour if you do not also prove this to be wrong. However, let's analyse the sentence: "that house", this indicates a specific object, and an object of category house. Now a house has an almost endless series of possible features, but yet we all know what these features are even if we can't enumerate them as they are too many and part of one of our philosophical concept of infinity (too many to be countable). Let's go to that house, we look at it and we can expose the other objects of the house, now, we can look at the woodwork of the walls and we can know the conditions under which that woodwork is blue, because we can test what materials conditions the woodwork to the colour of blue. As such, we have, gone from a purely Boolean complex, where the sum of truth and false values of the objects exposed in the whole that is "house" in the end provides a testable conclusion for whether the sentence "that house is blue" is actually true or naught.

Now like all science, this can in the end prove to be wrong or invalid, like if you test a colour-blind person or if any of the conditions are themselves wrongful. But scientifically, you have proven a complex of Boolean values to correspond to a quality value.

If you speak of an "idea", like transcendence, this idea itself can equally be proven by exposing its members, and then those members etc. all the way until you arrive at something for which can be proven by real world parameters, or real world conditionalities, like the woodwork example, things which can be proven in an objective reality.

Now my point is, a complex can also be called a group consisting of other groups. I like calling all qualities for references, since they are themselves only referring to other references or real world parameters and are themselves only existing in a set or not existing, either true at being or not true. In this way, you could, in such a set, speak about the "movements" of qualities, like green, by adding "surplus" conditions. Say you don't want to find out whether a house is blue, but whether it will be blue tomorrow. Now you can't know something which doesn't yet exist, whatever Kant says about the matter stating that which is as being is a matter of circular logic, since even if your prediction is true (or as mathematicians call it: valid to the formula) it will always be true as if it was false (invalid) you wouldn't be speaking of it. However, you can measure the statistic probability of it existing, and as such, you can through a group of conditionals including substitutional conditionals, like that even if your woodwork is of a specific type there are many types which can substitute it without destroying the result: it will still be true. And so the amount of such substitutes available determines the overall truth of such a saying. If the house if blue on just one out of the four walls it is still blue, and available human manpower and painting will make any destruction by weather or fire substitutable by applying blue colour to the other walls.

In effect, you have just done a probability-measure of a quality, and the answer to the sentence is that "yes", it will be blue tomorrow "because" probability predicts it. In this way you could also, in theory, measure such ambiguous things as "happiness" in a country by appeal to the group of conditionals and surplus conditionals in each individual and measure their statistical probability for moving in patterns of happiness either positive or negative, how many that are at any point happy and how ensured they are (counted by their available level of surplus conditionals) to continue staying happy.

So, what you think of this?

And Chaz I already know your opinion since we already had a long chat about whether a quality "could" be measured or naught...

[Wootah]

How close to being certain of the truth do you think your method takes you?

[The Voice of Time]

How close to being certain of the truth do you think your method takes you?

There is a problem to this approach, and that is the lack countable finite sets. Because a quality such as a house, not defined simplisticly by a finite number of pre-set features, can have near to an infinite number of alternative looks.

Therefore, like statistics in general, which if it had been a philosophy would've been the philosophy of asserting truths about large quantity from a small quantity, it is crucially dependant on the method of exposing used, and the taxonomics and clarifications available.

For instance, consider a house. A normal person might say that a simple way of talking about a coloured house is "four walls and a roof", however, not all houses are four-walled and even have a roof. As such, we'll have to define the quality of blue based on something so simple and deep-laid in the reality of a house that it is indisputable to generalizations. Instead of talking about walls and roofs we will have to talk about "surface" since at the depth of things a house is some kind of a container of items and people and relative to the quality "blue" such things as cultural style, property ownership and legalities aren't interesting, even if they may in other dimensions describe other qualities about the house, like "Chinese", "Owned by General Electric" and "Put up against the law of animal preservation".

The accuracy is like any statistics. If you don't have better more straight-forward documentations of affairs, the approach grants great enhancements to the achievement of correlations between model of truth and the truth itself, albeit it will always be only a degree of the truth itself, as only the actual full-scale study of the case can show its proper truth. In the case of the house it would be taking a look at the house. But if you knew someone who's colour-blind and sent them to examine the house (maybe a criminal investigation where the confirmation of the house's colour is essential and he was the only one on duty) you would be capable of confirming such a quality as colour by the examination of the exposed members of the object house, because for instance you know that whatever x-thing is in the woodwork left after painting it is the condition for rendering the colour blue.

[Wootah]

I suppose the main quality of a house is that people live in it. I would suggest that the answer lies in somehow proving that saying 'four walls and a roof' is sufficient to know X is a house.

[The Voice of Time]

I suppose the main quality of a house is that people live in it. I would suggest that the answer lies in somehow proving that saying 'four walls and a roof' is sufficient to know X is a house.

The point wasn't what a house is. But of course to separate a house from any other container would require additional information, so that colour-blind person, maybe even totally blind, doesn't take a nearby garage or another house for being the right house.

But those questions belongs to other fields. Sociology and psychology along with ontology can tell us what constitutes a house, or maybe even that a house is in the eyes of the beholder and that even a barrel can be a house if the owner use it to live in. At any rate, it would then be a container used as a house

[Impenitent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBx6mAWYPU

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

Tune!