.

[RCSaunders]

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Is that fair? I think not. Mud is wet and water is wet have degrees of validity.
Trump is nice; Trump is evil. They depend of context, but both are true.

If you think, "valid," means the same thing as, "true," then you do. I don't, but I'll not try to convince you. I have nothing to prove. I know that view is popular since the logical positivists (following Kant's fallacious epistemology) confused reason with formal logic, as though the correct (valid) manipulation of symbols was the equivalent of correct reason. Alas!

[RCSaunders]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

Actually that is the point of, "A is A."

No "A is A" can be described in two ways. False or meaningless.
If A is A actually means A=A then it is false, because it is a claim of equivance. If A is A then it is an empty statement.

It means whatever actual something is meant by A, it is that unique something and not possibly anything else. A is that A and not anything else (like B) and nothing else (like B) is that A.

But that is true for everything from A - Z in an infinite series of nominations.

"A is A," just means, "an entity is what it is and not anything else."

That is also false since ANY entity can be characterised in various ways. An apple is also a fruit, as is a pear.

That is also why, "A=A," is incorrect except in math or symbolic logic. That is a totally different proposition.

And no that is not why A=A, since there can never be more than one unique form of A.

OK. I think that view is called nominalism. Perhaps all you've said would be correct in terms of nominalism, but since I regard that as a badly mistaken epistemology, it makes no sense to me. I do not believe concepts are just, "names," and a concept does not mean its definition.

A concept is the identification of existents. A definition only describes what existents a concept identifies. It is what the concept identifies that it means, and what it means is the actual existent (particular concept) or existents (universal concept) identified. The actual existents are called the concepts referents.

I'm not arguing for that view, only explaining what mine is. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you can see why I differentiate between, "A is A," and, "A=A." It is because there is a difference between particular concepts and universal concepts. Particular concepts identify single individual existents. Universals identify existents as members of classes or categories of existents. "A is A," only pertains to individual existents identified by particular concepts. "A=A," only pertains to some attribute or quality of an existent and means having the same value or property.

In, "A is A," there is only one A in the entire universe. In, "A=A," A is a universal pertaining to all existents with that attribute or value.

That is the basis of my view. I do not expect you to agree with it.

[RCSaunders]

TO YOU.

You do NOT, YET, seem to understand that this is YOUR truth ONLY, and NOT necessarily thee ACTUAL Truth AT ALL.

Unless, of course, you actually believe that what you individually or personally believe is true is irrefutably true, then you will be, literally, on your own.



Or, just partly true.


If this is what YOU believe is TRUE, then that is perfectly fine. But what you BELIEVE is true does NOT necessarily MEAN that 'it' is ACTUALLY true.

SEE, you have YET to PROVE that YOUR proposition "there is NO absolute truth" is true.


This does NOT matter. Understanding, reason, space, and time can also be said to be"not things", but to say so only DETRACTS from YOUR CLAIM that; " There is no absolute "truth" ", and does NOT prove this CLAIM and BELIEF of YOURS here.

does NOT prove?

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Nobody cares whether you want to use language imprecisely or not, but it sounds silly to say, "absolute truth,"

TO YOU.

as if something less the truth could be true.

But OBVIOUSLY what you BELIEVE is "true" is NOT necessarily true, at all, to "another". So, which one has 'the truth'?

It's like saying this is, "absolutely empty," or, she's, "absolutley pregnant," or he's, "absolutely dead."

But they are OTHER things.

You say one thing is true, which "another" says that thing is NOT true? So, which one KNOWS and has 'the truth'?

Those kinds of expressions might be useful rhetoric in satire or political speeches, but they are still redundant. Something is either empty, pregnant, or dead, --or it not--there are no degrees. Something is either true or it isn't.

And, it can be VERY EASILY argued that the proposition that, "there is no absolute truth" is NOT true, VERY SIMPLY by the way. So, which proposition is true, right, and correct?

You might say one is, while "another" might say the other is. So, which one of you two KNOWS and has 'the truth'?

OK!

[Sculptor]

Only a con man tries to convince other there are, "degrees," of truth.

Is that fair? I think not. Mud is wet and water is wet have degrees of validity.
Trump is nice; Trump is evil. They depend of context, but both are true.

If you think, "valid," means the same thing as, "true," then you do. I don't, but I'll not try to convince you. I have nothing to prove. I know that view is popular since the logical positivists (following Kant's fallacious epistemology) confused reason with formal logic, as though the correct (valid) manipulation of symbols was the equivalent of correct reason. Alas!

Kant's epistemologu is valid and draws the appropriate distinctions between reason and formal logic and between concepts and reality between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds and between analyitic and sythetic statements.
It's not only the Vienna school that references Kant but also the Frankfurt school too - groups that occupy opposite ends of the spectrum.

As for you last comment, I think the problem is your confusion of symbols with actuality. I stated from the outset that "once you apply to real things.." or words to that effect.
So fill your boots. Z=Z, you can make that stuff up till the cows come home, but its circular reasoning and only self referencing,

[Sculptor]

Actually that is the point of, "A is A."

No "A is A" can be described in two ways. False or meaningless.
If A is A actually means A=A then it is false, because it is a claim of equivance. If A is A then it is an empty statement.

It means whatever actual something is meant by A, it is that unique something and not possibly anything else. A is that A and not anything else (like B) and nothing else (like B) is that A.

But that is true for everything from A - Z in an infinite series of nominations.

"A is A," just means, "an entity is what it is and not anything else."

That is also false since ANY entity can be characterised in various ways. An apple is also a fruit, as is a pear.

That is also why, "A=A," is incorrect except in math or symbolic logic. That is a totally different proposition.

And no that is not why A=A, since there can never be more than one unique form of A.

OK. I think that view is called nominalism. Perhaps all you've said would be correct in terms of nominalism, but since I regard that as a badly mistaken epistemology, it makes no sense to me. I do not believe concepts are just, "names," and a concept does not mean its definition.

Yes but A=A is not epistemology in ANY sense since it is only abstract. The problem of nominalism is your problem.
I was just wondering WTF A=A means. It turns out to be basically nothing.

A concept is the identification of existents. A definition only describes what existents a concept identifies.

A is not an existent. If you think that then you are delusing yourself.

It is what the concept identifies that it means, and what it means is the actual existent (particular concept) or existents (universal concept) identified. The actual existents are called the concepts referents.

I'm not arguing for that view, only explaining what mine is. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you can see why I differentiate between, "A is A," and, "A=A." It is because there is a difference between particular concepts and universal concepts. Particular concepts identify single individual existents. Universals identify existents as members of classes or categories of existents. "A is A," only pertains to individual existents identified by particular concepts. "A=A," only pertains to some attribute or quality of an existent and means having the same value or property.

In, "A is A," there is only one A in the entire universe. In, "A=A," A is a universal pertaining to all existents with that attribute or value.

That is the basis of my view. I do not expect you to agree with it.

It does not relate to reality.

[RCSaunders]

No "A is A" can be described in two ways. False or meaningless.
If A is A actually means A=A then it is false, because it is a claim of equivance. If A is A then it is an empty statement.

But that is true for everything from A - Z in an infinite series of nominations.

That is also false since ANY entity can be characterised in various ways. An apple is also a fruit, as is a pear.


And no that is not why A=A, since there can never be more than one unique form of A.

OK. I think that view is called nominalism. Perhaps all you've said would be correct in terms of nominalism, but since I regard that as a badly mistaken epistemology, it makes no sense to me. I do not believe concepts are just, "names," and a concept does not mean its definition.

Yes but A=A is not epistemology in ANY sense since it is only abstract. The problem of nominalism is your problem.
I was just wondering WTF A=A means. It turns out to be basically nothing.

A concept is the identification of existents. A definition only describes what existents a concept identifies.

A is not an existent. If you think that then you are delusing yourself.

It is what the concept identifies that it means, and what it means is the actual existent (particular concept) or existents (universal concept) identified. The actual existents are called the concepts referents.

I'm not arguing for that view, only explaining what mine is. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you can see why I differentiate between, "A is A," and, "A=A." It is because there is a difference between particular concepts and universal concepts. Particular concepts identify single individual existents. Universals identify existents as members of classes or categories of existents. "A is A," only pertains to individual existents identified by particular concepts. "A=A," only pertains to some attribute or quality of an existent and means having the same value or property.

In, "A is A," there is only one A in the entire universe. In, "A=A," A is a universal pertaining to all existents with that attribute or value.

That is the basis of my view. I do not expect you to agree with it.

It does not relate to reality.

What does? You write, "It does not ..." as though, "it," was something that has some relation to reality, but, "it," is just a, "symbol," like, "A," or, "Z," or any, "word." But a symbol is not a concept, it only represents a concept. All by itself, no symbol has any significance whatsoever. When I write, "A is A," by, "A," I mean, "any concept for any existent represented by any word which I am indicating by the symbol A." I'm using, "A," in the same way you used, "it," to mean, "my view," in your statement, "It does not relate to reality." Like, "it," "A," can be used to represent almost anything.

We're never going to agree on this because our epistemologies are totally different.

[Sculptor]

OK. I think that view is called nominalism. Perhaps all you've said would be correct in terms of nominalism, but since I regard that as a badly mistaken epistemology, it makes no sense to me. I do not believe concepts are just, "names," and a concept does not mean its definition.

Yes but A=A is not epistemology in ANY sense since it is only abstract. The problem of nominalism is your problem.
I was just wondering WTF A=A means. It turns out to be basically nothing.

A concept is the identification of existents. A definition only describes what existents a concept identifies.

A is not an existent. If you think that then you are delusing yourself.

It is what the concept identifies that it means, and what it means is the actual existent (particular concept) or existents (universal concept) identified. The actual existents are called the concepts referents.

I'm not arguing for that view, only explaining what mine is. I don't expect you to agree with it, but you can see why I differentiate between, "A is A," and, "A=A." It is because there is a difference between particular concepts and universal concepts. Particular concepts identify single individual existents. Universals identify existents as members of classes or categories of existents. "A is A," only pertains to individual existents identified by particular concepts. "A=A," only pertains to some attribute or quality of an existent and means having the same value or property.

In, "A is A," there is only one A in the entire universe. In, "A=A," A is a universal pertaining to all existents with that attribute or value.

That is the basis of my view. I do not expect you to agree with it.

It does not relate to reality.

What does? You write, "It does not ..." as though, "it," was something that has some relation to reality, but, "it," is just a, "symbol," like, "A," or, "Z," or any, "word." But a symbol is not a concept, it only represents a concept. All by itself, no symbol has any significance whatsoever. When I write, "A is A," by, "A," I mean, "any concept for any existent represented by any word which I am indicating by the symbol A." I'm using, "A," in the same way you used, "it," to mean, "my view," in your statement, "It does not relate to reality." Like, "it," "A," can be used to represent almost anything.

We're never going to agree on this because our epistemologies are totally different.

I thought that the "IT" was pretty obvious.

[RCSaunders]

Yes but A=A is not epistemology in ANY sense since it is only abstract. The problem of nominalism is your problem.
I was just wondering WTF A=A means. It turns out to be basically nothing.

A is not an existent. If you think that then you are delusing yourself.


It does not relate to reality.

What does? You write, "It does not ..." as though, "it," was something that has some relation to reality, but, "it," is just a, "symbol," like, "A," or, "Z," or any, "word." But a symbol is not a concept, it only represents a concept. All by itself, no symbol has any significance whatsoever. When I write, "A is A," by, "A," I mean, "any concept for any existent represented by any word which I am indicating by the symbol A." I'm using, "A," in the same way you used, "it," to mean, "my view," in your statement, "It does not relate to reality." Like, "it," "A," can be used to represent almost anything.

We're never going to agree on this because our epistemologies are totally different.

I thought that the "IT" was pretty obvious.

"It," is.

[Eodnhoj7]

What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A=A is merely a logically truth which do not necessarily represent reality in all cases.
In general logic what we are doing is dealing with only abstracted things and not real particular things.

There is no absolute truth, i.e. no absolutely-absolute truth.
What is truth is always relative truths, i.e. they are relative to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
For example, we have the truth of "absolute-temperature" but this 'absolute' is relative to the scientific FSK, thus it is a relative absolute and a relative truth.

At present, the range scientific truths are the most credible [in degrees] in comparison to other sources of truths from different FSKs.
But despite being the most credible truths, scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
There are no absolutely-absolute truths.

"What is truth is always relative truths" is an absolute statement as is occurs consistently.

[Eodnhoj7]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

If everything real is different through its uniqueness then communication would be impossible given there would be different meanings for all symbols. The repeatability of a symbol is the repeatability of an event thus showing some common grounds. Communication is a real aspect of reality.

Unique phenomenon repeat common underlying forms. For example the branching "Y" form occurs through trees, plants, veins, capillaries, rivers, streams, lighting, cracks in dirt or rocks, etc.

[Sculptor]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

If everything real is different through its uniqueness then communication would be impossible

No.
It would only be impossible if every thing was the same. Differentiation means that there is something to communicate.

..given there would be different meanings for all symbols.

You are not even bothering to read what I said. I said a=a was nominally correct. I am saying that each A has some uniqueness.

The repeatability of a symbol is the repeatability of an event thus showing some common grounds. Communication is a real aspect of reality.

It is patently obvious that you misunderstand just about everything you read.

Unique phenomenon repeat common underlying forms. For example the branching "Y" form occurs through trees, plants, veins, capillaries, rivers, streams, lighting, cracks in dirt or rocks, etc.

Annnnnd he's off on one....

[Eodnhoj7]

A=A is only nominally correct.
As soon as you use A to represent something real, it fails.
It fails because every thing has some uniqueness about it.

If everything real is different through its uniqueness then communication would be impossible

No.
It would only be impossible if every thing was the same. Differentiation means that there is something to communicate.

..given there would be different meanings for all symbols.

You are not even bothering to read what I said. I said a=a was nominally correct. I am saying that each A has some uniqueness.

The repeatability of a symbol is the repeatability of an event thus showing some common grounds. Communication is a real aspect of reality.

It is patently obvious that you misunderstand just about everything you read.

Unique phenomenon repeat common underlying forms. For example the branching "Y" form occurs through trees, plants, veins, capillaries, rivers, streams, lighting, cracks in dirt or rocks, etc.

Annnnnd he's off on one....

1. Yet communication requires symbols pointing to the same thing. If x means y it must be observe across multiple observers that x means the same thing.

2. A=A is more than nominally correct, it is correct in the real world given 1 leaf is equal to 1 leaf. All things are the same except for there differences.

3. Events repeat in the real world thus necessitating A equals A in the real world.

4. The repeatability of the branching form of Y necessitates A=A in the real world.

[Sculptor]

If everything real is different through its uniqueness then communication would be impossible

No.
It would only be impossible if every thing was the same. Differentiation means that there is something to communicate.

..given there would be different meanings for all symbols.

You are not even bothering to read what I said. I said a=a was nominally correct. I am saying that each A has some uniqueness.

The repeatability of a symbol is the repeatability of an event thus showing some common grounds. Communication is a real aspect of reality.

It is patently obvious that you misunderstand just about everything you read.

Unique phenomenon repeat common underlying forms. For example the branching "Y" form occurs through trees, plants, veins, capillaries, rivers, streams, lighting, cracks in dirt or rocks, etc.

Annnnnd he's off on one....

1. Yet communication requires symbols pointing to the same thing. If x means y it must be observe across multiple observers that x means the same thing.

Communication is never perfect. One of the reasons is that each thing is unique. That means all words are only approximations. A word is NOT the same thing as it represents.
This idea is not difficult.
eg. And apple and another apple is 2 apples. Yet each apple has a different mass, shape, colour and existence in space/time.
I am puzzled you are having a problem with this rather simple no-brainer.

2. A=A is more than nominally correct, it is correct in the real world given 1 leaf is equal to 1 leaf. All things are the same except for there differences.

Next time you see a tree, try and find two leaves the same. It is impossble.

3. Events repeat in the real world thus necessitating A equals A in the real world.

No event is ever repeatable.

4. The repeatability of the branching form of Y necessitates A=A in the real world.

Rubbish

[Eodnhoj7]

No.
It would only be impossible if every thing was the same. Differentiation means that there is something to communicate.

You are not even bothering to read what I said. I said a=a was nominally correct. I am saying that each A has some uniqueness.

It is patently obvious that you misunderstand just about everything you read.


Annnnnd he's off on one....

1. Yet communication requires symbols pointing to the same thing. If x means y it must be observe across multiple observers that x means the same thing.

Communication is never perfect. One of the reasons is that each thing is unique. That means all words are only approximations. A word is NOT the same thing as it represents.
This idea is not difficult.
eg. And apple and another apple is 2 apples. Yet each apple has a different mass, shape, colour and existence in space/time.
I am puzzled you are having a problem with this rather simple no-brainer.

2. A=A is more than nominally correct, it is correct in the real world given 1 leaf is equal to 1 leaf. All things are the same except for there differences.

Next time you see a tree, try and find two leaves the same. It is impossble.

3. Events repeat in the real world thus necessitating A equals A in the real world.

No event is ever repeatable.

4. The repeatability of the branching form of Y necessitates A=A in the real world.

Rubbish

1. Why are you having difficulty accepting that the 2 apples still share common traits (ie uniqueness is not universal)?

2. The fact that you can equate "2" to "leaves" observes same qualities repeating.

3. Classifying a cat as a cat observes the qualities of cat as repeatable.

4. False, branching repeats. The "Y" form repeats.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.

A=A is merely a logically truth which do not necessarily represent reality in all cases.
In general logic what we are doing is dealing with only abstracted things and not real particular things.

There is no absolute truth, i.e. no absolutely-absolute truth.
What is truth is always relative truths, i.e. they are relative to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
For example, we have the truth of "absolute-temperature" but this 'absolute' is relative to the scientific FSK, thus it is a relative absolute and a relative truth.

At present, the range scientific truths are the most credible [in degrees] in comparison to other sources of truths from different FSKs.
But despite being the most credible truths, scientific truths are at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
There are no absolutely-absolute truths.

"What is truth is always relative truths" is an absolute statement as is occurs consistently.

Noted you agree with the term 'relative-absolute.'
Does your "an absolute statement" means 'relative absolute statement'?

For me,
"What is truth is always relative truths" is a relative-absolute statement.