Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

No, you simply defined "Absolute Truth" to be "Timeless".

You can remove "Absolute truth" from your informal syllogism and it makes as much tautological sense. Something unchanging can be described as "timeless".

What you seem to think you have shown is that "Absolute Truth" is unchanging, but you haven't. You have said nothing meaningful about "absolute truth".

As I just said to SD,
The point that absolute truth can not change, therefore is changeless, therefore is timeless - as you say same as anything else which is changeless - is the very starting point from which we go on.

However, can you give any examples of these 'other' things that dont change, and therefore qualify as changeless and timeless?

If not, we may be forced to agree this is a unique property of absolute truth, no?

Both I and Graham see exactly what your problem is, Little Idiot. Your understanding of the differences between premises, conclusions, and definitions is apparently hopelessly bollixed.

You've defined absolute truth as changeless.

You need premises and definitions about truth, and about existence, even if only to compare that which exists to that which doesn't exist.

Off we go, then.

Defn: Absolute: "unchanging, permanent, indelible, constant, etc."
Defn: Statement: "an expression in a written or spoken language"

P1: The property of existence for a true statement is that it has been stated
P2: Truth must be stated in natural language.
P3: Natural language is not unchanging.
C: Absolute truth cannot be stated in natural language.

We could go on by defining metaphysics in such a way as that it consists of absolute truths, and so on.

Mine was a hypothetical, remember.
So, I dont think this point applies to my version.

You lack understanding that hypotheticals are not available to you until you already have some axioms. I don't see the point of making axioms conditional. It fails as a technique of formal logic, but your logic is informal, i.e., nonsense.

Axioms are defined as statements assumed to be true. If you don't want to be guilty of a fallacy, don't set up your conclusion as one of your axioms.

Edit: Complete elision about definitions and premises.

[Little Idiot]

...

Now, on the main point of the thread, are we not here doing metaphysics? have we not discussed and agreed an essential nature of absolute truth
Isnt this

Absolute truths do not change. (definition)
Time does not apply to that which does not change.
Absolute truth is timeless.

metaphysics?
How can you do metaphysics and maintain metaphysics cant be done?

This short exercise we have been through has established something of the nature of absolute truth, and done so without emperical method.
Therefore we demonstrated metaphysics can be done.
Thereby metaphysics has been demonstrated to be able to produce knowledge; we know absolute truth is changeless (definition), absolute truth is timeless (logic), it can not be found by emperical method (logic), and may be possible to find by other methods although we have not investigated what these may be yet (logic).

No, you simply defined "Absolute Truth" to be "Timeless".

You can remove "Absolute truth" from your informal syllogism and it makes as much tautological sense. Something unchanging can be described as "timeless".

What you seem to think you have shown is that "Absolute Truth" is unchanging, but you haven't. You have said nothing meaningful about "absolute truth".

As I just said to SD,
The point that absolute truth can not change, therefore is changeless, therefore is timeless - as you say same as anything else which is changeless - is the very starting point from which we go on.

However, can you give any examples of these 'other' things that dont change, and therefore qualify as changeless and timeless?

If not, we may be forced to agree this is a unique property of absolute truth, no?

You missed the point. You haven't shown that "absolute truth" must be timeless, you merely defined it as such. You might as well define "absolute truth" as purple then conclude it has colour.

I have dealt with your objection.
I showed how I dont define it as timeless, I define it as changeless IF it exists, and how I use if-then logic to show it is timeless, if it exists.

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

still QED

[Surendra Darathy]

How would you distinguish "absolute truth" from "absolute nonsense"?

How about :
D1 Absolute truth is ineffable
...

Not only that, it's effing ineffable. I have heard of whores that are effing uneffable.

[Little Idiot]

How would you distinguish "absolute truth" from "absolute nonsense"?

How about :
D1 Absolute truth is ineffable
...

Not only that, it's effing ineffable. I have heard of whores that are effing uneffable.

very funny, now answer the post above, you were doing metaphysics with me, you metaphysician

/topic?

[GrahamH]

...

I have dealt with your objection.
I showed how I dont define it as timeless, I define it as changeless IF it exists, and how I use if-then logic to show it is timeless, if it exists.

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

still QED

FFS! what "knowledge" is gained by defining X as changeless then concluding that X is timeless?? It says nothing about X! You are merely pissing around with definitions of changeless = timeless.

[Surendra Darathy]

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

You could help this along, perhaps by committing yourself to a definition of knowledge, possibly as having something non-tautological to do with truth and existence. Otherwise, we are not yet ready to hear you assert ex recto that we are gaining knowledge, unless developing a repertoire of wibble is "gaining knowledge".

If you can start to state some non-wibbles about truth and existence, we can get to epistemology of your particular metaphysics later. So far you have not said that truth must have the property of existence (whatever that property is, which you have not defined).

If you can coherently make some statements about "existence" we might start to trust you to establish a metaphysics. But you have to do that first.

Frankly, if I were to try to show the possibility of metaphysics, I would definitely connect existence with the possibility of expressing statements about existence.

A metaphysics consisting of unexpressed statements seems rather like silence to me.

Bring on Johannes Silentio!

now answer the post above, you were doing metaphysics with me, you metaphysician

If you define metametaphysics as discussing the possibility of doing metaphysics, then we are doing metametaphysics, but we are not yet doing metaphysics.

[Surendra Darathy]

FFS! what "knowledge" is gained by defining X as changeless then concluding that X is timeless?? It says nothing about X! You are merely pissing around with definitions of changeless = timeless.

I remember when I first discovered software for doing symbolic math on a computer, I remember trying playing around with trig reductions and expansions in working out problems for lattice dynamics in solid state physics. Sometimes I was able to discover how to cancel balancing terms, and sometimes it was just a bunch of useless tautology.

[Surendra Darathy]

Not only that, it's effing ineffable. I have heard of whores that are effing uneffable.

very funny, now answer the post above, you were doing metaphysics with me, you metaphysician

No, this is just a topic on the concept of paradox. What is an unfuckable whore, LI? Is she no kind of whore at all?

Metaphysics is a sort of unfuckable whore. You can't arrange statements so that they satisfy your definition of metaphysics any more than you can arrange statements so that your definition of "whore" excludes doing any fucking.

Just like James, you define metaphysics as not saying anything regarding "something" about which nothing can be said. It's an empty set. You and I, as practitioners of mathematical physics call this "the trivial solution". This is the same as what I mean by "wibbling".

You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est.

[Surendra Darathy]

Now you still need to defend against my point above, we were doing metaphysics, gaining knowledge, and proving that metaphysics can be done by doing it.

Just define metaphysics so that it includes some statements about "existence". You don't have to show that absolute truth exists, but you do have to describe its relationship to existence.

If, as I suspect, you account for the existence of X by the property of being able to wibble about X, it's still the trivial solution. You might call it "metaphysics" but somebody else might call it "wibbling".

I really want to see you define "knowledge" as something more than "makes sense to me". There is no "me". Just messages being sent back and forth through the void.

[Azathoth]

A professional dominatrix is an unfuckable whore. Do I win cookies?

[Surendra Darathy]

A professional dominatrix is an unfuckable whore. Do I win cookies?

I see what you did there. What you've just won: A lifetime supply of metaphysical cookies.

[Azathoth]

I will pass on those they have just been pulled out of someone's arse

[GrahamH]

LI, suppose I claim 'Gravity is an unchanging fundamental force', then conclude 'Gravity is timeless', have I said anything worth saying?

If you prove gravity is a force, that would be a start.
Oh but thats one pet mystery of mine and physics in general, WTF is gravity...DERAIL halt!

I'm not making that claim, merely using it as an example of why your "absolute truth" claim is useless. Your own response should guide you. First "prove absolute truth exists" and show how you can say anything meaningful about it.

How would you distinguish "absolute truth" from "absolute nonsense"?

How about :
D1 Absolute truth is ineffable
...

The same way as how we distinguish dream from waking; by comparison.

Comparison of what? How do you tell dream from waking?

[GrahamH]

I will pass on those they have just been pulled out of someone's arse

2

[Surendra Darathy]

The same way as how we distinguish dream from waking; by comparison.

Comparison of what? How do you tell dream from waking?

Ah, I see we are approaching a definition of "knowledge" that is not much different from the definition of "information" in information theory. Comparison is the hobgoblin of universal minds. They have nothing to compare themselves to, and so have nothing to know.

There is a big cipher at the center of mentalism because mentalism is a circle that consists only of its center. This is also known as a "degenerate condition".