(This post is a prerequisite to understanding most of the posts on this blog) Truth is commonly defined as " that which corresponds with reality ", proposing that it describes and aligns with a state of manifestation . For example, " the tree exists is true because the properties that make up what we call a tree manifests as a coherent distinct entity ". If " the tree exists " is true then it is the case and its manifestation is part of a container we call reality , as we can define reality as the set of all manifestations, or all that is the case . However, it is not just truths that correspond with reality , as there are what we can call necessities that also correspond with reality . Necessities are not equivalent to truths , yet they are part of what make up all that is the case . A Necessity is defined here as " a coherent condition that manifests in reality , where the contrary is a contradiction (incoherent )", or " must b...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth Knowledge has historically, and is still commonly, been defined as " justified true belief " (JTB). This is to say if you believe something to be true , are justified in this belief , and if it is true , you " have " knowledge . If you " have " knowledge than you presumably " have true belief ", which is to say you " have truth ". The problem here is y ou could never fully satisfy, in your mind , the conditional " if it is true ". For something to be true , the contrary must be coherent. If the contrary is coherent, it " can be the case ". If it " can be the case ", one could not totally rule out that one was not out of accord with the truth . If we "have" truth , it is to say that we cannot be wrong about the truth . If this is the case , then what we "have" is not truth , but what we would call a necessity , where the contrary is impossible ...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth When one knows something, one believes that it is true . One also has some form of justification for believing something is true . When you are asked for a justification of the principles of logic, such as the principle of identity (A=A), you are being asked to provide a reason for assigning a truth value to your belief . As it is the case that A=A is necessary , a truth value for A=A would be nonsensical. What they are asking is for you to give a justification for a truth value where a truth value is not applicable. We can not believe that A=A, as a belief is holding a proposition to be true , where there is a coherent false value . Further, the concept of justification is incoherent when applied to necessities , as it implies that there is a coherent contrary that one need reason to reject. If the contrary is incoherent, the concept of rejecting or accepting an incoherent condition would be itself incoherent. One can recognize that A=A i...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth Presupposition can be defined as " to believe that an unsupported antecedent condition to a proposition is true ". With this definition, we can not refer to " A=A " as a presupposition , as " A=A " is not something one believes is true , it is a necessity . When one presupposes something, it is to say, " I am accepting that X is justified to be true, but I don't have or I'm not giving a justification for X ". If there could be a justification for X, it entails that there could be reason to reject the contrary to X. In order to have reason to reject the contrary to X, the contrary to X must be coherent, or " can be the case ". It is incoherent to believe a contrary of a necessity is something that can be rejected or accepted, as it is a contradiction. One might say, " it is the case that the duck is in the water or it is not the case that the duck is in the water ". In this examp...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth     In a scientific or colloquial sense, the word 'nothing' can have a host of meanings. When we say, "There is nothing in the jar." , we can mean that there are zero things of value to be found inside the jar. We do not mean that there is no air, dust etc. in the jar. However, in a strict logical sense, 'nothing' is referenced in an absolute context. No matter, no gravity, no light, in essence no properties. In this context, 'nothing ' is incoherent. One can ask, "What is nothing?" , however, in a logical sense, any answer to this question would be a contradiction and incoherent. Every answer would reference a property that is a thing , such as, "'Nothing' is without properties" . T he "is" in the answer defines 'nothing' as if it were a thing to be analyzed. That would render the question a contradiction, as in "nothing is a something" . One could argue that...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth Certainty is a level of confidence, that we tend to think of in terms of degrees or percentages. One can be uncertain, pretty certain, kind of certain, 90% certain, etc. If you are certain (without a qualifier) of your truth claim, you are asserting that you have 100% confidence in your claim, such that it follows that the contrary to your claim is 0% or impossible. Knowledge requires a belief that something is true . If you believe that something is true , then the contrary to that belief is coherent. If something is coherent, then it is possible, or " can be the case ". What this question is asking is, " Can a possible contrary to what you believe is true, be impossible? ". This is a contradiction, and renders the question incoherent. This does not mean that one can not be " certainly " correct regarding their truth claim , only that one cannot be " certain " of their claim. August 2019

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth , The Problem With Knowledge First, we should remove the word " know " from this question, in order to stay clear of the problem of knowledge . We can now address the key word, " claim ", which we can replace with " believe is true ". We now have, " Could you be wrong about everything you believe is true? ". If I believe something is true , then it is a consequence of some form of justification . Should I believe something is true , and I come to believe it is false , then I would consider that I was " wrong " about my initial belief , and thus my previous justifications were unwarranted . I now believe that I should have believed that X was false , instead of true . I can be " wrong " because the contrary to a belief   must be coherent, which is to say that it " can be the case ". One can not be " wrong " regarding necessities , as it " must be the case ...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth , The Problem With Knowledge To address this question, for clarity, we can define " wrong for anybody " as " what everybody ought not do ". Let us look at an example form of this question, " Is it the case that, at all times, everybody ought not (perform the action of littering on a public street)?" . This question suggests that " littering on a public street " might have consequences against a predetermined goal that make it something that one ought or ought not do. In turn, that presupposes that there might be a predetermined goal, and that goal could or must be the same for everybody, at all times. We can evaluate any goal and look at the contrary to find that, " it is not the case that (example: the desire to keep the street clean, so one does not trip over garbage), is the same for everybody, at all times ", is not a contradiction and is coherent. Therefore, " the goal is the same for ev...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth When one references the " laws of logic ", it is a label given to the principles of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. To suggest that A=A ( principle of identity) does not " hold " in a particular space and time implies the possibility that, in a given " space and time ", A does not equal A , which is a contradiction and incoherent. There is no sense made of " space and time " if " space and time " does not equal " space and time ". August 2019

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth , The Problem With Knowledge One can surely be unreasonable or illogical (invalid) to some degree, however this question attempts to examine the absolute depth of ones skepticism regarding their own mind. The key word in the question is " totally ", which we can define as " without exception ". The act of " reasoning " is defined as " thinking in a logical way ", therefore, by definition, it can not be " totally " invalid, since it's " logical ". We will need to modify the question in order to avoid it being the case by definition. First, we can remove " know " and concentrate only with the justificatory condition of knowledge in order to avoid a problem of " having " truth . Next, we can replace " reasoning " with " thinking ", so we can describe the process of the brain without definitionally assuming a specific type of outcome. Lastly, we ca...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth This question regarding " absolute " and " non-dependent " depends on the inquisitors meaning of these words. If they are equivalent to necessary /always the case and uncaused , then we can submit A=A as meeting these conditions. To analyze this, first we need to ask, " What is the cause of A=A? ". Causation requires a condition that has been caused (the effect). When we evaluate the first horn of the dichotomy in question, " It is the case that A=A has a cause ", we find an incoherency. Causation is a temporal notion (referring to time), and to apply causation is to reference a condition before the effect (the effect being A=A ). This " condition before the effect " (the cause) could not be A=A , because that is the effect we are evaluating. Therefore, the condition must not include A=A , and therefore be the contrary, A does not equal A , which is a contradiction and incoherent. Consequently, t...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth , The Problem With Knowledge One version of the liar's paradox is, " Every thing I say is a lie ". A " lie " can be defined as, " intentionally claiming to believe something is true when actually believing it is false ", or vice versa. " Lying " is incoherent when applied to necessities , as there is no coherent contrary to pass off as the case . A " lie " only applies to what we believe is a truth value , where there is a coherent contrary .  The "paradox", in order to be a paradox, relies on the statement (and every consequence of the statement) being true without fail , as opposed to being believed to be true . We can look at the conditional argument that follows from the "paradox", " If every thing I say is a lie, then every thing I say is not a lie ". This asserts that if " Every thing I say is a lie " is true then " Every thing I say is not a ...

Prerequisite: Necessity Vs Truth , The Problem With Knowledge The first thing we notice in this question is the use of the word " know ". In order to avoid the problem with knowledge , as it is incoherently defined as " justified true belief ", we can modify this question as, " Do you have justified belief that it is true that you exist? ". After having done this, we still find the question to be incoherent, as it would be a contradiction for one to believe that they exist. Let's look at the question that one would ask themselves, " Do I exist in some way, shape, or form? ". As a dichotomy we have, it is the case that I exist in some way, shape, or form OR it is not the case that I exist in some way, shape, or form . Since " I " is a reference to something that exists at a particular moment, it would be a contradiction to say " it is not the case that something that exists exists ". Therefore, that I exist, at the mo...