Welcome to Gaia! ::

Because logic is based or our perception of reality.

Not at all. I'm not trying to say that it is illogical. I don't really know much about it. From what I understand, the idea is that our senses lie to us, and that reality is not real. But isn't thought is its own sense? Its own perception? Sorry, I didn't mean any offense.

You said that never is "the absence of always, in such a way that it will not exist"
As far as I understand, you meant it is "that which is always absent, in such a way that it will not ever exist.

Never:
That which is always absent.
That which has not, is not, and will not be.
That which does not exist at any time.

Always:
That which is never absent.
That which has, is, and will be.
That which exists at every time.


Truth is defined by the philosophy pages as:
"The conformity of a proposition to the way things are."

Truth is defined by the american heritage dictionary of the english dictionary on dictionary.com as:
"Conformity to fact or actuality."

Truth (the relevant meaning) is defined by meriam-webster as:
"the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality."

And it has always been my understanding that truth doesn't have to be eternal.
So I think that, for the sake of people not getting confused, you should replace "truth" with "eternal truth".

So, to reword the start of your first post;
(Correct me if you meant something different)

There is nothing about the word "never" which implies that nothing can exist always.
And vice versa.
The eternal nonexistence of one thing does not imply that another thing cannot eternally exist, and neither does it imply that the word "always" is meaningless.

This is what I think is wrong.

Maybe there's a different definition for mathematics.

Wouldn't "never exists" mean "the word 'never' exists"?
Why would "never exists" mean "nothing exists"?
I don't see the connection...

Well, you said, "If there is never, then there is no always, by definition of never."
It seems like you're suggesting that the definition "the absence of always" somehow implies that the word 'always' is meaningless.

How did you get that definition, anyway?
"Never is the absence of always" appears to be a strange way of saying "Anything which 'never' exists is always absent", which, as far as I can see, does not imply that there is 'no always'.

Did you check the new definitions?

And this, my friends, is why I cant wait until I get to study philosophy....

No, they have not been changed since your first post, however, I asked because it appeared as though all the quotes of me you used, came from my posts on the first page; not the one's of my most recent post on dealing with the definitions.

then i think my symbolic logic still works. disclaimer: i haven't had the class in 3 years and i have only applied it once since then and before coming to this forum. (have you had a symbolic logic class? i reccomend one if you haven't. like you said in a different thread, it helps cut through things that would distract you and lets you get to the pure logic (thought) of an arguemnt. you meant that in a different context but i think it's still applicible.) i think what you are saying is that if never is the opposite of always, then neither can exsist because they cancel eachother out. but two opposing things can exisit in the same reality as long as they aren't in the immediate presense of eachother, or in this case, as long as they aren't describing the same thing.
I think these are more clear:
Never:
That which is always absent.
That which has not, is not, and will not be.
That which does not exist at any time.

Always:
That which is never absent.
That which has, is, and will be.
That which exists at every time.

Though, I am trying to work on newer and better definitions. So, when I get them done, I'll post 'em here again.

As for truth, well, it's dependent on the existence of never and always. (I just thought of a new loop, not sure if it works out logically though, I'll post it though, and then decide from there).

Always can exist iff both truth and never exist.
Never can exist iff both always and truth exist.
Truth can exist iff both always and never exist.
If one of the three (always, never, truth) does not exist, then the other two do not exist.

As for the symbolic logic class, no I have not taken one. I wish, at my college, they would place that in the philosophy department, unfortunately, the closest thing to symbolic logic offered at my college is Foundations of Math, and Intro. to Mathematical Logic. With my stint with Calc I, I'm not too sure about what I should do Mathematics wise. I barely got a C in Calc I, and both the two logic courses require Calc I. So...