|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:49 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:35 am
O_O;;
I'll try to understand that once I get rid of this stomach flu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:51 am
I think that your definitions are wrong, CP. Quote: Never, defined, is that which is of the absence of always Never means, "Not at any time." Never is "the absence of sometime", not "the absence of always", because it's possible for something to be not never true, and to be not always true. Actually, I think that such things are called " contingent". xp Quote: always, is that which is of the absence of never. Always means, "At all times", because, again, it's possible for something to be not always true, but not never true. Quote: Truth is that which is never false Something can be true at one time, and false at another, so truth is: "That which is not false." Something can be true, but only within the context of a specified amount of time. Presume that I'm 15 years old. It's true that I am 15 years old, but that doesn't mean that it's "never false" that I'm 15 years old, does it? I think that your whole argument depends on the idea that these truth is contradictory because of the definitions of never and always... So if the definitions are changed (or should I say, "corrected"), then that voids the rest of the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:26 am
Contingent I think that your definitions are wrong, CP. Quote: Never, defined, is that which is of the absence of always Never means, "Not at any time." Actually, in the English language, Never is a combination of two words, they are not and ever, Never means not ever, and ever means sometimes or always; however, if never is used for "not sometimes" it is being used in the wrong context, as it should be, "not sometimes" instead of "never." Never is saying that something will not ever happen. If I say I will never reach the age of 9134132420 and it's "true", that means it will not ever happen. Not sometimes is saying that there are times when something can happen, and other times where that same thing cannot happen. So, since ever means sometimes or always, and since never means not ever, it can not mean "not sometimes," it must therefore mean not always in the sense that it means the absence of always. Quote: Never is "the absence of sometime", not "the absence of always", because it's possible for something to be not never true, and to be not always true. Quote: always, is that which is of the absence of never. Always means, "At all times", because, again, it's possible for something to be not always true, but not never true. Quote: Truth is that which is never false Something can be true at one time, and false at another, so truth is: "That which is not false."Wrong, truth is that which is always true. That which is right is that which is not false. Also, that which is right, can, at times be false. Also, that which is certain, may also be that which is not false, and still may also wrong at times. Truth is that which will never be wrong, nor never has been wrong, nor is it wrong at this present time, truth is that which is always right. Quote: Something can be true, but only within the context of a specified amount of time. Presume that I'm 15 years old. It's true that I am 15 years old, but that doesn't mean that it's "never false" that I'm 15 years old, does it? That is an example of right and certain; not truth. It is not true that you are 15, it is right that you are 15. If you were to remain 15 for the rest of eternity, are currently 15, and were always 15, then that would be a truth. By the way, how do we know that this reality is real? In other words, under the assumption that this reality is actually false, are you really 15? Quote: I think that your whole argument depends on the idea that these truth is contradictory because of the definitions of never and always... So if the definitions are changed (or should I say, "corrected"), then that voids the rest of the argument. Yes, it does, however to change, or as you want to say "correct" these defintions would be to bring new terms, that are not the same into existence. If we change/correct the definition of never, it will not be the same "never" it was, thus it will be a new "never," or a revived older "never."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:12 pm
Quote: Actually, in the English language, Never is a combination of two words, they are not and ever "At any time" = "ever". "Not ever" = "never". "Not at any time" = "never". Quote: Actually, in the English language, Never is a combination of two words, they are not and ever, Never means not ever, and ever means sometimes or always; however, if never is used for "not sometimes" it is being used in the wrong context, as it should be, "not sometimes" instead of "never." "Not sometimes" means, "not at at least one time", right? ...that's never. "Not always" means, "not at every time", right? ...that could be 'sometimes'. Quote: Wrong, truth is that which is always true. That which is right is that which is not false. Also, that which is right, can, at times be false. Also, that which is certain, may also be that which is not false, and still may also wrong at times. Truth is that which will never be wrong, nor never has been wrong, nor is it wrong at this present time, truth is that which is always right. Okay, but if I say, "At this time, this is right", that can be true, right? Quote: If we change/correct the definition of never, it will not be the same "never" it was, thus it will be a new "never," or a revived older "never." So we have to know what you mean in your argument, and use exactly that definition. So, will you clarify what you mean by, "the absence of always" and "the absence of "never"? It seems to me that one thing can enver be correct, while another thing can never be correct, and there is no contradiction: "All fish are never mammals." "All mammals are always animals." That is, I don't see how, even if "never" is defined as "the absence of always", that automatically contradicts any sentence with "always".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:13 pm
Contingent "Not sometimes" means, "not at at least one time", right? ...that's never. Sometimes means maybe, not sometimes means either always or never. Because, it either is something, or it never is something. Quote: "Not always" means, "not at every time", right? ...that could be 'sometimes'. Always = that which is at every single moment. Not always is the opposite of that. Meaning not always is not at every single moment, it could be either sometimes or never. Since this is about never and always, only half of not always is "true." Quote: Quote: Wrong, truth is that which is always true. That which is right is that which is not false. Also, that which is right, can, at times be false. Also, that which is certain, may also be that which is not false, and still may also wrong at times. Truth is that which will never be wrong, nor never has been wrong, nor is it wrong at this present time, truth is that which is always right. Okay, but if I say, "At this time, this is right", that can be true, right? If that time will exist forever then it will be true, but, nothing can only be true at one moment, because true is that which is always true, and never false. If at any other moment it was/is false, than it was merely right at that moment. Quote: Quote: If we change/correct the definition of never, it will not be the same "never" it was, thus it will be a new "never," or a revived older "never." So we have to know what you mean in your argument, and use exactly that definition. So, will you clarify what you mean by, "the absence of always" and "the absence of "never"? Never = that which will not happen, no matter what = the absence of always. Always = that which will happen every single time = the absence of never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:57 am
Quote: Never = that which will not happen, no matter what = the absence of always. Always = that which will happen every single time = the absence of never. I still think that these are inaccurate definitions because: "The absence of always" also includes sometimes. "The absence of never" also includes sometimes. -------------------------------------------------------- Quote: So, by definition never cannot exist; if never did exist, there would never be any truth. This is because, if there is never, then there is no always, by definition of never. I think it'll be easier to point out the flaws if it's in logicky-form: (~ is [negation], --> is [implies]) 1. N --> ~A. 2. T --> N & A. ----------------- 3. ~T. 1. There is no contradiction with "F never exists, C always exists". N --> ~A when talking about one thing, but it doesn't imply that the word 'always' is meaningless for all things! 2. With the two defintions of "truth", "always correct, never false"... They're equivalent, and the words 'never' and 'always' aren't refering to the same thing, they're refering to 'falseness' and 'correctness'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:10 am
gonk How the hell...? I think my head just exploded vv'
Never, truth and always MUST exist.
First of all, never isn't the absence of always. If something is sometimes true, it isn't always true. But it isn't never true either. The same goes the other way.
However, since never and always are incorporeal, simply ideas, notions we've come up with to simplify the world... one could say "I will never be six years old again". If one is over six years old, that is a truth. Thus, never exists. One could say that always cannot exist, for it is reliant on an uncertain future, whereas never can be reliant on base fact in the past...
I really don't know where I'm going with this. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:40 am
Naeryn gonk How the hell...? I think my head just exploded vv' Never, truth and always MUST exist. First of all, never isn't the absence of always. If something is sometimes true, it isn't always true. But it isn't never true either. The same goes the other way. However, since never and always are incorporeal, simply ideas, notions we've come up with to simplify the world... one could say "I will never be six years old again". If one is over six years old, that is a truth. Thus, never exists. One could say that always cannot exist, for it is reliant on an uncertain future, whereas never can be reliant on base fact in the past... I really don't know where I'm going with this. *shrug* Actually, if always cannot exist, there is no possible way for never to exist. Because, never is always not always, and if always does not exist, never would merely be not always. However, never cannot be sometimes, because, sometimes is sometimes or not sometimes. Never is not considered sometimes or not sometimes. Truth is that which is always true, never false. If there is one point at which you were 6, then to say that I will never again be 6 is merely a statement that is right, not a statement that is true. True statements are true from the begining of logical time (i.e. the begining of the existence of things that are able to use logic) to the end of logical time (i.e. the end of the existence of things that have the ability to use logic). In other words, the statement I will never again be 6 is wrong, because at one time you were 6, whether or not you will be 6 again doesn't matter, because truth is not something that exists from the point one speaks about it to another point, unless those points are the beggining and end of logical time. Contingent: Thank you for pointing out the inaccurate definitions. I did not think about that. Here is a revised definition: Never = the absence of always, in such a way that it will not ever exist, from the beggining of time to the end of time. Time is that which cannot ever end, in other words, never is that which has not, will not, and is not existing. When one says that something never exists, they are saying that it has not existed for an infinite amount of time before the present time, does not exist at the present time, and will not exist at any time, for an infinite amount of time, at any future time. Always = the opposite of never (just go through never, and replace with always in such a way that it logically makes sense, for I am much too lazy to type all that). There, hows that for a more accurate definition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:17 am
Quote: True statements are true from the begining of logical time (i.e. the begining of the existence of things that are able to use logic) to the end of logical time (i.e. the end of the existence of things that have the ability to use logic). Why is "logical time" dependent on the existence of beings capable of logical thought? Quote: Truth is that which is always true I don't think that definitions can include the word being defined inside the definition. Also, the first entry on dictionary.com for "true" is "consistent with fact or reality", so I'm still unsure of your definition. ---------------------------------------------------- About the 'never' definition... Do you mean that never is "the absence of always" as in "That which is always absent", or "that which implies that "always" is absent"? Quote: ...in such a way that it will not ever exist... What's "it"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:53 am
Contingent Quote: True statements are true from the begining of logical time (i.e. the begining of the existence of things that are able to use logic) to the end of logical time (i.e. the end of the existence of things that have the ability to use logic). Why is "logical time" dependent on the existence of beings capable of logical thought? Well, first off, all time is dependent on some sort of object, in the sense that if no object is there to sense the time, how can something be sure of time? Quote: Truth is that which is always true I don't think that definitions can include the word being defined inside the definition. Also, the first entry on dictionary.com for "true" is "consistent with fact or reality", so I'm still unsure of your definition. 1. You are right, I should not have used always true in the definition of truth, I should have said always correct, or always right. 2. It has been my understanding that truth is that which will always be correct. Quote: About the 'never' definition... Do you mean that never is "the absence of always" as in "That which is always absent", or "that which implies that "always" is absent"? "That which is always absent" Quote: Quote: ...in such a way that it will not ever exist... What's "it"? It = something, and by something, I mean, anything that you want to it to be, "it" is not limited to any one thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:32 pm
But to say "always" and "never" do not exist is a paradox. Removing them removes rules and limitations on the universe, in a way. However it is in itself a rule, which by its own definition cannot "always" be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:46 pm
SyphaBelnades But to say "always" and "never" do not exist is a paradox. Removing them removes rules and limitations on the universe, in a way. However it is in itself a rule, which by its own definition cannot "always" be true. Are there really rules on the universe to begin with, or, do we simply try to make rules to apply to the universe so that we can comprehend the idea of a "universe?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:53 pm
chaoticpuppet SyphaBelnades But to say "always" and "never" do not exist is a paradox. Removing them removes rules and limitations on the universe, in a way. However it is in itself a rule, which by its own definition cannot "always" be true. Are there really rules on the universe to begin with, or, do we simply try to make rules to apply to the universe so that we can comprehend the idea of a "universe?" Its possible. But if it is true, how can we define "always" or "never" when we can't even define "reality"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:21 pm
SyphaBelnades chaoticpuppet SyphaBelnades But to say "always" and "never" do not exist is a paradox. Removing them removes rules and limitations on the universe, in a way. However it is in itself a rule, which by its own definition cannot "always" be true. Are there really rules on the universe to begin with, or, do we simply try to make rules to apply to the universe so that we can comprehend the idea of a "universe?" Its possible. But if it is true, how can we define "always" or "never" when we can't even define "reality"? Well, why does never and always rest on reality? Why can the not rest soley on logic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
