Your Favorite Truism

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, I just yelped at Gorebag for hauling out his favortie truism. So let's get them all out of our systems shall we? Post your favorite truism -- a statement that is so universally correct that it adds nothing to the conversation.

[Zalmoxis]

Could you give us an example? Would "Yeah, well... the sky is blue!" be one?

[InsaneApache]

Work is the curse of the drinking classes. :book:

[econ21]

Some truisms do carry some meaning, at least implicitly. e.g. (following Scarlett O'Hara):

"Tomorrow is another day"

[GoreBag]

My favourite one is actually "Nothing is the way it is."

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually I think truisms add much to conversations. Summarizing all the truisms that all can agree on because they're true creates a very solid starting point for any discussion. Of course it's difficult to find an end-conclusion all can agree on if the debate is about very specific subjects, but the more general things the debate is about, the easier it is to all agree on the same thing. In such cases, the full listing of truisms is incredibly useful. The matematician Kurt Gödel is considered one of the biggest matemathicians of all time, and what he is famous for is basically collecting all truisms of mathematics and breaking them down into smaller pieces until they couldn't be broken down any further, creating a full list of mathematical axioms. Thanks to such listings, all mathematicians can agree about every mathematical statemement that is derived by the laws of logic, unlike most other scientific branches, who keep debating fiercely over every new theorem. Most of axioms/truisms are laughably simple, like "the number 1 exists". Nevertheless they're a more important thing for mathematics than any single theorem derived during the millennia. My favorite truism is therefore:

stating all the obvious things is sometimes a better addition to a discussion than commenting any of the non-obvious things

[Redleg]

With Freedom comes responsibility.

[TinCow]

The only absolute truth in existence:

"I think therefore I am."

[Sjakihata]

There are no truisms

[Goofball]

GWB is incompetent.

~:smoking:

[Sjakihata]

The only absolute truth in existence:

"I think therefore I am."

That is incorrect. How would argue that it is the only absolute truth?

[drone]

The only sure things are death and taxes.

[TinCow]

That is incorrect. How would argue that it is the only absolute truth?

It is the only thing that one can prove conclusively. Of course, there are caveats to that. I know it to be an absolute truth that I exist because I think. However, I do not know that anything else exists because there is always the possibility that I am hallucinating or my perceptions are otherwise being altered. I could be dreaming, I could be a brain in a jar, I could be a computer program. Regardless, whatever I am, I know for certain that I exist.

That said, I can't prove to you that I exist, just as you can't prove to me that you exist. Once you accept that all your senses and perceptions may possibly be false, the only absolute certainty you are left with is your own existence.

[Sjakihata]

It is the only thing that one can prove conclusively. Of course, there are caveats to that. I know it to be an absolute truth that I exist because I think. However, I do not know that anything else exists because there is always the possibility that I am hallucinating or my perceptions are otherwise being altered. I could be dreaming, I could be a brain in a jar, I could be a computer program. Regardless, whatever I am, I know for certain that I exist.

That said, I can't prove to you that I exist, just as you can't prove to me that you exist. Once you accept that all your senses and perceptions may possibly be false, the only absolute certainty you are left with is your own existence.

The Cogito ergo sum is not a truism, let me tell you why. The way ergo or therefore is used, makes it a demonstration, a deduction. Now, what if the human has fundamental flaw, and cannot compute correctly, that means our brain, like a calculator, makes 2+2=5 or i think therefore i am, is not valid. Or if a demon or evil god screws up our mental faculties.

The point is, the truism can arguable be I think, I am, but to include a therefore makes a systematic flaw. That is why Descartes never actually said, in the meditations over the first philosophy, cogito ergo sum, i think therefore i am, je pense donc je suis, but just cogito, sum.

Do you follow?

[TinCow]

The Cogito ergo sum is not a truism, let me tell you why. The way ergo or therefore is used, makes it a demonstration, a deduction. Now, what if the human has fundamental flaw, and cannot compute correctly, that means our brain, like a calculator, makes 2+2=5 or i think therefore i am, is not valid. Or if a demon or evil god screws up our mental faculties.

The point is, the truism can arguable be I think, I am, but to include a therefore makes a systematic flaw. That is why Descartes never actually said, in the meditations over the first philosophy, cogito ergo sum, i think therefore i am, je pense donc je suis, but just cogito, sum.

Do you follow?

Interesting. I understand fully how ergo introduces a level of reasoning into the equation that fundamentally moves it away from an absolute, but isn't the end result the same? When I read "cogito ergo sum" and "cogito, sum" I am still interpreting it to mean the same thing. Where am going wrong?

[master of the puppets]

i have a good one

"take a simple conversation, throw in LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix and Sjakihata, and things are gonna get complicated."

[Lemur]

Wherever you go, there you are.

[Sjakihata]

Interesting. I understand fully how ergo introduces a level of reasoning into the equation that fundamentally moves it away from an absolute, but isn't the end result the same? When I read "cogito ergo sum" and "cogito, sum" I am still interpreting it to mean the same thing. Where am going wrong?

Well, as the ergo introduces logic (that basically isnt proved), you will have to rely on intuition. Intuition is not to be understood as 'womens intuition', but rather as a intiution that shows, as Descartes says, "clear and distinct" episteme. Also, the criteria of truth, that Descartes rely on, and builts his epestimology around is what is "clear and distinct (evident)" has to be true. In order to prove this, he goes on a long detour to proves, includning the existence of God etc etc. If you want to have the argument fully let me know.

But the fundamental difference, is that no demonstration can be guarenteed as true, according to Descartes self-evident intuition can. Whether you agree with that or not, is of course subjective. Not to forget, Cartesius also makes a fallacy in the cartesiancircle.

[Ianofsmeg16]

It's Always in the last place you look.

and my Personal favorite,

Pink Floyd is better than you!

[lancelot]

When you drop your toast it always lands butter side down...

[ScionTheWorm]

McCabe's law: Nobody has to do anything.

[Viking]

Everything is relative.

[Sjakihata]

Everything is relative.

Except the truism that everything is relative, therefore everything is not relative, since the sentence everything is relative, is not relative. If the sentence is relative, others are then not necessarily relative.

:balloon2:

[Lemur]

A friend of mine who attended West Point relayed one of the maxims the young officers-to-be used:


Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations.

Words to live by.

[Craterus]

"Some people have a large circle of friends while others have only friends that they like."

-unknown

[drone]

You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on the couch.

Wish in one hand, **** in the other, see which one fills up first.

[Papewaio]

"Arrogance happens to the best of us." - Pape. :laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

"opinions are like *** holes, everyone has one."

[Skomatth]

If P then Q
Not Q
Not P

[Al Khalifah]

A useful one for some to appreciate:

"Just because something is so in your point of view does not necessairly make it so in reality."

Or perhaps:

"For matters of opinion, there is no right and wrong answer."

A useful injection to the above would then be:

"All questions of ethics are concerned with points of view."

Therefore..... your opinion on an ethical issue is only right in as much as that is what you believe.




Oh and.... "Milk is milk."

[InsaneApache]

I'm not conceited, but goodness knows I have good reason to be. :book:

[ajaxfetish]

The only absolute truth in existence:

"I think therefore I am."
What about a tautology (eg I am either a man or I am not a man),
or a definition (a bachelor is an unmarried male) ?

But anyway, here's one I really like from Murphy's Laws:

All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door.



I don't think that is a Truism. A large enough revolving door or tiny ski gear would make it possible...

[ajaxfetish]

Whether or not it's a truism, I just really like the sound of it! ~:)

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A college pal's mom once reminded us:

"You wouldn't worry so much about what people think of you, if you realized how seldom they do."

[KukriKhan]

"I think therefore I am."

I'm pink ergo I'm spam.

Roger Miller: "You cain't roller skate in a buffalo herd."

(Contest) Name the speaker: "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle."

[Papewaio]

(Contest) Name the speaker: "A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle."

Irina Dunn

[Viking]

Except the truism that everything is relative, therefore everything is not relative, since the sentence everything is relative, is not relative. If the sentence is relative, others are then not necessarily relative.

:balloon2:

Relativity is relative. The relativness of the relativity is also relative. Everything is relative.

[Sjakihata]

The only thing that isnt relative, is the relativity, if the relativity is relative, then it can be absolute as well.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There are no true statements.

Work that logic out!

Seriously, "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -GBS

Crazed Rabbit

[Sjakihata]

There are no true statements.


Ultimately, in logic, that would be a paradox.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There are no true statements.


There are exactly as many true statements as there are false statements, because every true statement becomes a false statement if you append "not" before it, and every false statement becomes a true statement if you append "not" before it.

[Sjakihata]

There are exactly as many true statements as there are false statements, because every true statement becomes a false statement if you append "not" before it, and every false statement becomes a true statement if you append "not" before it.

That's sematics, before that comes epistimology.

[master of the puppets]

oh what did i say, those 2 and complecations, so what are you working as legio? a philosopher?

"if we believe in fate, we have no choices except for the choice to believe in fate which we chose and so defied fate.":juggle2: :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

That's sematics, before that comes epistimology.

True and false are definitions, so epistimology isn't needed for making statements about what these words mean. Maybe if we make statements about the reality they are intended to describe. All statement that are either true or false have an inverse. Only paradoxes and non-statements, that are neither true or false, or both, depending on how you see it, might lack an inverse. That follows directly from the definition and therefore is a truism. But whether it has any use in reality is another question.


so what are you working as legio? a philosopher?

That would have been awesome, but unfortunately philosophy is only one of my hobbies...

[Viking]

The only thing that isnt relative, is the relativity, if the relativity is relative, then it can be absolute as well.


Relativity is relative because it`s a definition made by homo sapiens. No definition are as sharp as a swords edge; all definitions are relative; including the definition of relativity.


"if we believe in fate, we have no choices except for the choice to believe in fate which we chose and so defied fate."

Fate exists you know. By simulations you can know exactly where planet A will be one hour later. You take the simulations to smaller and smaller levels until you end up with the smallest building blocks in the universe.

Since the universe was created, I was bound to write this post.

[Soulforged]

"Every beggining has an ending" -Anonimous.

"When you think that you've said or invented something, someone before you has already done it"- Jorge Luis Borges

[AntiochusIII]

GAH! You people and your circular reasoning (et al) which in the end accomplishes nothing... :dizzy2:

I like the Heroes IV quotes: "To all things comes a beginning." It sounds cheesily fantasy, perfect for the game. Sadly, the game was not perfect.

[ajaxfetish]

'Fat people are harder to kidnap' --bumper sticker I once saw.

Ajax

[Red Peasant]

Being sure of yourself means you're a fool.

Private property created crime.

[Soulforged]

"I think therefore I am."
"Every solypsist acts like a realist nontheless"- I really don't know, perhaps only me.

[AquaLurker]

"this is as interesting as it gets"

[InsaneApache]

Roger Miller: "You cain't roller skate in a buffalo herd."

hahaha I used to have that single on vinyl....that brings back some memories. :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Egads!

I meant to solicit a few witty statements, but if this gets and deeper I'll have to dig out my Saussure and Chomsky just to keep up....:dizzy2:

[Ironside]

Fate exists you know. By simulations you can know exactly where planet A will be one hour later. You take the simulations to smaller and smaller levels until you end up with the smallest building blocks in the universe.

Since the universe was created, I was bound to write this post.

According to current science it's impossible to exactly predict how the smallest building blocks will react.

[Viking]

According to current science it's impossible to exactly predict how the smallest building blocks will react.

That must be because of our limited knowledge; or else their reaction would be random, or there would a probability for each possible outcome of a reaction. I wasn`t aware of that.

[Rodion Romanovich]

That must be because of our limited knowledge; or else their reaction would be random, or there would a probability for each possible outcome of a reaction. I wasn`t aware of that.

If something depends on a large enough number of factors, it behaves as if it's random and often follows the so called normal distribution. So if something behaves randomly, that doesn't mean fate doesn't exist. You can usually observe randomness and determinism in "levels".

The evolution model is an excellent example - the mutations are pretty much random. But certain of the random mutations are more useful and thus survive. So:
- Level 1: We can to some extent predict which species will survive and which won't in a given setting. But:
- Level 2: Behind it all lies a random system. But:
- Level 3: Those random mutations have causes and we can predict that certain environments etc. will make mutations more likely etc. But:
- Level 4: That might just depend on the particles on the chemical level interacting randomly but in a controlled way so certain scenarios occur more often due to the very nature of the particles, how they collide etc. But:
- Level 5: The actual particles move pretty much randomly.

The question is, which is the bottom layer? Total randomness, or fate, or determinism as it is often called. If total randomness is the bottom layer, then both randomness and some form of semi-fate exists. If fate is the bottom level, then many interesting consequences would follow, of which I can think of these 3 at the moment:
- the entire future could theoretically be predicted. However, if you know what certain acts would lead to, you might act differently, which means it's still difficult to know exactly what will happen to you
- punishment for crime would become totally unjustified, because it's possible to predict that someone will become criminal under certain circumstances and if society lets those circumstances occur it would be society's fault. While this might seem horrible to some people who like to punish guilty and innocents alike for their own pleasure and fear, it would on the contrary quite please also them, because it would mean it's theoretically possible to avoid all crime. However avoiding bad stuff at one time might cause more bad stuff later - it's a common phenomenon - and might or might not exist also in this case. However judging from our animal relatives it IS possible to maintain world peace during a longer period without making world war a necessity in the long run, so our levels of evilness might not be justified with "if we're more nice now it'll cause a counter-reaction of more evil".
- an absolute truth would exist

[Viking]

- the entire future could theoretically be predicted. However, if you know what certain acts would lead to, you might act differently, which means it's still difficult to know exactly what will happen to you

But still, if some one else predicted your actions, he would see that you do something else than what you`re 'supposed' to do, and predict what you instead does. So it`s sort of a paradox.


- punishment for crime would become totally unjustified, because it's possible to predict that someone will become criminal under certain circumstances and if society lets those circumstances occur it would be society's fault. While this might seem horrible to some people who like to punish guilty and innocents alike for their own pleasure and fear, it would on the contrary quite please also them, because it would mean it's theoretically possible to avoid all crime. However avoiding bad stuff at one time might cause more bad stuff later - it's a common phenomenon - and might or might not exist also in this case. However judging from our animal relatives it IS possible to maintain world peace during a longer period without making world war a necessity in the long run, so our levels of evilness might not be justified with "if we're more nice now it'll cause a counter-reaction of more evil".

That`s exactly what would happen. If more than one group/person is able to predict the future, the future wouldn`t be that predictable after all.

This all of course means that the smallest building blocks can be predicted, let alone that they actually exist. According to one theory, you can split atoms and get smaller parts unlimited.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The interesting thing is, you could then also predict how people would think, and therefore what they would decide to do, and therefore, in the end, be able to fully predict everything... But that's only in theory. In practise I don't think it would be possible to do all the "measurements" needed to get the full information on how every particle is moving, it's position, rotation, and so on (assuming that particles exist, the world might instead consist solely of waves... ~:) ).

The thing is, even if determinism would be true, it would actually, at least for a very long time after determinism was proved true, remain the best model of earth to think of it as a combination of randomness and causalities. Every random process at some level gets controlled and thus can be described with a deterministic model. And every deterministic process at some level, when the factors become too many, becomes seemingly random.

[Paul Peru]

I wish I had your good luck charm, and you had a do wacka do wacka do wacka do wacka do.
:inquisitive: no wait

This too will pass.

[Papewaio]

That must be because of our limited knowledge; or else their reaction would be random, or there would a probability for each possible outcome of a reaction. I wasn`t aware of that.

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that one cannot assign, with full precision, values for certain pairs of observable variables, including the position and momentum, of a single particle at the same time even in theory. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

It is sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (a name preferred by Niels Bohr).

Brownian motion...

The term Brownian motion (in honor of the botanist Robert Brown) refers to either

The physical phenomenon that minute particles immersed in a fluid move about randomly; or
The mathematical models used to describe those random movements.
The mathematical model can also be used to describe many phenomena not resembling (other than mathematically) the random movement of minute particles. An often quoted example is stock market fluctuations. Another example is the evolution of physical characteristics in the fossil record.

The path of a planet is predicatable just like the average number of rolling a dice a million times is too. However just because the large scale if predicatable does not mean the components are likewise non-random.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Isn't the Heisenberg uncertainty due to the wave model of particles? If that model is wrong, then the Heisenberg uncertainty principle isn't necessarily true... Even so, I find it hard to believe we'll ever be able to make a "snapshot" measurement of all particles locations, speeds, rotations etc. - basically all measurements possible, and use that to predict the future. It would take a brain larger than the universe to analyze the entire future of the universe. Thus our best chance of predicting the future, whether the bottom layer is randomness or determinism, to use scientific models at one of the highest levels where deterministic behavior appears, and assume, to simplify reasoning, that the layer below is entirely random, even if it might not be 100% so...

[Viking]

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that one cannot assign, with full precision, values for certain pairs of observable variables, including the position and momentum, of a single particle at the same time even in theory. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

It is sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (a name preferred by Niels Bohr).

Brownian motion...

The term Brownian motion (in honor of the botanist Robert Brown) refers to either

The physical phenomenon that minute particles immersed in a fluid move about randomly; or
The mathematical models used to describe those random movements.
The mathematical model can also be used to describe many phenomena not resembling (other than mathematically) the random movement of minute particles. An often quoted example is stock market fluctuations. Another example is the evolution of physical characteristics in the fossil record.

The path of a planet is predicatable just like the average number of rolling a dice a million times is too. However just because the large scale if predicatable does not mean the components are likewise non-random.

I still think it`s due to our lack of knowledge. Very little is known within this scientific field, and there is still many theories rather than knowledge.