Lester Zick wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:03:50 GMT, Nam Nguyen <email@example.com> > wrote: > > >> >>Virgil wrote: >> >>>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >>> Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>The question I have is whether you or others believe in the >>>>possibility of universally exhaustively true mathematical axioms? >>> >>> >>>What is "truth"? >>> >>>I can deal with the tautologous logical truth of implications like "if P >>>then (P or Q)", but other than those, which include the more complex >>>logical deductions from a set of axioms, I know of no absolute truth. >> >>If we care to consider absolute truth, then there is no such >>thing as an absolute truth. > > > Well thanks for the input. Can we take your word for this?
I don't see why not, unless an absolute truth could be demonstrated to exist! Would
(1) (P => (P \/ Q))
constitute an absolute truth? Well, at this moment for some odd reason "\/" to me means what "/\" means to a lot of people (and vice versa for "/\")!. So (1) to me is not a truth; so it can not be an absolute truth that *must be universally recognized without exception*!
> >> That is: not even "tautologous logical >>truth" would be absolute. > > > Yes but tautological alternatives to necessary and universal falseness > would perforce have to be necessarily and universally true.
Again, as has been questioned by another poster, what does "universal falseness", or "universally true" mean?