On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:26:43 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:59:40 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > 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 approach the subject the other way around. I try to define "false" >> and determine "truth" to be what is not false. Of course the >> difficulty here is that there are many problematic claims whose >> falseness we cannot determine. So we have to find some method of >> reducing falseness unambiguously such that alternatives must be >> universally true. It' a pretty little problem but not intractable. > >Then "tract" if for me. Find me something other than logical tautologies >that can be unequivocally determined to be not false.
Who says there is anything other than tautological alternatives which can be determined to be other than false (assuming I've read your string of double negatives with anything like verisimiltude).
>> >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. >> >> Ah but there is the mechanically reducible absolute falseness of self >> contradiction such that alternatives to self contradiction must be >> necessarily and universally true. > >Name one!