Troglodite thinking:
Opinion - Something you believe to be true based on no or limited evidence.
Fact - A thing you believe to be true that is objectively true.
Enlightened thinking:
Opinion: Anything I believe to be true whether it is true or not and no matter what level of evidence I believe I have.
Fact - A thing which an oracle could, would know is objectively true, but since oracles dont exist we can never exert with certainty that something is or is not fact. It is at best an abstract concept.
QT: https://qoto.org/@freemo/112045042043910995
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@freemo While I agree with this in general, I feel like there's got to be a limit. Is "1+1=2" opinion?
Are we talking purely mathematically, in which case it is only true by definition, and it is still your opinion in how you are understanding that definition. For example in computing (not pure math) we have a saying "2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2" which is a play on some of the particulars of computing.
But something being true by definition is only true due to circular logic, and therefore true but not int he sense of being a world fact (a true idea).
By contrast though if you mean the real world manifistation of that.. so "if i have one rock, and pick up another, then I have two rocks" we still wind up in the same problem of true by definition but its just a harder concept to understand. In this case what is a "rock" and how we count rocks are ultimately at play and it still becomes a situation where it is only true by virtue of the fact that we define it as such. Again we would be in the problem that the definition still has room for definition... if i pick up a pile of sand, how many rocks do I have? One could argue each grain of sand counts as a rock.
@freemo Right, but in that example, it's "rock" that becomes ambiguous, not "1", which is an abstract concept we can reliably apply to rocks, apples, bananas, whatever.
I believe that somewhere between the theory and the individual applications, there lies an objective truth that remains factual regardless of our perceptions or ability to observe it.
@LouisIngenthron If you are refering to the one and not hte rock then you are talking about the first case not the second. In the first case there are no rocks, just "1" which you have defined and circularly used.
In the second case im talking about the idea withouth the numbers, which english isnt equipped to do. But i am talking about the fact that rocks are a comparable quantity irrespective of any numbers described to accomplish that. That is, that the qty is preseved from the individual components in the larger collection. That is, the actual real world scenario that math is being represented before the math or numbers were concepts that were defined.
In other words, imagine a person with no linguistic or math understanding adding quantities of rocks using purely abstract understanding (no internal dialog). There is no 1 in that situation, there is an idea of a one in a very abstract sense that is rooted not by the concept of 1 but by the concept of where the boundaries of a rock is where beyond that boundary is a "different rock".
To put it yet another way, without the numbers you are left needing to define where a thing begins and end. One you throw the numbers back in you realize it didnt really change that. Youjust have two things you need to define, its all still circular and by definition.
As a counter argument we actually have math where 1+1 is either undefined or equals something other than 2, it just depends on the system of math and definition your using. In math we define these as what is called "rings", not all rings even allow for addition operations. In other words addition is a nonsensical operation under some systems of math, so how can 1+1=2 be universally true if it is only true under specific mathematical systems and false or undefined under others?
