General Truths..

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
JJNTH
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: June 28th, 2020, 10:22 pm

General Truths..

Post by JJNTH » June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm

Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 485
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: General Truths..

Post by Marvin_Edwards » June 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm

JJNTH wrote:
June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?
It remains true. The "if" introduces the fact that microwaves will melt ice cream if you invent a machine that creates them.

User avatar
audiopaynt
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: May 6th, 2020, 5:29 pm

Re: General Truths..

Post by audiopaynt » June 29th, 2020, 9:41 pm

Interesting.

I suppose the suggestion is, until something has happened, it is not absolute.

If, in 1946 an accurate descriptor of what the microwave would do prior to the experiment; use of microwaves (very similar technology to RADAR) in a controlled space to heat up the immediate environment surrounding the emission source. Something which microwaves are known to do. One could draw comfortable conclusion that the ice cream would melt, as radiation is such form causes the environment to heat up. We also know Ice creams melting temperature is low relative to the microwave energy.

It's scientific prediction by logical assessment yes. But not fact, as it hasn't happened yet.

However, in light of this topic, you can propose that nothing is fact until witnessed.

Could the same be said in this situation - This exact litre of water, will completely fill that exact litre container. It hasn't happened yet, so it's not a 'zero conditional' until it happens. Though, although it hasn't happened it's a logical estimation with high probability of being accurate.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 741
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: General Truths..

Post by Count Lucanor » June 29th, 2020, 11:16 pm

JJNTH wrote:
June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?
The 1946 audience would not understand what is "microwaving", the phrase will be meaningless, neither an opinion, fact, etc. But as soon as you explained what it is, they will understand and accept the obvious fact that it melts ice cream.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7615
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Dolly Parton
Location: UK

Re: General Truths..

Post by Steve3007 » June 30th, 2020, 3:37 am

JJNTH wrote:Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.
These appear to be simple causal chains that have been empirically observed always to be true so far. I think it's important to remember that this is not the same as a necessary truth - a truth that it would be self-contradictory to deny. No matter how many times event B follows event A in such a way that we conclude that A causes B, it doesn't make it certain that this will happen in all future cases.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3356
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: General Truths..

Post by Terrapin Station » June 30th, 2020, 3:45 am

There are many problems here. One is that knowing that P refers to having a belief (that's also justified and true) that P.

Well, for any P where a large number of people are considering it, not everyone will believe that P.

So nothing would actually satisfy the definition of "zero conditional" unless we're limiting our domain of discourse quite a bit and/or we're discounting some assessments whether P. But if a domain of discourse limitation or an assessment discounting are acceptable here, why wouldn't they be acceptable in the 1946 case? You're implying limitations for our domain of discourse limitations or discounts, but you're not specifying what those limitations would or should be and why.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 771
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: General Truths..

Post by Papus79 » July 1st, 2020, 1:09 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm
It remains true. The "if" introduces the fact that microwaves will melt ice cream if you invent a machine that creates them.
This. They're in nature, the phrasing in 1946 would just be 'condense microwaves and you can melt ice cream'.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 771
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: General Truths..

Post by Papus79 » July 1st, 2020, 1:11 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
June 30th, 2020, 3:45 am
There are many problems here. One is that knowing that P refers to having a belief (that's also justified and true) that P.

Well, for any P where a large number of people are considering it, not everyone will believe that P.

So nothing would actually satisfy the definition of "zero conditional" unless we're limiting our domain of discourse quite a bit and/or we're discounting some assessments whether P. But if a domain of discourse limitation or an assessment discounting are acceptable here, why wouldn't they be acceptable in the 1946 case? You're implying limitations for our domain of discourse limitations or discounts, but you're not specifying what those limitations would or should be and why.
Abstracting helps. I mean, someone could argue up and down against the assertion that 1 * 6 = 6 but it's one of the earliest rungs that mathematical induction hits. The 1 or 6 'what' doesn't even matter in this case, ie. it's self-referential logic.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.

Philo_stone
Posts: 24
Joined: May 14th, 2020, 3:11 am

Re: General Truths..

Post by Philo_stone » July 1st, 2020, 7:20 am

JJNTH wrote:
June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?
The general truth is that Truth is not visible. What you see is the effects of the truth, or you can say "causes". You see effects but not the causes, and this is the general truth.

Microwave was there at all times, just we don't knew it and can't make use of it. It is not like, because we know it now, it is a truth, but we don't knew it then, so it was an opinion. It was the truth then, it is a truth now, but we don't knew it then, and we know it now. Your knowledge don't make something truth. You just use the word "truth" for visible things, which is why all such confusions arise.

Take visible things as a small part of truth. Even that visible reality may not be truth. Microwave (a machine) is not the truth, but microwave (a invisible reality) is the truth. When you use a word for invisible to denote a visible, all such confusions arise.

User avatar
Coeurdelion
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: July 5th, 2020, 9:44 pm

Re: General Truths..

Post by Coeurdelion » July 5th, 2020, 9:47 pm

You might want to take a look at this first, judgements and categories as described by Kant regarding truths

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: General Truths..

Post by Sculptor1 » July 6th, 2020, 5:24 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm
JJNTH wrote:
June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?
No, since "microwave" has no meaning in 1946. The statement with an "if" or not makes no difference. The participation of microwave in the sentence renders it void.


It remains true. The "if" introduces the fact that microwaves will melt ice cream if you invent a machine that creates them.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: General Truths..

Post by Sculptor1 » July 6th, 2020, 5:25 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm
JJNTH wrote:
June 28th, 2020, 10:32 pm
Zero Conditionals - Conditionals that refer to facts that are known to be always TRUE (General truths)

Let's take this zero conditional, as an example: "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." This is a general truth as it is a fact that is known to be always true.

Now, hypothetically, let's say you get teleported back to 1946, before the microwave was created.

The zero conditional, "If you microwave ice cream, it melts." is no longer a zero conditional (general truth in this example) as it's not a fact in that time period, in fact, people would think you're crazy. Is it now just an opinion, fact to yourself, what is it?
It remains true. The "if" introduces the fact that microwaves will melt ice cream if you invent a machine that creates them.
No, since "microwave" has no meaning in 1946. The statement with an "if" or not makes no difference. The participation of microwave in the sentence renders it void.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: General Truths..

Post by Sculptor1 » July 6th, 2020, 5:27 am

audiopaynt wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:41 pm
Interesting.

I suppose the suggestion is, until something has happened, it is not absolute.

If, in 1946 an accurate descriptor of what the microwave would do prior to the experiment; use of microwaves (very similar technology to RADAR) in a controlled space to heat up the immediate environment surrounding the emission source. Something which microwaves are known to do. One could draw comfortable conclusion that the ice cream would melt, as radiation is such form causes the environment to heat up. We also know Ice creams melting temperature is low relative to the microwave energy.

It's scientific prediction by logical assessment yes. But not fact, as it hasn't happened yet.

However, in light of this topic, you can propose that nothing is fact until witnessed.

Could the same be said in this situation - This exact litre of water, will completely fill that exact litre container. It hasn't happened yet, so it's not a 'zero conditional' until it happens. Though, although it hasn't happened it's a logical estimation with high probability of being accurate.
It means that all so-called objective statements are relative as they rely on culturally and historically subjective conditions.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1935
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: General Truths..

Post by Sculptor1 » July 6th, 2020, 5:29 am

Papus79 wrote:
July 1st, 2020, 1:09 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
June 29th, 2020, 9:36 pm
It remains true. The "if" introduces the fact that microwaves will melt ice cream if you invent a machine that creates them.
This. They're in nature, the phrasing in 1946 would just be 'condense microwaves and you can melt ice cream'.
This is just forestalling the problem. What about before we knew about "waves"? What about when no one had ice-cream? What about when no one had a grasp of English?

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 771
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: General Truths..

Post by Papus79 » July 6th, 2020, 8:38 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
July 6th, 2020, 5:29 am
This is just forestalling the problem. What about before we knew about "waves"? What about when no one had ice-cream? What about when no one had a grasp of English?
Rather than chase that analogy down farther, mostly because I think it would be the long way in at this, I think I'm getting the idea of the initial analogy and I'd say that in the big picture criticism of zero conditionals is that they're always resting on top of mysteries. Human knowledge is something of a flotilla that holds together by virtue of self-reference and the observable/testable strength of those self-referential links. For example those who'd believe that there's more 'stuff' outside of our universe, aside from how difficult it is to explain 'where' other space-time bubbles would be outside of a really big 4-D space-time matrix is quite difficult and we have very little information on what might be out there past us. Similarly people like Nima Arkani Hamed and many others are taking the idea that space-time isn't fundamental further and Nima's particularly been attempting to describe the primitive mathematical structures below space-time.

It might be fair to say that it's not impossible that this could be turtles all the way up and all the way down.

That said though what's the goal of the examination? If we came to the understanding that the physical laws that we take for granted came from the merger of other things and were somehow less 'pure' in that sense we'd still have no problems with classical mechanics. Similarly if we can assume that for most of the history of the universe the conditions for microwaves to exist, and the existence of microwaves, has been there then the choice of ice cream is incidental as it could just as well be focused microwaves melting frozen methane somewhere.
People aren't fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, we're fundamentally trying to survive. It's the environment and culture which tells us what that's going to be.

Post Reply