Truth (true-ness) versus a statement (an assertion) OF truth

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

No, I think proof does (or can) exist. However, proof must have a proper context, and maybe some other things, if it is to be a genuine proof. A claim to proof should be carefully examined. Many proofs are valid only because they rely on things that we have defined to be true, without demonstration or ... proof. In such cases, we must be aware of what this does to the validity of any proof that depends on these pre-defined 'truths'.

If we define "proof can be seen" or is, per se, as such detectable by a device, then proof DOES exist.
IOW I consider, I deem the symbol "proof" to be categorically ambiguous.

[Terrapin Station]

...just as reality cannot be proven, and probably for the same reasons. Reality just is. Truth likewise, I think. But it's often difficult to agree with everyone what is true, what is opinion (belief), and what is just confused, uncertain or unknown. Hey, that's life!

I disagree and I agree in the same instant.
Proof is yet another abstract object - proof is no-thing FROM/ABOUT some-thing iow proof DOES NOT EXIST.
All that DOEs exist, is the assertion OF proof.

No, I think proof does (or can) exist. However, proof must have a proper context, and maybe some other things, if it is to be a genuine proof. A claim to proof should be carefully examined. Many proofs are valid only because they rely on things that we have defined to be true, without demonstration or ... proof. In such cases, we must be aware of what this does to the validity of any proof that depends on these pre-defined 'truths'.

You don't think it's no-thing FROM/ABOUT?

[Pattern-chaser]

No, I think proof does (or can) exist. However, proof must have a proper context, and maybe some other things, if it is to be a genuine proof. A claim to proof should be carefully examined. Many proofs are valid only because they rely on things that we have defined to be true, without demonstration or ... proof. In such cases, we must be aware of what this does to the validity of any proof that depends on these pre-defined 'truths'.

You don't think it's no-thing FROM/ABOUT?

If I was clear what those words are intended to mean, I might respond....

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

If I was clear what those words are intended to mean, I might respond....

I think that I have intellectually approached / penetrated the symbol "truth".
Any truth is per se no-thing (imaginary) elicited, made up, fabricated, faked FROM/ABOUT some-thing (real)
The assertion of this is in the topic I created.

I am yet to intellectually approach / penetrate the symbol "proof"

[h_k_s]

Plato, Socrates, and Pontius Pilate were all aware that truth is hard to define or to discover let alone to prove.

I am totally subscribed to the saying, that truth is in the eye of the beholder, and so I agree.
Truth can neither be discovered (found, observed) nor be created (invented) by someone and then be discovered by someone else.

I wonder why you put an emphasis on "to prove" via the symbol "let alone"
Isn't all that we can discover (observe), and all that someone created (invented) which again we can discover (observe) a proof of it-self?

Anyways, truth cannot be proven, but I am surprised from/about the assertion that truth be hard to define.

My favorite definition is
"Wahrheit = Wahr-GENOMMEN-heit = Beobachtet-heit" equivalent to
truth = true-ness (Wahr-heit) = true-TAKEN-ness = observed-ness

which is accurately symbolized via "Reference" = "thought" or "awareness" in the Semiotic Triangle,
whereas all that is originally there to be discovered (observed) is called Referent and each and any assertion, created/invented FROM/ABOUT a Referent is called a symbol.

Sire KR Popper symbolizes all that is originally there by "world1" and all that is created/invented by "world3" = "material-IZATION of the human thought" and he symbolized, afaik unknowingly, truth through he's "world2" = "thought"

I assert (define) truth = thought and vice versa, thought = truth =
= subject-ization = abstract object = no-thing elcited, made up, fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing.

The entirety of the assertions above (definitions) is true = useful to me, they are assertions OF truth = OF trueness = OF usefulness.

A conspicuous example is the answer to the question, whether laws are discovered or invented.

Each and every law (of a game, of legislature, of logic, of morality, of physics) is -
per se, iow as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence -
a thought, an abstract object, no-thing, does not exist, cannot either be discovered nor created (invented)

All that was discovered (Referents, world1) is some-thing rather than no-thing, and all that was invented on this occasion (symbol, world3), it is, again some-thing: The law-text = the utteration = assertion = material-IZATION - OF a law, OF a thought that is.

The law (a truth) is imaginary, does not exist - does not cause any-thing that is.
Only the law-text, iow the assertion OF a law (OF a truth) is a causal agency - BUT! towards an object which can in a way or another react-, iow observe if not even obey- submit to the law text.

Now, I have read that some "laws" where defined as merely descriptive and predictive, while other laws were defined as "prescriptive if not even proscriptive".

I assert that only the law-text can be - be DEEMED that is - descriptive, predictive, prescriptive and proscriptive.

I assert that a book with law-texts of physics in it, rather than be DEEMED "merely descriptive and predictive" - can also be, very well, DEEMED pre- and pro-scriptive, namely towards any ingeneer, who will observe and readily submit to- and obey the law text. Bcz only then will the ingeneer create some-thing which can be deemed useful, functional that is. It does not even take the utteration of a threat (punishment such as incarceration) in the law text, in order to have the ingeneer submit to the law text. The ingeneer will otherwise be punished by a non functional invention.

That is a fabulous discussion of the limits of human understanding. Thank you.

Even Federal, state, and local civil and criminal laws are subject to interpretation, and only have effect to the extent that appeals courts reviewing them agree.

And appeals courts as we have seen are all political too. And international law is a farce.

Medical practice is definitely subjective and still evolving. I hope these new Covid immunizations work.

Science in all its forms and incantations is subjective and still evolving.

Religion holy moly is always evolving not to mention becoming more and more corrupt.

Pure human thought through philosophy is the only hope for mankind, but even philosophy can become bastardized as by the Sophists of ancient Athens with their subjectivism. They killed Socrates and they banished Aristotle from Athens so he had to flee forever.

That's not to say that philosophy is not subjective, but it must not become totally subjective.

[evolution]

How do you answer the question, where does space end and when did time start, especially considering it is 'you' who vehemently claims that there is no-thing as space nor time?

Thank you yet again,
for your proclamation (symbolize, assertion, definition) OF your defeat in a discourse you are incapable of intellectually following;

All THAT "there is" is proclaimed (symbolized, asserted, defined) some-thing
In other words your assertion "it is 'you' who vehemently claims that there is no-thing as space nor time" is a lie.

IF you did vehemently claim what I claim you did, then this is NOT a "lie", AT ALL.

However if you did NOT vehemently claim what I claim you did, then PROVE that.

Everybody can verify for themselves that all that I am repeating usque ad nauseam "space and time - each is no-thing".

If, so named, "everybody" can verify this, then what I said would OBVIOUSLY NOT be a "lie".

Secondly I am waiting for your answer to my question.
Look, I have already addressed this question times and again, whether you believe me or not...
The answers (some-thing) of mine (of some-body) are THERE... just not HERE, that is.
composed in German language and in English language.

Kindest cigars and very best dishes are coming to you - you know, from THERE, for instance from GERMANY

WHAT QUESTION? There is OBVIOUSLY NONE HERE, in this post.

By the way what you wrote here makes NO sense, AT ALL, to me.

[evolution]

LMAO I almost forgot about THIS!!!

Do you REALLY NOT RECOGNIZE and SEE the ABSURD CONTRADICTION here?
But, HOW and WHY this is OBVIOUSLY the case, is because YOUR questions here have ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, properly AND correctly, FIRST.

identity, distinction, and contradiction each is -
per se - id est: As such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
a truth iow is imaginary: Is "in the eye of the beholder"

And, according to your OWN, so called, "logic" what you wrote here was in relation to is ALSO 'imaginary', and thus NOT the truth AT ALL.

Therefore, what you wrote is just NOT true.

the beholder beholds some-thing
either a detectable object (Referent)
or a detectable assertion (Symbol) of a truth (Reference) - FROM/ABOUT a Referent

When did time start?
Where does space end?
As suggested I know the answer, in other words I know an assertion that I deem veeeery true = useful,
satifyingly explaining, dear friend.

And I have asked you, a couple of times now, for your answer.

So, WHY will you NOT provide the answers to these questions, which you have posed?

What is 'it' you are hiding or are afraid of here, EXACTLY?

[evolution]

Welcome to trying to start to understand "han-werner hammen".

Right. Although so far I see it as giving folks a taste of their own medicine, lol

EVERY one of us has trouble FULLY understanding each other, and, also being FULLY understood ourselves, correct?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Religion holy moly is always evolving not to mention becoming more and more corrupt.

Thank you for your input!
IF we deem the assertion "Religion evolves" = "Religion changes over generations and generations" to be TRUE,
Then Religion is per se, as such, some-thing.
All that is no-thing merely made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing, it cannot change let alone evolve for the simple reason that it does not exist in the very first place.

References are - per se, as such - immutable!

I define "any Religion is essentially composed of assertions, which assertion I deem to be religious"
and i define "religious assertion" as asserting that a Reference = no-thing (see above), it can act.
Did you know that "action" symbolizes "change"?
Even if you are merely watching an object, the object being observed as well as the observer are continually changing, SURE IS this change is generally veeeery little.

Any religious assertion is not necessarily a theistic-, iow not a theistically-religious assertion.
One example of a common, non-theistic yet religious assertion is
"brethen and sisteren, come and behold, verily I say unto THEE:
4 forces are ACTING upon matter"

Now, why can this assertion be deemed "religious"?!
Beware: The question is - obviously - NOT for my creationist evolution friend.

[thrasymachus]

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote
All that is no-thing merely made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing,

Then it is the something that lies at the heart of the true nature of religion, and not that which imputed to it in all the various assertions and narratives. So, what IS this "something" that religion is really all about?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote
All that is no-thing merely made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing,

Then it is the something that lies at the heart of the true nature of religion, and not that which imputed to it in all the various assertions and narratives. So, what IS this "something" that religion is really all about?

At the heart of a religious assertion (that no-thing be somehow some-thing) IS the universe as such.
For an example all that the gaseous matter (atmosphere) is acting such as thunder and thunderbolt lightning.
For another extremely conspicuous example all that the sun and the other celestial bodies are doing, and you might consider researching the "astro-THEO-logical origin" of MonoTheism.

[thrasymachus]

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote
At the heart of a religious assertion (that no-thing be somehow some-thing) IS the universe as such.
For an example all that the gaseous matter (atmosphere) is acting such as thunder and thunderbolt lightning.
For another extremely conspicuous example all that the sun and the other celestial bodies are doing, and you might consider researching the "astro-THEO-logical origin" of MonoTheism.

But the universe as such is not the sun and other celestial bodies, for these are just designations provided by history's story telling. Go a bit further: the "as such" of something. What is this about?

[h_k_s]

Religion holy moly is always evolving not to mention becoming more and more corrupt.

Thank you for your input!
IF we deem the assertion "Religion evolves" = "Religion changes over generations and generations" to be TRUE,
Then Religion is per se, as such, some-thing.
All that is no-thing merely made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing, it cannot change let alone evolve for the simple reason that it does not exist in the very first place.

References are - per se, as such - immutable!

I define "any Religion is essentially composed of assertions, which assertion I deem to be religious"
and i define "religious assertion" as asserting that a Reference = no-thing (see above), it can act.
Did you know that "action" symbolizes "change"?
Even if you are merely watching an object, the object being observed as well as the observer are continually changing, SURE IS this change is generally veeeery little.

Any religious assertion is not necessarily a theistic-, iow not a theistically-religious assertion.
One example of a common, non-theistic yet religious assertion is
"brethen and sisteren, come and behold, verily I say unto THEE:
4 forces are ACTING upon matter"

Now, why can this assertion be deemed "religious"?!
Beware: The question is - obviously - NOT for my creationist evolution friend.

Ok then, to continue this dialogue in terms of word definitions, I will need to provide a legitimate word definition, before we proceed any further:

(Beginning of quote.)

re·​li·​gion | \ ri-ˈli-jən \

Definition of religion

1a: the state of a religious person:
a nun in her 20th year of religion

b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

(End of quote.)

Ergo I had #2 supra in mind when I used the term. As such the word denotes something that is indeed intangible, although since residing intangibly within the minds of its adherents, it does denote "something." Being intangible does not mean there is no such thing. It just means it is a "thing" which happens to be intangible.

This is a side issue. Not sure why you have taken us down this tangential path @Hans-Werner Hammen .

My point was that this intangible thing evolves with the passage of time. This set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices by Pope and plebe develop and change with the passage of years, having begun in the case of Hinduism sometime before the first millennium BCE, in the cases of Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, and Buddhism sometime before the 7th Century BCE, in the case of Judaism sometime before the 12th Century BCE, in the case of Christianity sometime during the 1st Century CE (aka AD), and in the case of Islam sometime during the 7th Century CE.

Historians and students of history have noted its many changes specifically within these enumerated examples.

Q.E.D.

[h_k_s]

evolution, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

[h_k_s]

People usually end up on my ignore list due to verbosity. Verbosity is a Sophist fallacy.

People who get put on my ignore list rarely come off it again. It's very rare.