Bubb, you can keep writing true = true, false = false and unknown = unknown for as long as you like, it's not really an argument given that also fish = fish.
flim flam, the law of identity is one of the foundations of western philosophy.
Yes these are three possible truth values in a trivalent logic system.
yes, thank you
However this appears to bear no relationship to how use them and, as many people have pointed out before, trivalent logic is not original.
who cares if it's not original? Did I ever claim I invented it? no. I simply am the founding developer of a system of online dialectic that uses a three value logic.
And we 'use' them naturally at a metalogical level.
As far as I can work out what you're thinking at all, the confusion seems to arise (yet again) from your bafflingly inconsistent and non-standard use of language.
Please stop confusing my definitions as you own misunderstanding.
Firstly the word "objectively". My best guess so far is that OS012 is a metalogical system that doesn't even try to ascribe truth values to statements but instead serves only to classify statements into three groups:
OS 012 is a metalogical system that presribes three truth values to IDEAS. IDeas get crunched and parsed into statements.
i) What you bizarrely call "objectively true", actually contains all objective statements to which we are currently capable of ascribing a truth value i.e., objective true statements "flimflam is a man", and objective false statements "George W. Bush is made of meringue"
An objective and true idea contains information that is mutually observable to be true to it's value relative to 0, 1, and 2.
ii) What you yet more bizarrely call "objectively false" actually contains statements that are *not objective* including subjective statements e.g., "Betty is foxier than Wilma"
Subjective ideas contain information that is soley resting on individual experience or expression, i.e. relating information to a unique experience held in the mind of a person.
iii) What you most bizarrely of all call "objectively mysterious" actually contains objective statements whose truth value is not yet know (but that still have a truth value) e.g., "tomorrow bubblefish will explode", and other unusual potentially unresolvable (paradoxical, metalinguistic) statements such as "this sentence is false"
Mysterious ideas are percieved and experienced as 'both true and fasle at once', meaning, when we percieve them, we cannot discern their truth or falsity for any certain value.
These are not "truth value" they are perhaps "levels of confirmability" or "levels of reference".
Is that reasonably close?
well, it's as close as saying 'the earth circles the sun' when describing the elliptical orbit in newtonian physics. see jimbob's arguments.
OS 012 distinguishes three limits to truth values in our perception of reality, i.e we percieve reality through our ideas. This is a logical assignment, not a hueristic. It is actual, mathematical, and reasonable.
Secondly the words "true" and "false" seem to mean something different to you than to everyone else.
true and false mean different things to EVERYBODY, that's the problem, we all have very private and relative understandings of those words.
To the best of my knowledge pretty much everyone uses them to refer to statements and uses them, basically, to mean "correct" and "incorrect".
exactly, and that is the cause of most confusion in discussion and conflict
"flimflam is a man" is true, "flimflam is a woman" is false.
says YOU! I want proof, send me a nudey;-)
You appear to tack them onto an adjective and use them to mean "having the property of" and "not having the property of". So "objectively true" for you actually seems to mean "objective" and "objectively false" seems to mean "not objective".
Your muddling things in your mind again.
Edit: here's a lovely example "Objectivly false statements are not objective statements, they are false objective statements"
If i say "The earth is ruled by repetians", is that not objectivly FALSE? Yet, would you honestly say that is an 'objective' statement?
Objective is a truth value, it relates to TRUTH. It only relates to false and mystery when the objective truth is that a statement is either FALSE or MYSTERIOUS.
You're confusing form with content.
I'd join my voice to Arkan's in beseeching to use language that is (i) standard, (ii) consistent and, (iii) within your linguistic capacity.
My usages of objective, subjective, and unknown are entirely consistant with logic and the dictionary. Your confused because I am applying, rigourously and conservativly, those values to higher order truths of meta reality, and you're muddling them in your mind when i do that.
BF
