Do We Create Our Own Truths?

Dee

@MineSubCraftStarved

What if I say there are both two and three apples in the image above?

The honest assessment then is that you're insane or an imbecile

And on two separate occasions, I count 2 and 3 apples.

Well you've then lost touch with reality 

 Let's then go further to say that this would align with my logic

That then is not 'logic' but the denial of logic 

 that math is simply a set of approximations for a given value, rather than a definite unchanging result, so there would be 50% chance that I would count 2 apples, and a 25% chance I count 3.
If my logic leads me to fundamentally different conclusions, why does your logic, rationally speaking, have to be more valid than mine, besides a simple belief that it just is?

Well let's take 3 fingers instead of apples , if I asked you to count your 3 fingers and you counted only two then you would have no problem with me cutting of the finger you think is suddenly non existent and handing it to you , right?

I also asked you to give me a real world examples demonstrating this logical system you speak of and how it can be 'logical ' if it yields different results each time? You didn't supply an answer to my request give me real world examples please?

You don't create your own truths you create your own beliefs regarding truth claims this distinction you fail to see, reality is in contrast to fictional , illusory views of the world , truths are collective concepts having individual versions is insanity 

As I said in my opening statement you're referencing Humes problem of induction and repeating it time and time again , I get it regards absolute certainties so all that remains is your claim regards creating your own truths the flaws of which I pointed out one or two 

John_C_87

@MineSubCraftStarved
What if I say there are both two and three apples in the image above? And on two separate occasions, I count 2 and 3 apples. Let's then go further to say that this would align with my logic that math is simply a set of approximations for a given value, rather than a definite unchanging result, so there would be 50% chance that I would count 2 apples, and a 25% chance I count 3.

There are two apples visible and one apple that is small and obscured from view by the other apples. The self-evident truth that might be held true is an apple can obscure the view of other apples when photographed.

MayCaesar

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@MayCaesar

Because that is what logic is

Logic is defined as simply a mode of thinking regarding reasoning, argumentations, and conclusions, logic can be defined as anything and is really just a way of thinking abstractly about the world. If I say that in my form of logic, a value can be both true and false at the same time, who are you to say I am wrong?
Logic is not necessarily based on the belief that a statement can be true or false. Take for instance gravity, gravity is derived first and foremost from the observable attraction of objects to one another. Although the effect of gravity has been measured with a great deal of accuracy up to this moment, why does that mean that if I drop an apple, it will fall?
It would be typically said, that if an event happened plenty of times before, why would it happen again? Why does an event happening consistently for an extended period of time mean that it will continue to happen? Sure, the chance of the apple falling is probably low, but it is never zero. Unless it has been tested an infinite amount of times, and it has been observed that the apple has never dropped!

Whatever mode of thinking you employ, a particular statement is either correct or incorrect. By definition, "incorrect" is the opposite of "correct", and if you have a statement that is both or neither, then your statement is incoherent. If in your form of logic "true" and "false" are not mutually exclusive, then your form of logic is not describable in human language, so we have nothing to talk about here.

If you drop an apple, then either it will fall or it will not; no other options exist. You can drop an apple and see what happens, and then you will be able to say, "The apple fell", or "The apple did not fall". You cannot say "The apple fell and did not fall", or "The apple neither fell nor did not fall", in a meaningful way.

For your latter question, in natural science we build models, not prove theorems: physics is not mathematics. In physics certain assumptions are inevitable if we want to build any model whatsoever, and one of the core assumptions is that the Universe features certain laws that are discoverable. By observing patterns, reproducing them and failing to deny them we find approximations to those laws, and the more experiments we perform, the more certain we become that those approximations are very close to the actual laws.
If you have a better idea than this, feel free to propose it. I have never heard of one, but I am open to suggestions. Simply saying that lack of 100% certainty means that anything goes is lazy thinking. There is a difference between having 0 certainty, and having a lot of certainty, just not 100% - and you know it well from your own experience, when, getting into a bus or a car, you do not every time consider the possibility that the bus or the car will suddenly turn into a T-rex and eat you alive.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

The logic that contradiction invalidates a statement is ultimately based on the belief that a statement must be either true or false, which is itself not based on anything, and thus fundamentally arbitrary.

It is based on the very definitions of these terms, and it is not arbitrary at all.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

But what makes the requirement that each statement be true or false not an axiom? After all, it is a 'self-evident truth', has no reasoning to support it, and serves as a premise. Since it has no support, premise, or reasoning, it is ultimately a form of belief, thus arbitrary. So therefore, since it is an arbitrary belief, I can choose any system of logic to be more correct than the one we currently have.

Since there are multiple systems of logic, what makes one system of logic more right than another? What makes our system of logic the correct one?

It is not an axiom, but a consequence of definitions of these terms, as I have already explained. You are free to use other terms instead, but you keep using these ones, so please learn about their definitions if you do not want to keep making objectively wrong statements.

I am not sure what  you mean by "more right". Logic is logic, and within it a statement is either true or false. Different systems of logic may lead to different statements, but they cannot lead to different interpretations of terms "true" and "false".

MineSubCraftStarved said:

Ultimately, the differentiation is unnecessary as 1 + 1 = 2 can also be broken down into definitions. This is because you can define 1 as half of two(1 = 2*1/2), and when one number is added to another number of the same value(1 + 1), the value of the number is multiplied by two(1 * 2). And since 1/2 multiplied by 2 is 1 ((1/2*2) * 2), you get the result of two ((1/2*2) * 2 = 2).

These are all definitions and premises on which you may base an argument. Similar to how the belief in god may also serve as a definition when defining god as the start of the universe.

That is the problem though: you do not seem to follow those definitions. By 1, 2 and + I mean the same things as any mathematician does, while you seem to treat these as random symbols you can assign any meaning to.

Human communication does not work this way, my friend: if we are to communicate effectively, we have to be sure that we mean the same things by the same words. If you want to come up with your own language and speak it, then be my guest, but do not be surprised when other people do not understand what you are trying to say.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

By definition, if it is unable to be falsified or proved then it is an axiom or a self-evident truth. Since it is an axiom, it is founded on belief. And since it is founded on belief, it is arbitrary as it has no rational basis.

It does not need to be falsified or proved when it is baked into the system. It is like asking, "How do I know that I am alive?" Well, the very fact that you are able to ask this question is a testament to the fact that you are alive. Proof of your aliveness is not needed if it has already been explicitly demonstrated.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

The reliability of observation from which you may determine whether or not a testable premise is true or not(such as an apple being added to another apple, akin to 1 + 1 = 2) is ultimately based on the subjective perception of the user. Does a person suffering from schizophrenia have as valid and verifiable observations(that can be testable) regarding their observations of the world around them? Indeed, what gives credence to the validity of any observation? After all, what may be one thing to you, might be something else to another person. So how can observation be objectively determined?

The fact that one's perceptions are not perfectly representative of reality does not at all imply that it is impossible to make accurate observations of reality. When you wear glasses, your perception of depth is distorted - yet your brain can correct for that, and you still can pretty accurately estimate distances, shapes of objects, et cetera. Every human, and every imaginable intelligent being at that, perceives the world through a system of filters, and nothing prevents him from studying those filters and correcting for the biases introduced by them.

As for how it can be objectively determined - life has a funny way of punishing people for being wrong. If you disagree that jumping off a cliff is hazardous to your health and decide to act on that disagreement, the Universe will slap you in the face and you will pay for your refusal to correct for the "bugs" in your understanding of the world. People who ignore the reality and live in their own imaginable world do not last long in this world, and history is full of examples of all kinds of ivory tower philosophers who made elementary blunders and died in hilarious ways because they thought that the weird constructs they built in their minds trumped the reality.