Quote:

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/139020/7

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

The only correct answer is "yes". The above is a tautology. Logically, tautologies are always true no matter what, therefore they are absolute truths. His answer, however, was that it is a relative truth. I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right, and it was based on logic and reason, NOT simply "because I said so".

BusyTarpDuster2017

---

You cannot prove that a scenario in your imagination does or does not contain "x" or if it does that you cannot choose to remove "x" at any moment.

Therefore it is not Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truth%20is%20a%20statement,fact%20that%20cannot%20be%20changed.
"Absolute truth is a statement that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed."

You are not stating a tautology (It will rain or it won't rain). You are imagining a scenario that can be changed at any moment, including whether or not the scenario exists. It is not Absolute.

P.S. - I did not say "relative" truth, I said "agreed upon" truth.

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/139020/7

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

The only correct answer is "yes". The above is a tautology. Logically, tautologies are always true no matter what, therefore they are absolute truths. His answer, however, was that it is a relative truth. I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right, and it was based on logic and reason, NOT simply "because I said so".

BusyTarpDuster2017

---

You cannot prove that a scenario in your imagination does or does not contain "x" or if it does that you cannot choose to remove "x" at any moment.

Therefore it is not Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truth%20is%20a%20statement,fact%20that%20cannot%20be%20changed.
"Absolute truth is a statement that is true at all times and in all places. It is something that is always true no matter what the circumstances. It is a fact that cannot be changed."

You are not stating a tautology (It will rain or it won't rain). You are imagining a scenario that can be changed at any moment, including whether or not the scenario exists. It is not Absolute.

P.S. - I did not say "relative" truth, I said "agreed upon" truth.

---

You don't even realize that your definition is showing that it is indeed absolutely true. Because at all times and all places, in all circumstances, if a scenario contains "x", then that scenario contains "x". That statement is always true, and that fact cannot be changed.

Give me a time, circumstance, or situation where if you have a scenario that contains "x", then that scenario DOESN'T contain "x".

What you are trying to do, is say that this statement - "if x=1, then x+1=2" - is not absolutely true, but an "agreed upon truth" because we have to agree on the value of "x". No, we don't have to agree on the value of "x", because x is already defined in that equation. There is no agreement needed that x equals one in that equation, it IS whether you think so or want it to be or not. If you change the value of x, you are now changing the entire syllogism. But the question is pertaining to that specific syllogism, not one you can change it into.

To put it in another way, let me ask you this: in the story of Little Red Riding Hood, is it absolutely true that the story contains a big bad wolf? The answer is yes. There is no time, place, or circumstance where that the story doesn't contain a big bad wolf. It is a fact that is always true, and can not be changed. What you are trying to say, is that since that story itself can be changed, it is rather an "agreed upon" truth. But the question isn't whether the STORY ITSELF is absolute truth, we are asking whether or not in that story there is a big bad wolf. If you change the story, then it is no longer the same story. This is how you're gettng mixed up.

Let me add: If you continue to argue this, you're just going to make yourself look really dumb. I really advise that you somehow delete this thread.

Quote:

---

You don't even realize that your definition is showing that it is indeed absolutely true. Because at all times and all places, in all circumstances, if a scenario contains "x", then that scenario contains "x". That statement is always true, and that fact cannot be changed.

---

Your "If a hypothetical scenario…" question is a conditional question about an imaginary scenario. I'm under no obligation to accept the conditions of the question or the imaginary scenario and you are not obligated to not change them at any moment.

Whether or not a hypothetical scenario contains "x" is dependent upon both your imagination and my willingness to accept it. If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.

Quote:

---

Give me a time, circumstance, or situation where if you have a scenario that contains "x", then that scenario DOESN'T contain "x".

---

I imagined a warehouse contains boxes inside. Then I imagined the warehouse doesn't contain boxes inside.

I can change the imaginary scenario whenever I wish. I can imagine the boxes are on a multidimensional plane of existence where they are both present and not present at the same time in the warehouse. You can deny the warehouse exists at all because it is a figment of my imagination.

The presence of boxes in my imaginary warehouse is not Absolute. It is dependent upon my imagination.

Quote:

---

What you are trying to do, is say that this statement - "if x=1, then x+1=2" - is not absolutely true, but an "agreed upon truth" because we have to agree on the value of "x". No, we don't have to agree on the value of "x", because x is already defined in that equation. There is no agreement needed that x equals one in that equation, it IS whether you think so or want it to be or not. If you change the value of x, you are now changing the entire syllogism. But the question is pertaining to that specific syllogism, not one you can change it into.

---

I'm not making any statement regarding the potential value of a hypothetical "x". I'm not stating that "x" necessarily exists at all in any imaginary scenario.

Quote:

---

To put it in another way, let me ask you this: in the story of Little Red Riding Hood, is it absolutely true that the story contains a big bad wolf? The answer is yes. There is no time, place, or circumstance where that the story doesn't contain a big bad wolf. It is a fact that is always true, and can not be changed. What you are trying to say, is that since that story itself can be changed, it is rather an "agreed upon" truth. But the question isn't whether the STORY ITSELF is absolute truth, we are asking whether or not in that story there is a big bad wolf. If you change the story, then it is no longer the same story. This is how you're gettng mixed up.

---

It is empirical truth that Little Red Riding Hood contains the Big Bad Wolf. Empirical Truth is based on what we can observe, experiment, etc. However, note in the definition it is also considered "contingent truth".

1) That isn't the same as your original question. You asked a conditional question about an imaginary scenario, not an empirical question such as this.

2) Empirical Truth is not Absolute Truth. In some other alternate dimension, the story of Little Red Riding Hood might contain a Big Bad Bear.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to emperical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

My God, you truly are stupid. Either that, or stupidly stubborn.

- the existence of a scenario doesn't need your acceptance in order to exist.

- if you change the scenario, you are now referring to a different scenario. It still remains that in the original scenario, if it contained "x", then it contained "x". Nothing will ever change that fact.

- if you imagine a scenario where warehouse boxes are there, then not there, or they both exist and not exist at the same time..... then the absolute truth would be that in your scenario, warehouse boxes are there, then not there, or they both exist and not exist at the same time. Understand??

The problem with your thinking is that you are trying to show that the "if" part of the scenario isn't absolute truth. The question is if the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if"). It is the same thing as mathematically stating: if x=1 in the equation x+1, then it is absolutely true that x+1=2. You can't argue that it isn't absolutely true, because you can make x a different value. But it doesn't matter at all what you change it into, the absolute fact remains that IF x=1, then x+1=2. You changing the value of "x" doesn't change the truth of that statement ONE BIT.

It is very disheartening that I even have to explain all this to you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The problem with your thinking is that you are trying to show that the "if" part of the scenario isn't absolute truth. The question is if the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if").

---

The question is whether the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if").

Oh, the stupidity!!!

Quote:

---

- the existence of a scenario doesn't need your acceptance in order to exist.

---

"If a hypothetical scenario..."

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

I don't have to agree the scenario exists, or what it contains.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

- if you change the scenario, you are now referring to a different scenario. It still remains that in the original scenario, if it contained "x", then it contained "x". Nothing will ever change that fact.

---

What matters is that I CAN change the scenario.

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

- if you imagine a scenario where warehouse boxes are there, then not there, or they both exist and not exist at the same time..... then the absolute truth would be that in your scenario, warehouse boxes are there, then not there, or they both exist and not exist at the same time. Understand??

---

"...is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

The boxes may or not be there. There is no Absolute

Quote:

---

The problem with your thinking is that you are trying to show that the "if" part of the scenario isn't absolute truth. The question is if the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if"). It is the same thing as mathematically stating: if x=1 in the equation x+1, then it is absolutely true that x+1=2. You can't argue that it isn't absolutely true, because you can make x a different value. But it doesn't matter at all what you change it into, the absolute fact remains that IF x=1, then x+1=2. You changing the value of "x" doesn't change the truth of that statement ONE BIT.

---

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

- again, the existence of a scenario is not dependent on your acceptance that it exists.

- the only condition is the premise. The point is not that the premise is absolute truth. The point is that given the truth of the premise, the conclusion is absolutely true. You are having way too much difficulty with this.

- no matter how you change the scenario, the fact remains, and always will remain, that in the original scenario the conclusion is absolutely true.

- again, the "condition" is only in the premise. The argument is NOT that the premise is absolutely true. What you are arguing, is that in this math syllogism (if x=1 in the equation x+1, then x+1=2) the premise that x=1 is not absolute truth. Rather, the question is that if the premise is true, then is it absolutely true that x+1=2. The answer is yes, in all circumstances and conditions, and all worlds.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The problem with your thinking is that you are trying to show that the "if" part of the scenario isn't absolute truth. The question is if the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if").

---

The question is whether the "then" part is absolute truth given the truth of the premise (the "if").

Oh, the stupidity!!!

---

What is your answer to my question?

Quote:

---

- again, the existence of a scenario is not dependent on your acceptance that it exists.

---

"If a hypothetical scenario..."

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

I don't have to agree the scenario exists, or what it contains.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

- the only condition is the premise. The point is not that the premise is absolute truth. The point is that given the truth of the premise, the conclusion is absolutely true. You are having way too much difficulty with this.

---

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.

It is not a given ("If a hypothetical scenario..."). I have to agree to it. Not Absolute.

Quote:

---

no matter how you change the scenario, the fact remains, and always will remain, that in the original scenario the conclusion is absolutely true.

---

If it can change, it is not Absolute.

The "original scenario": "If a hypothetical scenario..."

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

Hypothetical: imagined for purposes of example.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

again, the "condition" is only in the premise. The argument is NOT that the premise is absolutely true. What you are arguing, is that in this math syllogism (if x=1 in the equation x+1, then x+1=2) the premise that x=1 is not absolute truth. Rather, the question is that if the premise is true, then is it absolutely true that x+1=2. The answer is yes, in all circumstances and conditions, and all worlds.

---

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

I did not make any statement regarding the potential value of a hypothetical "x". I did not state that "x" necessarily exists at all in any imaginary scenario.

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

2) Empirical Truth is not Absolute Truth. In some other alternate dimension, the story of Little Red Riding Hood might contain a Big Bad Bear.

[url=https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.][/url]https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to emperical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

- again, the existence of a scenario is not dependent on your acceptance that it exists.

---

"If a hypothetical scenario..."

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

I don't have to agree the scenario exists, or what it contains.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

- the only condition is the premise. The point is not that the premise is absolute truth. The point is that given the truth of the premise, the conclusion is absolutely true. You are having way too much difficulty with this.

---

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute.

It is not a given ("If a hypothetical scenario..."). I have to agree to it. Not Absolute.

Quote:

---

no matter how you change the scenario, the fact remains, and always will remain, that in the original scenario the conclusion is absolutely true.

---

If it can change, it is not Absolute.

The "original scenario": "If a hypothetical scenario..."

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

Hypothetical: imagined for purposes of example.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

Quote:

---

again, the "condition" is only in the premise. The argument is NOT that the premise is absolutely true. What you are arguing, is that in this math syllogism (if x=1 in the equation x+1, then x+1=2) the premise that x=1 is not absolute truth. Rather, the question is that if the premise is true, then is it absolutely true that x+1=2. The answer is yes, in all circumstances and conditions, and all worlds.

---

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

I did not make any statement regarding the potential value of a hypothetical "x". I did not state that "x" necessarily exists at all in any imaginary scenario.

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

If there are conditions, there is no Absolute

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

JXL said:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

That wasn't his original statement to which he commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that his imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

90sBear said:

---

JXL said:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

That wasn't his original statement to which he commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that his imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

---

It is exactly the same statement logically.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

JXL said:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

That wasn't his original statement to which he commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that his imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

---

It is exactly the same statement logically.

---

That wasn't your original statement to which you commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Ahh, there it is. Of course you refuse to answer the question. You're not interested in the truth, but only in being right.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Ahh, there it is. Of course you refuse to answer the question. You're not interested in the truth, but only in being right.

---

"I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

JXL said:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

That wasn't his original statement to which he commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that his imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

---

It is exactly the same statement logically.

---

That wasn't your original statement to which you commented: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario contains "x".

If: (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.

---

You don't have to accept it. But that doesn't mean that my scenario doesn't contain "x". Your acceptance of it or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Something doesn't come into existence only when you agree to accept that it does.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Ahh, there it is. Of course you refuse to answer the question. You're not interested in the truth, but only in being right.

---

"I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

I'm doing that right now.

Your being afraid to answer my question shows it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Ahh, there it is. Of course you refuse to answer the question. You're not interested in the truth, but only in being right.

---

"I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

I'm doing that right now.

Your being afraid to answer my question shows it.

---

And we have come to the point of the conversation where BTD is right, because he says so.

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Employing logical nonsense in order to prove something logically is a new one. If in another dimension the story has a bear, then it isn't the same story being referred to.

---

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth#:~:text=Absolute%20truths%20are%20different%20to,to%20lack%20of%20sufficient%20evidence.

"Absolute truths are different to empirical truths. All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Quote:

---

I can rephrase this point to match it even more closely to my original question:

if in the Little Red Riding Story where in it there's a Big Bad Wolf, is it absolutely true that in the story there is a Big Bad Wolf?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

Quote:

---

Let me dumb this down for you even more. I'm going to write a sentence. Here goes:

"The cow is eating grass."

Question: in that sentence I wrote, is it absolutely true that it contains the word "cow"?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Just humor me, and I'll lead you through the reasoning. What is your answer?

---

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Answer, and I'll explain how it is.

---

Just like I don't have to accept that your imaginary scenario exists and/or what it may or may not contain, I don't have to answer your question.

That is not your original question to which you made this comment: "I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

Ahh, there it is. Of course you refuse to answer the question. You're not interested in the truth, but only in being right.

---

"I'm demonstrating how he was clearly wrong, and I was clearly right"

---

I'm doing that right now.

Your being afraid to answer my question shows it.

---

And we have come to the point of the conversation where BTD is right, because he says so.

---

No, we have come to the point where 90's Bear made an absolute fool of himself. My advice is to delete this entire thread if you can.

Quote:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

Thought I would re-reply to this for clarification.

I am well aware of the point he was trying to make in the first conversation which centered around Absolute Truth and I am aware of tautologies.

1.0 = 1.0
It will rain or it won't rain

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

is not a tautology. The question has conditions and relies on imagination. In a philosophical logic discussion, there is nothing Absolute that is conditional and/or relies upon imagination.

I previously tried to show him this but he refused to listen despite not being able to provide any resources to support his argument as I did.

So I eventually left the thread because it got boring and told him he was right, because he said so.

90sBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Change it up just a little and you'll see his point. Don't say "if a scenario contains x …" Say "if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

---

Thought I would re-reply to this for clarification.

I am well aware of the point he was trying to make in the first conversation which centered around Absolute Truth and I am aware of tautologies.

1.0 = 1.0
It will rain or it won't rain

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"

---

is not a tautology. The question has conditions and relies on imagination. In a philosophical logic discussion, there is nothing Absolute that is conditional and/or relies upon imagination.

I previously tried to show him this but he refused to listen despite not being able to provide any resources to support his argument as I did.

So I eventually left the thread because it got boring and told him he was right, because he said so.

---

You left on a low note, so now you want to go even lower?

You don't need "resources" to show that for any scenario that contains "x", it is absolutely true that the scenario contains "x". This should be a self-evident truth to anyone who is smarter than a moron. It is shocking that you just can't see this, or won't admit to it.

It is also a tautology, and thus an absolute truth. If you really want resources to support this, then why don't you go with the ones you had already provided in this thread? In your citation of "empirical truth", if you continue reading it states (the bolded part):

"All the findings of science are empirical: based on evidence, and even if they are true in this world they don't need to be so in all the other possible worlds; they might also be wrong or incomplete due to lack of sufficient evidence. On the other hand, absolute truths might be based on logical truths, which are true by definition of their axioms."

So if absolute truths are based on logical truths, then what is a logical truth? Well, let's go to the wiki page for "logical truths":

"Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth#cite_note-1][1][/url] Broadly speaking, a logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. In other words, a logical truth is a statement which is not only true, but one which is true under all interpretations of its logical components (other than its logical constants). Thus, logical truths such as "if p, then p" can be considered tautologies"

Did you get that? "If p, then p" is a tautology. That is precisely the construction of my original question: "if a scenario contains x, then that scenario contains x".

"If p, then p" doesn't stop becoming a tautology because you don't accept "p" or because you have to "imagine" p. This "imagination" argument is about as ridiculous as I've ever heard.

But you didn't say "If p, then p" did you? You asked a conditional question and attached a variable condition ("hypothetical").

If you would have asked "Is the statement 'if p then p' absolutely true?" then I would have said yes.

That would be the equivalent of asking "Does 1.0 = 1.0?"

But you didn't ask that question.

90sBear said:

---

But you didn't say "If p, then p" did you? You asked a conditional question and attached a variable condition ("hypothetical").

If you would have asked "Is the statement 'if p then p' absolutely true?" then I would have said yes.

That would be the equivalent of asking "Does 1.0 = 1.0?"

But you didn't ask that question.

---

Omg, wow. Just, wow.

If p, then p.
Let p="a hypothetical scenario contains 'x'"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

But you didn't say "If p, then p" did you? You asked a conditional question and attached a variable condition ("hypothetical").

If you would have asked "Is the statement 'if p then p' absolutely true?" then I would have said yes.

That would be the equivalent of asking "Does 1.0 = 1.0?"

But you didn't ask that question.

---

Omg, wow. Just, wow.

If p, then p.
Let p="a hypothetical scenario contains 'x'"

---

For you, it can be absolutely true that p = "a hypothetical scenario containing 'x'". JXL even pointed out how changing your original question just a little bit created this exact situation. You are in complete control over what your personal hypothetical scenarios contain. Therefore if p, then p.

"What is true for me is true for me" and "What is true for you is true for you" are both tautologies. I could be wrong, but somehow I don't think that's exactly what you were going for given where this conversation started in the previous thread.

Things change when you ask someone else to engage in a conversation with you containing a hypothetical scenario.

William: "Let's say I transition from being a man to a woman and then..."
Riley: "I don't accept that it is possible to transition from being a man to a woman."
William: "But that's the scenario."
Riley: "But I don't have to agree that is possible and it affects other things in your scenario."

In order to have the conversation about whatever else happened in William's hypothetical scenario, William and Riley would need to have a consensus (agree) that it is possible to transition from being a man to a woman. Riley does not accept that is true. Everything potentially discussed between William and Riley about the hypothetical scenario is not Absolute Truth because it is dependent upon Riley choosing to be in consensus with William's truth at the starting point of the conversation.

William's p = William hypothetically transitions to a woman and then other stuff happens. This is William's truth.
Riley's p = William hypothetically takes a few hormones and grows his hair out but still has male parts and XY chromosomes and then other stuff happens. This is Riley's truth.

William's p does not = Riley's p (in more ways than one)

So if your whole point in all of this was to argue that, "What is true for me is true for me", OK. I agree with you that is a tautology.

But your question doesn't specify if the hypothetical scenario is an individual's imagination or if it is a conversation about a hypothetical scenario between multiple people where it is dependent upon consensus among everyone what variables the scenario contains before they can proceed with the conversation.

Therefore I said that the answer to your original question is not Absolute Truth.

JXL did not change it into the form "if p, then p". My question was EXACTLY constructed in that form.

What you are arguing above really is irrelevant. My point has been proven logically. The debate is over, I was right and you were wrong. If you can't see that by now, then please go see somebody.

At least you admit I was right about it being a tautology (and you were wrong that it wasn't).... you see it's not just because "I said so", right?

Quote:

---

"if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL

---

What's true for BTD is true for BTD.

Quote:

---

"if a hypothetical scenario contains "x", then is it absolute truth that the hypothetical scenario contains 'x'?"
BTD

---

His statement and your question are not the same things.

Is this a scenario just for yourself to contemplate on your own or are you asking someone to engage with you in conversation about it?

This conversation stemmed from the previous thread where you stated, "If you weigh 150 lbs on earth at this specific moment in time, then you're saying that it isn't absolute truth that you weigh 150 lbs at this specific moment of time." To which I responded that, "you could be on the moon and weigh 6 times less" and you got upset because that wasn't part of your hypothetical scenario.

In a hypothetical scenario you create and discuss with someone else, what is absolutely true for you isn't necessarily absolutely true for me. I don't have to live in your imaginary world under your rules.

Quote:

---

What you are arguing above really is irrelevant.

---

What the above shows is that when discussing a hypothetical scenario with someone else, the variables are only absolutely true for the person presenting the scenario.

Quote:

---

At least you admit I was right about it being a tautology (and you were wrong that it wasn't).... you see it's not just because "I said so", right?

---

IF (and that's a mighty big if) your intention all this time was to say that things you present in a hypothetical scenario are absolutely true for you (and only you), you should have been more clear. What's true for you is true for you, not necessarily for anyone else.

As I said before though, somehow I don't think that's the big hit you were looking for.

Quote:

---

My point has been proven logically. The debate is over, I was right and you were wrong. If you can't see that by now, then please go see somebody.

---

I'm right, because I said so. In hindsight, I should have guessed that "What's true for me is true for me" was your point this whole time.

You are a complete nutjob.

""if Tarpduster's scenario contains x, then it is absolutely true that Tarpduster's scenario contains x."

JXL- What's true for BTD is true for BTD."


JXL's statement is NOT saying that. If you really think it is, then you have a mental problem. There isn't any point in addressing your other points, you've just lost it mentally.