Try Denying This Argument

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH Thank you for your reply.

Your post is long and covers several points, so I’ll reply in bite-sized chunks to keep things clear.

@EricH

Right, so you’re using that second definition. But here’s the thing. The definitions of the words “true” and “false” each point back to the other word. I.e., the words “true & truth” have no semantic definition unless you also have the words “false & falsehood”.

The argument is not making a claim about linguistic semantics or dictionary interdependence. It is making an ontological claim about the precondition of intelligibility itself.

@EricH

So now for your treatise you want to use the word “truth” to refer to reality (AKA the universe, existence, “everything that is the case”, etc.) In theory there is nothing wrong in this. But once you use the phrase “the truth" to refer to reality, your new definition has no matching counterpart. The phrase “the falsehood” has no semantic definition in this context.

There is no “non-actual” or false reality. Falsehood is not a co-equal counterpart to Truth; it is simply the contingent absence or misalignment from Truth—intelligible only as a deviation. Truth’s ontological nature does not require falsehood at all.

@EricH

In other words, using the word “truth” to refer to reality does not add anything to our philosophical toolkit as it were. In fact, it unnecessarily confuses things. If you stumble across a sentence that has the word “truth” in it? You would now have to figure out from the context which definition of “truth” is being used. Is this sentence using the “true or false” definition or the “truth is another word for reality” definition.

It would be much simpler to come up with a new technical term - philosophers do this all the time. You could use the made up word “blorble” and it would have the same effect.

The term Truth is already present in the definition of reality used in the opening line (“We observe reality”):

@Helix_Perichora

reality — The quality or state of being actual or true.

The argument simply builds directly on this established usage. Truth’s ontological nature must be invariant/honest and the thing Truth must do is create and cohere distinctions—the exact minimum requirements needed to uphold coherent reality without monism or pluralism (see the full paper for the complete derivation).

Inventing a new term like “blorble” would be arbitrary. If I said “blorble is invariant (never changes) and honest (not illusory) and it creates and coheres distinctions,” the natural response would be: “Oh… you mean Truth.”

The capitalization of key terms (Truth, Logic, Origin) is a very common, long-standing convention in transcendental, ontological, and metaphysical arguments about the preconditions of reality and intelligibility. Philosophers have used it for centuries precisely to signal a special technical/ontological sense rather than the everyday linguistic meaning. It is done to avoid the very semantic confusion you are raising.

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH

So now let’s go back to your definitions and see where it takes us. I’m gonna repeat some stuff for emphasis.

You start off with some dictionary definitions of the word “truth”

The argument does not start with the dictionary definitions of “truth”. It starts with the observation in line 1: “We observe reality”.

@EricH

Next you say you’re using the second dictionary definition.

The term Truth is already present in the dictionary definition of reality itself (“the quality or state of being actual or true”). The argument simply uses that established definition from the very first line.

@EricH

Next you define the word “reality”.

Reality is not defined after “truth”. It is introduced first in line 1. The term Truth is then derived directly from the ordinary dictionary definition of reality (“the quality or state of being actual or true”).

@EricH

Notice the circularity here. You start off by saying truth is reality, then you say reality is the state of being true.

There is no circularity. Reality is the starting point (line 1). The argument then shows what that reality requires: a non-contingent, Eternal precondition—Truth as Relational Stability (invariant/honest), which creates and coheres genuine individual distinctions (A=A) and the ordered structure of the universe.

@EricH

And now you have given us yet another completely different definition of the word “Truth”. But the two definitions you are using are wildly different from one another.

If the contradictions between these different definitions is not obvious, there’s nothing I can do to help you.

There are not “wildly different” or “completely different” definitions, nor any contradiction. The argument presents a single, coherent progression:

It begins with the ordinary dictionary definition of reality (“the quality or state of being actual or true”). The reality we observe is the contingent universe—the Many—where individual distinctions are true (you are not me, this is not that, etc.).

It then demonstrates that this contingent Many is only possible because of its non-contingent, Eternal precondition: Truth (The One) as Relational Stability (invariant/honest), which creates and coheres the genuine distinctions (A=A) that we observe as “true” in reality.

All these terms and their precise ontological roles are fully derived and justified in the full paper.

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH

BUT - there may be a way out. Or maybe not. Let’s see.

Ignoring your n-CEP concept for a moment, we can remove the contradiction between the two dictionary definitions by capitalizing one of them. Let’s let lower case “truth” be the “true/false” version and let upper case “Truth” be reality. And in fact that is just what you did above. You used lower case “truth” in your first dictionary definition and “Truth” in your second definition.

But now we have different definition problem, because upper case “Truth” has a very different dictionary meaning. Per Miriam-Webster, here is their third definition of capital T “Truth”:

“often Truth : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality”

So once you capitalize that letter “T”, you are not using the “actuality/reality” definition. Your are using yet another entirely different dictionary definition.

The Miriam-Webster third definition is irrelevant. The argument never invokes it, never uses the word “spiritual,” never appeals to religious language, and never treats Truth as a vague transcendent entity. It treats Truth as the necessary, discoverable precondition shown by the nested syllogisms and the reductio in lines 5–7.

So no—that is not the definition the argument is using.

You are treating capitalization as an illegitimate switch between dictionary entries instead of the standard philosophical convention it actually is. You are treating dictionary sub-entries as rigid, mutually exclusive law rather than starting points, creating an artificial “different definition problem” where none exists. This is nothing more than dictionary-pedantry that sidesteps the actual logic of the argument (the necessity shown in lines 3–4).

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH

BUT - interestingly enough, if we use this dictionary definition of capital T “Truth”, then what you are saying is at least consistent. Here would be your line of reasoning:

1. If there is a transcendent fundamental reality, then that fundamental reality is non-contingent, Eternal, etc, etc
2. There is a transcendent fundamental reality.
3. Therefore there is a non-contingent, Eternal, etc, etc. We will refer to this “reality” as “Truth”

While these statements are consistent, the statement that “there is a transcendent fundamental reality” is an assertion without proof. Furthermore, this statement is disconnected from the second dictionary definition of reality/actuality (AKA the universe, existence, “everything that is the case”, “blorble”, etc.). Thus there is no way to assign a truth value via our good old reliable correspondence theory of truth.

This is a mischaracterisation of the actual structure of the argument.

The 7-line argument is not saying that the reality we observe is “Truth” itself. It is saying that the reality we observe (the universe) is true because it is created and cohered by the non-contingent Eternal precondition we call Truth.

Your last statement in line 3 (“We will refer to this “reality” as “Truth””) actually exposes the confusion.

From there, you have turned the conclusion of the argument (line 7) into an unproven premise (your line 2), then complained that the premise is unproven. Disregarding your strawman, here is what the argument actually looks like in modus ponens:

1. If we observe coherent reality (the Many—the universe and everything in it) and successfully use Logic to predict, communicate, and navigate, then Logic must presuppose Truth as the non-contingent Eternal precondition (the One) that creates and coheres genuine distinctions (A=A) and the universe’s ordered structure.
2. We observe coherent reality and successfully use Logic to predict, communicate, and navigate.
3. Therefore Truth is non-contingent and Eternal—and denying it is self-refuting because the denial itself deploys the very Truth and Logic it rejects.

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH

I consider this sort of writing to be a type of poetic musings. In fact, we can make a poem about your little treatise:

I know beyond all doubt
That there is Truth
And that Truth has always existed
And that Truth was there before time started.

And our existence began.

I’ll concede - most definitely not a great poem. I’m sure Poetic Universe could do better.

This section shifts from your earlier analytical points about definitions to personal dismissal and ridicule. The poem and your subsequent comments attack a caricature of the argument, not the actual 7-line structure (nested syllogisms and reductio in lines 1–7) and certainly not the full 29-page paper.

The argument is not an ungrounded claim of eternal Truth. It is a step-by-step demonstration that begins from the observation “We observe reality” (line 1) and shows why that reality necessarily requires a non-contingent Eternal precondition.

As I explained in post #130, the One-Many dilemma makes this clear: pure unity (the One with no genuine Many) or pure multiplicity (the Many with no unifying principle) both fail in a contingent universe full of flux. Stable distinctions and invariants we actually observe (Fibonacci, π, A=A, etc.) cannot originate from within that flux. They require an Eternal, non-contingent ground.

The poem attacks a strawman version of the argument. If you would like to engage with the actual premises and the nested syllogisms instead, I am happy to continue.

[Helix_Perichora]

@EricH

So look Helix_Perichora.

On the rare occasions that I directly engage with another person here on TPF, I make an effort to avoid commenting on personalities or possible deficiencies in someone’s intellectual abilities. Criticize the idea, not the person. But I am breaking my rule here . . . .

I find it funny that scattered about the world there are these obsessed individuals who study philosophy intensely - even tho they are outside the mainstream academic community. And these folks are typically quite knowledgeable about the history of philosophy. But then - after lots of thinking - they come out and assert that they have have conclusively solved a philosophical problem that all of previous philosophy has not been able to do. And they have a whole treatise behind it to back up their assertions.

Now of course no serious academic journal is going to publish this nonsense. So their next resource is to come out here to TPF.

So far so good?

I think not. So now please try to step back a bit and look at this from my perspective. Here’s how my thinking goes . . . .

As I sit here in the year 2026 and look back at the history of philosophy, one thing stands out to me above everything else. It is the simple fact that some of the most brilliant minds in all of history - people much, much smarter than you or I - have never resolved disagreements in even the most of basic philosophical concepts - and these disagreements continue to this very day.

It would be like if in physics some people say E=MC**2 while others claim it is MC**3 - but there would be no way to determine which was correct.

So as soon as someone comes here to TPF and says “Try denying this?" That’s the “tell” - that immediately informs us that this person thinks that they have solved some 2500 year old philosophical conundrum. Something that the most brilliant minds in all of history were unable to do.

This is delusional thinking.

- - - - - -
This is a very cruel thing to say, but I have to thank you for providing me with much entertainment. There are some very smart people out here on TPF who delight in shredding your notions. It is fun watching as you try to wriggle and squirm your way out of the obvious bad assumptions & contradictions in your treatise.

But I have a prediction that I would be willing to gamble on. I predict that you will never, ever, ever acknowledge that you were wrong. That’s what I say. Try denying it.

In this section your tone shifts dramatically from your earlier analytical points about definitions and capitalization into outright personal ridicule, ad hominem, and psychological speculation.

Yet the argument stands or falls on its premises and reasoning—not on who wrote it or where it is posted.

Dismissing it as “nonsense” without addressing the actual premises or the full reasoning is not a refutation—it is an evasion.

If you would like to return to discussing the actual argument (rather than the person who presented it), I remain happy to continue.