Without explanation what “actual or true” is accurately, it doesn’t say much.
Rigorously speaking A=A is not true. From temporal point of view, the A on the left is typed earlier than A on the right. So if you are really being accurate about it, you are saying “the older A is equal to the later A”, which is wrong and inaccurate.
This is also wrong. “this” is from the person near to the object this indicates, and “that” is from the person a bit distant from the object, but they are indicating the same object. But one is saying “this” and the other one is saying “that” for the same object. Hence “this is not equal to that” is inaccurate and wrong.
The standard dictionary definitions and the courtroom oath you mention refer to contingent truths—that is, the accuracy of our statements or propositions corresponding to reality.
In the argument, however, “Truth” uses this standard dictionary sense (reality; actuality) in regards to reality itself:
In this context, Truth refers specifically to the non-contingent, Eternal precondition that creates and coheres individual distinctions (A=A) and the ordered structure of the universe—the reality we observe.
It is therefore not “wildly different” from the dictionary definition. It is simply using the core meaning of reality/actuality at the foundational level that makes any contingent truths possible in the first place.
I think I have given you enough examples for your requests. Hope they make sense to you.
The point is simple. There is no such thing as Eternal Truth. Truth is time, situation, objects, understanding and judgements specific.
Today is Tuesday is true only for today. Tomorrow it will become false. What is true to you could be false to other folks, so on so forth and so fifth ad infinitum.
These are the minimum requirements of Truth’s ontological nature in order to uphold the coherent reality that we observe, without failure on either side of the One-Many problem.
The complete explanation is set out in the full paper (linked in my bio).
The argument never claims that the symbols and language used to write the argument are the actual underlying reality itself. They are only abstractions built on top of the stable distinctions. This is made clear in line 2:
Any limitations in these tools do not refute the argument. The claim is that the very symbols and language you are being pedantic over are only possible because stable distinctions pre-exist them. This is provable by the fact that not one single word in any language can transcend a binary distinction.
None of these do what you claim. “Today” implies this day and not that day. “Tuesday” implies not Wednesday, etc.
Even granting you that a statement can be “true” at one time and “not true” at another (which in itself is ironic), there are still countless examples that do not change:
2 + 2 = 4
The ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is π ≈ 3.14159
A square has four sides
The law of identity itself (A=A)
The fact that you are not me
These hold invariantly, regardless of time, situation, or personal judgment. They are not time-specific or person-specific. They presuppose the very stable, non-contingent distinctions the argument defends.
Again let me add the caveat to make this explicit: we are not talking about the symbols and language here. You can change the symbols (Roman “II”, binary, etc.) but the underlying standard endures.
This unmasks the deeper precondition: evaluation via Logic requires a pre-existing invariant standard. Eternal Truth functions as the unmoved benchmark; labels depend on it. No pre-universal Truth means evaluation via Logic (observation and thinking) would be impossible: no distinctions (A=B becomes possible), no Logic, no coherent reality (line 5).
Thank you for the reply @Delirium, and for the kind Atlas analogy.
The argument accounts for linguistic paradoxes in general. All of them are contingent on the very stable distinctions (A=A, this ≠ that) that Truth creates and coheres. To even formulate any such paradox, one must already treat “true” and “false,” or “heap” and “non-heap,” as meaningfully different.
To your point about engagement in the thread—no one else has really engaged with the core of the argument yet. Most comments have focused on peripheral points rather than the foundational claim about stable distinctions and their precondition.
They are just repeating the words or expressions in different expressions. They don’t give you anything significant or meaningful knowledge or information.
After repeating the self evident expressions, and then saying there is something Eternal Truth and Logic, sounds invalid argument.
Thank you for the clarification @Delirium (I believe you meant to tag me rather than @MCogito).
The liar paradox was already addressed in post 131.
To summarise: All epistemic thought is subjective until it is enacted in objective reality. That means thought exists on an abstraction layer (line 2) as a tool. This subjective layer allows for contradictory thinking; otherwise reality would be rigidly deterministic (no free will).
Once a sentence like “this statement is false” is spoken aloud, it is transformed into stable physical distinctions (sound waves, etc.). These physical phenomena exist independently of the speaker and carry no inherent contradiction. Without an interpreter applying the true/false binary, the sounds are simply waves dissipating in the air.
The subjectivity can be demonstrated when someone speaks the sentence in a foreign language you do not understand—without understanding the language, the supposed contradiction does not exist at all; it is simply meaningless sound waves until the true/false binary is applied by an interpreter with their own subjectivity.
The larger point is that if everything were purely subjective, nobody would be able to agree on anything at all. Words would lose any meaning because there would be no common objective ground (stable distinctions). All human relationships would unravel into incoherence (pluralism).
The heap paradox (sorites) is a vagueness puzzle of the same type. It exists on the subjective abstraction layer. It does not undermine stable distinctions; it simply shows that language can be vague when trying to draw sharp boundaries around gradual changes. Again this has to be the case or reality would be rigidly deterministic (no free will).
This further confirms the argument’s conclusion that subjective abstract thinking exists but is built on top of stable distinctions (“heap” vs “not-a-heap” / A=A as “this ≠ that”).
The examples are not mere repetition of words. They illustrate stable, mind-independent distinctions that hold invariantly. All language begins with single words anchored directly to observable reality. Early languages stayed simple for that reason; more complex ones only grew on top of the same foundation.
If no stable distinctions existed to anchor language to reality, neither language nor logic could function at all.
Every word you just used embodies/presupposes a binary distinction. Without these distinctions existing prior to your thinking, you would not be able to think at all:
Can you please demonstrate this “clear thinking” without using any words that embody/presuppose a binary distinction? Even one single word would suffice to settle the point?
@delirium, I hate you: you forced me to dive back into the confused mind and thread of Helix
Helix, as I already demonstrated, you are using temporal reasoning (“eternity,” “origin,” etc.) as a substitute for the concept of non-contingent. You are fundamentally confused! How can you possibly expect to produce correct reasoning when you are this confused?
In post 133, Sime clearly stated another problem, which might actually be the fundamental problem underlying your 7-point argument: Logic is not the “be-all and end-all” of Reality, Truth, etc. It is merely a tool. It literally did not exist before Aristotle formalized it, and practically nobody uses it in real life after that! Even in mathematics, it is just a specific theoretical subfield, not an absolute over-arching Truth of the universe.
So, what exactly is “thinking”? We are apes. Thinking is merely mimicking, aping, generating a mental simulation of the world. The better the intelligence, the deeper the simulation, and the greater the predictive ability. This fundamental biological “phenomenon” has absolutely nothing to do with formal logic. Logic and language are just collateral damage of thinking—the collateral damage of having a larynx and a mouth forced into sequential communication. If you think correctly (i.e., if you simulate deeply and accurately), you will automatically output impressive logic. That’s all there is to it.
And above all: don’t click reply! Go torture Delirium for me
Thinking is about the objects in reality. The semantics and words are the tools for expressing the content of your thoughts. They are not logic itself. Words are not objects either.
You cannot ‘steelman’ an argument that is structurally built on a categorical equivocation (temporal eternity = logical non-contingency) and a massive ontological error (logic = essence). Attempting to do so isn’t intellectual charity; it’s just participating in the same illusion.
But I completely understand why you feel the need to defend him. As the poster who literally just confused me with someone else, I’m sure you feel a very deep, personal kinship with Helix’s level of confusion
