Category:Non-binary truth values ontology: Difference between revisions
move proposed statement types here from prototype |
m No proposition has a binary true or false value |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Truthy statements == | == Truthy statements == | ||
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"><!-- from [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] --> | |||
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement which is technically true in some contexts | |||
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement which is technically true in most contexts | |||
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">backhandedly-true statement / backhandedly correct statement -> a statement which says one particular thing on the surface, and has a particular reasoning for why that's true, but where the surface statement turns out to be true for another different reason that likely <em>really</em> goes against the intention behind the original reasoning for the statement. named in reference to "backhanded compliments", which are statements that sound like compliments but end up complimenting something unflattering. | |||
</ol> | |||
== Falsy statements == | == Falsy statements == | ||
| Line 12: | Line 18: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
<ol class="hue clean"><!-- from [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] --> | |||
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement with logical contradictions | </li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement with logical contradictions | ||
</li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement which is logical but not sound -> a lot of the [[Ontology:Q1501|brown]] propositions and some of the [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue]] ones are literally just this. | </li><li class="field_geo" value="618" data-dimension="S0">statement which is logical but not sound -> a lot of the [[Ontology:Q1501|brown]] propositions and some of the [[:Category:Existentialist-Structuralist tradition ontology|blue]] ones are literally just this. | ||
</ | </ol> | ||
== General principles == | |||
<ol class="hue clean"><!-- from [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand|prototype]] --> | |||
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="2949" data-dimension="S2">[S2] No proposition has a binary True or False value / Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value / The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency -> you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things. | |||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
[[Category:Epistemology ontology]] [[Category:Non-binary logic ontology]] | [[Category:Epistemology ontology]] [[Category:Non-binary logic ontology]] | ||
Revision as of 07:43, 20 July 2025
This is a Category for various possible responses to the question "is this statement true?" which define themselves according to the range of possible ways statements actually apply to the real world or some specific defined reality that can be probed and investigated. In concept, the range of possibilities that could go in here may be infinite, or at least very large; the number of possible correspondences between statements and reality is proportional to the relationship between any particular imagined model and real things.
Indeterminate statements
Truthy statements
- statement which is technically true in some contexts
- statement which is technically true in most contexts
- backhandedly-true statement / backhandedly correct statement -> a statement which says one particular thing on the surface, and has a particular reasoning for why that's true, but where the surface statement turns out to be true for another different reason that likely really goes against the intention behind the original reasoning for the statement. named in reference to "backhanded compliments", which are statements that sound like compliments but end up complimenting something unflattering.
Falsy statements
- statement with logical contradictions
- statement which is logical but not sound -> a lot of the brown propositions and some of the blue ones are literally just this.
General principles
- [S2] No proposition has a binary True or False value / Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value / The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency -> you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things.
Pages in category "Non-binary truth values ontology"
The following 7 pages are in this category, out of 7 total.