Jump to content

User:RD/9k/truth value (Q530)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
Revision as of 00:35, 2 June 2026 by Reversedragon (talk | contribs) (Truth has exited domination)

Main entry

  1. truth value (top level category) / non-binary truth value

Binary truth values

  1. formal logic
  2. binary truth value -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
  3. True / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
  4. False / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value

Non-binary truth values

  1. non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on binary True or False answers and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" answers simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.
  2. second-order truth values (wavemachine logic) / non-binary logic through wildly binary logic -> if a first-order truth value is defined as as a statement being accurate or inaccurate according to some specific criterion on a simple 0/1 rating, then a second-order truth value is a particular statement that can be true or false becoming a new set of truth values according to whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate in a particular situation.

Rating sheet truth values

  1. communication rating level / work rating code
  2. U / Unknown -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
  3. G / Good
  4. NG / Not Good
  5. (communication rating level)
  6. (communication rating level)
  7. N/A / Not Applicable
  8. E / Excepted

Morality

Kantianism and similar

  1. fitting action (truth value; Kantianism) [1] / virtuous individual action
  2. unfitting action (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action

Consequentialism and similar

  1. produces value (truth value; consequentialism)
  2. does not produce value (truth value; consequentialism)

Freedom

  1. promotes freedom (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful
  2. does not promote freedom (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

Habermas

  1. promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
  2. destroys non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)

Historical materialism

Factual accuracy

  1. historically accurate (truth value) / historically accurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations
  2. historically inaccurate (truth value) / historically inaccurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations

Red-orange ideology classification system

  1. promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)
  2. destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)

Truth values in programming

Lisp

  1. empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {} / void set / size-zero set / NIL (Common Lisp)
  2. non-empty set (set theory) / T (Common Lisp)

Truth values in mathematics

Fuzzy logic

  1. fuzzy logic -> proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.
  2. fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a non-binary truth value in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.
    I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set is first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to n+i and doesn't do multiples of i.

Truth values and philosophy

  1. True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Richard Rorty) [2] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.
  2. Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.
    none of these are the same thing as True / False and yet they operate almost exactly the same way.
  3. Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist" / "adhering to Leninism" / orange.

  4. Truth has exited domination

    / Truth breaks from domination / Truth wrests from domination / That which brings freedom from domination is True / It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [3] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

  5. Truth predicts human arguments

    / Objective truth is the predictive observation of reality, reached by the correct methods, which lies outside two opposing consensuses and accurately explains not just why one consensus is worth opposing but how it is that two accounts or consensuses come to oppose each other (meta-Marxism) -> holy pronounced censored I may just have solved all of politics

    like, not to be overconfident here, but I do think this is one of the single biggest problems with Liberal-republicanism. it has come to believe that "dissent" is worth something but has never come to appreciate the value of explaining where both positions come from materially (particularly in terms of two groups of people interacting as inanimate objects) in order to decide which position is truly the accurate one. you can apply the 'single consensus / dissent' test all the way around with any number of dissenters and only basically get a warring states period where everybody is fighting each other and nobody cooperates, but if you apply this test with any number of dissenters then you'll eventually get real insight into how to actually solve the problem. in theory this solves both Trotsky and Trump, although you fundamentally have to let go of "the subject", "communicative rationality", "consensuses of lived experiences" and all that.

Ideologies or fields

  • HAS / Enlightenment rationalism
  • STM / formal logic
  • STM / programming languages
  • MX / non-binary logic
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q530&oldid=43741"