Posts by Amanda Jackson5

Joseph Murphy10 said:Like Sigmund is to Neven Budak,
Neo is to Gabriella Perisic running Fifth Day,
Volver is to Milani Vuković Runjić
Anonymous is to Aleksandra Musić
Walnut is to Peter Mitrikeska
Jednostavka is like that rector Boras Nobody
I can't picture anyone here as Ian Bobic.

Let's be honest, Neven Budak is older and significantly less attractive than I am.

Hey there!

Olivia Smith2 said:Not even Amanda Jackson5? To me, she feels older than the very soul itself—don't you think?😁

I'm still a kid at heart.

Sandra Murphy33 said:If this old scholastic debate persists under new labels, it implies there is an inherent momentum behind it. It suggests something is driving the discussion forward, fueled by a genuine curiosity to see where these arguments eventually lead.
And then you step in with Hegel and claim it’s all a wash—that we're just spinning our wheels and that it's better to simply walk away from the argument altogether? 🕺
Is Hegel someone who merely places a period at the end of a sentence to close the loop, forcing us to fit everything within his predefined circle? Is that actually his intention?
That is certainly the impression I get from your responses, which seem steeped in defeatism.

It’s not about it being futile; it’s more that the answer lies in finally reconciling those opposing sides.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Gödel's work absolutely floored me. I honestly thought I was diving into the most rock-solid, foolproof discipline out there, and then... boom. There's one silver lining, though, at least for my own peace of mind: math can't just be derived from pure logic—even if Amanda Jackson5 would argue otherwise. To me, that actually solidifies math as its own independent field with its own set of axioms and methods.

I’m still stuck wondering if mathematical facts and objects exist in some separate realm outside our minds, or if they're just constructs we've agreed upon. If aliens showed up tomorrow, would they use the same math we do, or something totally different? 😁

Mathematical objects themselves are pretty indifferent when it comes to truth or falsehood; it's only the actual statements within mathematical logic that carry those labels of true or false.

Honestly, this whole thing feels like nothing more than a recycled version of that ancient scholastic tug-of-war between nominalists and realists—a debate that’s been circling the drain forever under different names, usually led by people who wouldn't know a profound truth if it hit them in the face like a sudden burst of hot water. The reality is much simpler: mathematical facts and objects exist everywhere, period. Their truth isn't found in picking a side, but in the dialectical way they overcome that very opposition. Hegel actually wrapped this up quite elegantly by demonstrating that every single concept is essentially a unity of itself, its "other," and the union of those two parts—essentially acting as the synthesis of the universal, the particular, and the individual as its constituent moments.

Harold Doyle3 said:That’s exactly my point, which is why I argued that truth can be relative—meaning it's dependent on context—or even conditional, but a fact? A fact is absolute.
For example, the fact is that the Sun moves across the sky, regardless of whether someone believes the truth or falsehood of whether the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth rotates on its axis.

Every truth is relative. Absolute truth is basically just the sum of all those individual relative truths—a concept that reminds me a bit of how Lenin used to frame things.

Harold Doyle3 said:What's contradictory here... two different truths?

Truth is really just a massive contradiction in disguise. You can have two different truths that hold up perfectly fine when you look at them as isolated abstractions, but once you zoom out and see the broader context, they clash head-on. It’s like how we can think about being and non-being as separate concepts in a vacuum, yet in any actual reality, they can't truly exist apart from one another; they're always tied together within the framework of existence itself.

Harold Doyle3 said:Is that what metaphysics deals with? Colloquially speaking, I mean—half-truths?

Not exactly; it's more about navigating contradictions.

Harold Doyle3 said:🤔 Didn't you claim once upon a time that "nothingness" and "being" were actually the exact same thing?

It’s a bit of both, really. They are, because they both represent a state of absolute, immediate indeterminacy. But they aren't, because their actual definitions sit on completely opposite sides of the spectrum. That’s why you can't really pull them apart; you have to view them as part of the same unified concept.

@Amanda Jackson5
Exactly my point!
To a certain colleague here who seems convinced we aren't capable of grasping the concept of synergy—when she’s really just describing the basic relationship between a whole and its parts—I’d suggest doing a little light reading on the subject:

Terry Martinez10 said:The mathematical representation of positive synergistic effects where 2+2=5, or negative ones where 2+2=3, has absolutely nothing to do with counting fruit on a kitchen table or elementary school arithmetic, yet despite that, it remains perfectly provable.
If you aren't capable of grasping that, then I truly feel for you, but I have no intention of continuing to indulge in your provocations.

If this whole thing doesn't actually have anything to do with elementary school math, then why on earth are you reaching for mathematical expressions like "2x2=4" to make your point?

Terry Martinez10 said:The mathematical representation of positive synergistic effects where 2+2=5, or negative ones where 2+2=3, has absolutely nothing to do with counting fruit on a kitchen table or elementary school arithmetic, yet despite that, it remains perfectly provable.
If you aren't capable of grasping that, then I truly feel for you, but I have no intention of continuing to indulge in your provocations.

I’ve always found that I can wrap my head around metaphorical language quite easily if you just frame it through mathematical expressions. The issue here seems to be that you aren't actually separating the metaphor from the math itself, which leads me to suspect you might be struggling a bit with basic abstract reasoning.

Olivia Smith2 said:I mean, isn't the proof that 2+2=4 simply the fact that we all learned it back in first grade?

Anyone can prove that for themselves, even without a formal education. It’s pretty straightforward: you grab two apples, set them on the table, toss two more next to them, and count what you have. Anyone with a functioning brain is going to come up with four. I suspect my colleague, who apparently refuses to engage in a debate at such a basic level, might count a different number every single time depending on her mood or whatever "perspective" she’s decided to adopt that day. If she’s feeling particularly synergistic, she’ll probably count more than four just to stay on brand.

I honestly find myself scratching my head over anti-vaxxers, the anti-mask crowd, and all those folks resisting basic safety protocols; they remind me of people who genuinely believe in Bigfoot or unicorns, except even they have some grasp on reality. Here we are, watching people act completely dead serious while insisting that 2+2 could be 4, 5, or whatever else suits their particular "perspective."

Harold Doyle3 said:I think a fact doesn't actually have an opposite. What even is a "non-fact"? Or a "semi-fact"? With truth, it's clear what a "half-truth" or a "lie" is.

If a thing (or a fact) doesn't exist, that isn't its "opposite," because "not existing" plus "a thing" just equals the thing itself, whereas a "thing" and its true "opposite" would result in "nothing" (they cancel each other out). Or they might produce some sort of synthesis from leftovers that don't actually cancel out, which means they aren't truly opposites.

Facts have an opposite, obviously. It’s basically anything that doesn't qualify as a fact. As for what a "half-fact" would even look like, I honestly couldn't tell you—I don't think I've ever actually used that term in my life. You hear people toss around "half-truths" all the time in casual conversation, sure, but if we were sitting in some high-level philosophy seminar or a logic lecture, that wouldn't really hold much water.

I can't say I've ever really understood why people get so worked up about Orah. It’s one of those things that seems to occupy way more headspace than it actually deserves, almost like watching someone try to explain the intricate nuances of a local deli sandwich when we all know it's just bread and meat. It feels like a lot of noise over something that doesn't fundamentally change the landscape, much like how some folks obsess over a minor policy tweak at a company like Starbucks while ignoring the fact that the coffee is still just coffee. You have to wonder if there's some deeper subtext I'm missing, or if it's just another case of people finding excitement in the mundane. kaže:
If you think the absence of a fact counts as its opposite, you’re missing the point entirely. It doesn't work like that. If you take "nothingness" and pair it with an actual "thing," you just end up back at the thing itself—it's like trying to subtract zero from a dozen apples; you aren't left with anything different. And if you try to pit a thing against its direct opposite, they don't just cancel each other out into a void; instead, you usually end up with some kind of messy synthesis made of whatever scraps are left over, which means they weren't truly opposites to begin with.

The negation of an object—or even just the concept of a non-thing—basically encompasses everything that fails to qualify as a tangible entity. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here, but we have to acknowledge there's a massive landscape of entities out there that simply aren't "things." In its purest sense, a non-thing is nothingness. And if you want to play the philosophical game, the direct opposite of that void is existence itself.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:The terms were in quotes in my previous post...

In everyday American English, "truth" is used loosely—it can mean anything from a simple belief to something much heavier.

Truth and belief are semantically intertwined; people swap them constantly without thinking.

Which truth are we even talking about? Objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth... the list goes on.

People also tend to conflate truth with fact—as if they’re identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Wikipedia defines it this way: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As for a fact, it states: A fact is something that is true.

There is also an interesting page regarding 2 + 2 = 5.

That’s fair enough, but I’m really just trying to use it in its actual, intended sense—you know, from a more philosophical standpoint, like when you're diving into metaphysics or logic.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:The terms were in quotes in my previous post...

In everyday American English, "truth" is used loosely—it can mean anything from a simple belief to something much heavier.

Truth and belief are semantically intertwined; people swap them constantly without thinking.

Which truth are we even talking about? Objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth... the list goes on.

People also tend to conflate truth with fact—as if they’re identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Wikipedia defines it this way: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As for a fact, it states: A fact is something that is true.

There is also an interesting page regarding 2 + 2 = 5.

I’m with you there. Truth is really just an epistemological concept—it’s all about that complicated tug-of-war between the subject and the object, or more simply put, the friction between what we perceive in our heads and what actually exists in reality.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:The terms were in quotes in my previous post...

In everyday American English, "truth" is used loosely—it can mean anything from a simple belief to something much heavier.

Truth and belief are semantically intertwined; people swap them constantly without thinking.

Which truth are we even talking about? Objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth... the list goes on.

People also tend to conflate truth with fact—as if they’re identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Wikipedia defines it this way: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As for a fact, it states: A fact is something that is true.

There is also an interesting page regarding 2 + 2 = 5.

There isn't some grand sequence of events here. We’re just playing around with colloquialisms at this point. Truth doesn't come in layers or stages; there is only one version of it, which is simply when a person holds an accurate perception of the reality existing outside themselves.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:The terms were in quotes in my previous post...

In everyday American English, "truth" is used loosely—it can mean anything from a simple belief to something much heavier.

Truth and belief are semantically intertwined; people swap them constantly without thinking.

Which truth are we even talking about? Objective truth, subjective truth, normative truth... the list goes on.

People also tend to conflate truth with fact—as if they’re identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Wikipedia defines it this way: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As for a fact, it states: A fact is something that is true.

There is also an interesting page regarding 2 + 2 = 5.

I’m on the same page as you there, but what I’m really chewing on is the philosophical distinction between truth and a fact—you can't really untangle them until we pin down some solid definitions for both terms.

Terry Martinez10 said:For any manager or economist working anywhere in the States, saying 2+2=5 is an absolute truth, much like how they wouldn't dare claim 2+2=3 is false, they’d just react with either joy or despair. It's because this isn't about first-grade arithmetic, is it? It’s about synergy.
So, from a purely mathematical standpoint, sure, it's wrong, but from an economic perspective, it's perfectly accurate because everyone understands exactly what's being implied.

Look, I hate to be the one to double down here, but I’m sticking to my guns: 2+2 equals 4, period. It doesn't matter how you slice it or what angle you take; it's a baseline fact, and unless someone can walk in here and actually dismantle that logic with a coherent, rational argument—which, let's face it, isn't happening—it remains the truth. Sure, we could play around with the idea that 2+2 equals whatever we want it to for the sake of some poetic flair or creative license, but that's just playing with semantics; it doesn't change the reality of the math. I suspect the real friction in this conversation stems from people blurring the lines between concrete facts and abstract concepts. You can get away with mixing those two worlds in specific arenas, like when you're navigating the nuances of high finance or interpreting a piece of modern art, provided everyone implicitly agrees on the rules of engagement. But outside of those niche contexts, trying to blend them just results in a lot of noise without any actual substance.

Terry Martinez10 said:I'm currently at the park with the kids, so I can't exactly sit down for a deep dive, but I'll give it a shot.
The whole concept of synergy actually stems from the Greek word *synergos*, which essentially translates to multiple participants working together or performing activities in unison. You have *Syn*, meaning "with," and *ergo*, meaning "work." When we talk about synergy as an effect, we're talking about how a corporation can generate value by merging market positions in a way that results in something far greater than just its individual components added up. In other words, the total output of the whole becomes more significant than the mere sum of its parts—which is where that 2+2=5 logic comes from.
Just a quick, rough explanation.

To put it briefly and bluntly, 2 + 2 is always 4, but that doesn't mean the whole isn't more than its parts. It's just that the difference is qualitative rather than quantitative.

Terry Martinez10 said:It’s just that whole synergy effect thing they love to talk about.
https://consultantsassociation.com/synergies.htm

I’m struggling to follow you here. Could you try putting together a coherent sentence that actually lays out the premise of how you arrived at the conclusion that 2+2 equals 5?

Jonathan Kelly8 said:It’s already there. Similar. The topic is already established—no need to keep repeating things we've already covered here.

This isn't working—if you actually want to get your hands on the truth or a verifiable fact, you really need to use... Constructive logic—if you can even call it that—is a bit of a headache. It’s all about proving things actually exist rather than just showing that their absence is impossible. I guess some people find that rigor refreshing, but to me, it feels like an endless loop of unnecessary hurdles. Maybe it’s just my cynicism talking, but it seems like a lot of extra work just to reach a conclusion that was probably obvious from the start. 🙂

That simply isn't true. 1 + 1 = 10In binary, I suppose. 🙂

We base our "facts" on uncertain observations—and I suppose we build our "truth" on nothing more than assumptions.

I get where you're coming from, but that sounds suspiciously like Hegelian dialectical logic or some brand of speculative reasoning.

Jonathan Kelly8 said:It’s already there. Similar. The topic is already established—no need to keep repeating things we've already covered here.

This isn't working—if you actually want to get your hands on the truth or a verifiable fact, you really need to use... Constructive logic—if you can even call it that—is a bit of a headache. It’s all about proving things actually exist rather than just showing that their absence is impossible. I guess some people find that rigor refreshing, but to me, it feels like an endless loop of unnecessary hurdles. Maybe it’s just my cynicism talking, but it seems like a lot of extra work just to reach a conclusion that was probably obvious from the start. 🙂

That simply isn't true. 1 + 1 = 10In binary, I suppose. 🙂

We base our "facts" on uncertain observations—and I suppose we build our "truth" on nothing more than assumptions.

And what exactly are we building on certain observations then? Assumptions are the bedrock of beliefs, not necessarily truth.

Olivia Smith2 said:I'm not quite sure—but this one certainly feels incomplete, doesn't it?

So I guess we don't have anything better to work with.

Olivia Smith2 said:Abstracting the tangible until we reach total generality.

Is that really the definition of truth?

Terry Martinez10 said:Whether 2+2=5 is considered a truth or a lie really just depends on which angle you're approaching it from, or more importantly, who exactly you decide to ask.

I'm curious—from what possible angle does 2+2 equal 5?

Terry Martinez10 said:Right now, my phone says it’s 11:28 AM, which is an objective fact, yet my wall clock is insisting it’s 11:29 AM, which is also an objective fact.
Since I happen to trust my phone more than a piece of plastic hanging on my wall, my personal truth remains that it is 11:28.

That isn't true anymore, because it's already 11:29.

Olivia Smith2 said:It looks like we’re pulling quotes from the web that all seem to circle back to that classic scholastic idea—you know, the one where truth is just the mind matching up perfectly with reality? That definition feels a bit thin to me—mostly because our minds often hold more "reality" than what's actually out there. Isn't that exactly why the idealists were so skeptical of raw facts?
As for the whole debate over facts, Kant actually moved that discussion into the realm of practical reason rather than pure reason—which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

So, which definition of truth is actually less flawed?

Harold Doyle3 said:Look, truth can be subjective—it has an opposite, which makes it relative. But a fact? A fact doesn't have an opposite. It either exists or it doesn't. Simple as that.

If we follow that line of reasoning, everything would have an opposite, which would mean everything is relative, and we’d quickly run into a logical mess. The opposite of truth is a lie; the opposite of good is evil, so by that logic, both good and evil become relative. The opposite of life is death, making life relative too. Even the opposite of existence is nothingness, so existence and nothingness would be relative, and so on. Using that same flawed logic, the opposite of a fact is a non-fact, which would somehow make the fact itself relative. But obviously, having an opposite isn't the same thing as being relative. Relativity just means something is defined in relation to something else, and that "something else" doesn't necessarily have to be its direct opposite. You wouldn't say truth is relative because it depends on lies; rather, it's considered relative because it isn't absolute. It’s much like facts—either they exist or they don't. And really, the exact same rule applies to truth: it either exists or it doesn't.
Now, let's look at how Wikipedia defines it:
"Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality."
(Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality)

Terry Martinez10 said:Truth is such an abstract, deeply personal thing, isn't it? It seems like everyone just carries around their own version of it, shaped entirely by their own specific perspectives and whatever they happen to believe in at any given moment.
Facts, on the other hand, are actually provable.

The reality is you basically just copied that bolded section straight from the Encyclopædia Britannica:

"A common byproduct of certain theories is a plurality of truths: an individual may claim their own truth provided it aligns with their existing belief system, feels intuitively obvious, or simply proves useful in practice."

But it’s also true that the very next sentence in there says:

"Such relativistic views stand in direct opposition to the concept of truth encountered in science and everyday life. In contrast, objectivist theories hold that a position is true only when it accurately reports on objectively existing facts..."

So, here's the deal: people are free to believe whatever they want, but they don't get to invent their own version of the truth. If an opinion is actually true, it has to align with reality; if two people claim to have mutually exclusive "truths," then by definition, neither of those claims can actually be reflecting reality, which means calling them "truth" is just a misuse of the word. Sure, we could always tweak our definitions of truth to make sure they always match our feelings, but once we do that, we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore, and trying to have a rational argument becomes an exercise in futility.