Definition of Truth
Truth is typically defined as a property of statements or propositions that accurately reflect reality or fact. A proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact or state of affairs in the world.
In correspondence theory, the truth of a statement is determined by its agreement with objective reality. For example, the statement "snow outside is white" is true if snow outside is, in fact, white. Verification involves empirical observation, direct experience, or measurement that establishes this correspondence.
Verification is the process of determining the truth value of a proposition through:
- Empirical observation: Using sensory data or instrumentation.
- Logical inference: Deriving conclusions from premises using valid rules of deduction.
- Mathematical proof: Deductive, syntactic derivation within a formal system.
- Pragmatic results: Observing consistent, reproducible outcomes in real-world application.
Truth Collapse Upon Observation
The "truth collapse upon observation" phenomenon refers to the event wherein a proposition becomes undeniably and irreversibly resolved as true (or false) through a direct experiential act.
This resolution does not require formal justification or linguistic validation but occurs as a self-evident realization. The mechanism is not reducible to verbal articulation, logical proof, or symbolic derivation. It constitutes an immediate cognitive registration of the state of affairs that the proposition refers to.
Examples:
- Observing four apples after combining two sets of two confirms "2+2=4" without invoking arithmetic rules.
- Seeing a red object confirms "the apple is red" without inferring from a theory of color.
This collapse is not gradual or probabilistic but binary and final. Before observation, the proposition has an uncertain or hypothetical status. Upon observation, it is instantaneously resolved. This mechanism resembles direct model-checking against external referents rather than inferential validation within a formal system.
This phenomenon differs from belief or conviction. It is not belief in a proposition but recognition of a correspondence that was latent until observation forced a binary resolution. The truth of the proposition becomes perceptually fused with the referential state of the world.
This process resembles the epistemic function of perceptual grounding, where symbolic structures (propositions) are matched against non-symbolic sensory or experiential data to assess referential fidelity.
Unanswerable Questions
Any consistent, sufficiently powerful formal system (logic or human speech) cannot prove all truths expressible within its own language. There exist true statements that are unprovable in the system.
Implications include:
- Certain propositions may have truth values that are never derivable within any formal system.
- Epistemic access to such truths may be permanently blocked.
I propose that the following questions a epistemically blocked, because there is no state of affairs, whereby an agent can observe the "Truth Collapse Upon Observation" by the virtue of the construction of the question. They are:
- Why something exists rather than nothing?
- Is future deterministic?
- Are minds physical or non-physical?
- Does free will exist?
- What happens after death?
- Does god exist?
- Are there universes other than this one?
- What is the moral/political framework that maximizes human happiness?
- Do abstract objects exist?
- Are aesthetics and beauty objective?
- Are you a simulated brain in a vat?
- Which is ontologically prior: universe or consciousness?
- Trolley problem: switch or not switch?
- Do NPCs agents exist?
- Can two distinct glimming blobs splork the same blob? ("Useless Math System: The Theory of Blobs")
- Do other agents have consciousness?
- Is mathematics invented or discovered?
All of these questions presuppose a state of affairs whereby an agent can perform a measurable spontaneous binary resolution by observing the collapse from the mechanism described earlier.
Imagine a convincing argument of the form "Premise 1: Something something something. Premise 2: From X follows Y because Z and W are mutually exclusive. Premise 3: etc etc etc Conclusion: God exists". It may be proposed that, regardless of the structure or content of the argument, the reader is unlikely to find the answer satisfactory, insofar as no form of verification is possible.
Being persuaded by an argument (psychological assent) is not equivalent to verifying a truth (epistemic justification). A false proposition can be persuasive; a true proposition can be unconvincing if not demonstrably verifiable to an agent.
Discussion of metaphysical or unverifiable propositions persists due to their existential relevance, intuitive salience, and philosophical tradition. However, from a verificationist or formal epistemological standpoint, these may be categorized as meaningless, undecidable, or non-empirical.