tldr at the bottomI am a Trivialist. I believe everything is true. Yes. EVERYTHING. >b-b-but that's inconsistent because you would have to believe the statement "trivialism is false" is true which refutes your own theory!Actually yes, I do believe that. I fully accept it. It is indeed true that Trivialism is false, and it's false because it's true. I have no problem accepting this. You cannot refute Trivialism because Trivialists will always agree with whatever my opponent says. It's trivially true! (pun intended lol) But also, you can refute Trivialism, because everything is true, since by definition Trivialism is true ;) No matter what you cannot refute me. Go ahead, radical skeptics, I dare you, try and debate me. You literally will never win. Trivialism is an undefeatable position. >how do you know it's true!A simple paradox arising in classical logic, called Curry's Paradox, strongly implies it, since by this paradox you can conclude everything is true. The only way to avoid it is either to disallow self-referential statements like Curry's Paradox, which I honestly think is arbitrary, or to accept some really niche non-classical logic which is counter-intuitive to how we normally reason. Accepting Trivialism though gives me the benefit of accepting all options though! :)tldr; Trivialism is the belief that everything is true and you cannot refute it.
>>18270773How do you apply trivialism?
>>18270777Well since everything is true, you can accept and reject literally any belief. Nothing is false, but also everything is false, because everything is true and nothing is true because all of it's true!!! :)
>>18270783By "apply" I meant practically, not in your head. Is application of trivialism distinguishable from anti-trivialism?
>>18270787Like I said, since everything is true, you can adapt Trivialism to any situation. Ethics? Whatever ethical position you need to justify any act you can subscribe to because every meta-ethical theory is true.
>>18270773This is interesting, but classical logic is already known to be wrong.
>>18270794Sounds a lot more like Trivialism doesn't exist.
>>18270773Is it true that you've lost the debate, been epically owned, and prostrate yourself before my mastery of philosophy? If so, I accept your concession and the debate is over.
>>18270803Classical logic is a direct consequence of human reasoning and is the most intuitive form of logic. Not saying other logics don't model our experience, certainly they do, but classical logic has proven the most successful, standing as the basis for our mathematical systems and, in turn, our physical theories. No one can deny its deductive power. Of course I am not dogging on other logics, as they too can be used to model features of our reasoning and experience, but classical logic absolutely works. Within classical logic you get many paradoxes though. Some of these straightforwardly arise out of natural language itself, like the Liar's paradox. But then you get paradoxes arising out of the very logic itself, like Curry's Paradox! >"If this sentences is true then unicorns exist."Let the sentence above be denoted as S. By the definition of the above sentence S=S->U (where U stands for "Unicorns exist"). Assume for the sake of argument that S is false. Well then, since S is false then it doesn't matter whether or not U is true or false, by the rules of propositional logic the sentence S->U becomes trivally true. Since S->U is true then S is true. But this contradicts our assumption that S is false. Therefore we must conclude that S is true. Now, since S is true, and since S=S->U, S->U is true. By modus ponens, since S is true, and S->U is true, then U is true! Otherwise, if U were false then by the rules of propositional logic, S->U would be false, which would contradict our assumption that S is true since S=S->U! So U has to be true! Therefore unicorns exist!
>>18270814Yes, these statements are true! It is also true that I have absolutely BTFO'd you in this debate, utterly butt raped your argument, and owned you, embarrassing you before everyone! This is true because everything is true. You cannot refute Trivialism. :) In fact you just proved it! :D
>im 14 and this is epic
>>18270886Do you have an argument?
>>18270904According to trivialism, that is an argument.
>>18270843>It is also true that I have absolutely BTFO'd you in this debate, utterly butt raped your argument, and owned you, embarrassing you before everyone!But I don't concede this, whereas you do concede that you have been buttered. In a debate it ultimately matters how things appear to third-party observers and while you can keep saying you won after literally conceding and even humiliating yourself, no audience will be impressed by that. Again you can claim via trivialism that they are impressed and persuaded but that would just be a sad delusion in your head. Trivialism requires flat denial of reality.
>>18270924>buttered*buttraped
>>18270913True. It is also not an argument. ;)>>18270924But the statement that you do concede this is true, since Trivialism is true. So I have absolutely destroyed you. ;) Anyway, Trivialism follows from the paradoxes which arise in our logics are demonstrated here >>18270837. Since you can use Curry's paradox to show that everything follows, Trivialism follows. In fact though, any statement in propositional logic is arbitrarily true. For example, "p iff p is true" is a tautology, and all propositions are arbitrarily assumed to be true in logic "until proven otherwise". This is a basic assumption in any logic. Classically if we show that p leads to a contradiction then we might conclude that ~p is true instead, but that's only if you accept the law of excluded middle. That's fine, but an Intuitionist doesn't accept LEM, so simply showing p is false wouldn't be sufficient for showing ~p is true anyway. However, by Curry's paradox we wouldn't face any of these problems that Intuitionists attempt to surmount. If we are fine with accepting paraconsistency, then trivally everything follows. Trivialism has the advantage of reconciling basically all logics. The paradox guarantees our tautologies, it guarantees that p is true and ~p is true and this doesn't have to result in explosion automatically. But even if it did, explosion itself is tautological.
>>18271017>>18270924Just to add, Trivialism also solves the Liar's paradox in natural language.
>>18271023It also doesn't
>>18271017>Classically if we show that p leads to a contradiction then we might conclude that ~p is true instead, but that's only if you accept the law of excluded middle. That's fine, but an Intuitionist doesn't accept LEM, so simply showing p is false wouldn't be sufficient for showing ~p is true anyway.Woops I actually got that the wrong way around. Intuitionists accept that if p leads to a contradiction then ~p results, but they wouldn't accept that if ~p leads to a contradiction then p follows. My point still stands. >>18271036Correct! ;)
>>18270808true.
