*The universe is not just black and white...*
Or another way to state that is that two truth values (true and false) 
are insufficient to describe all propositions.

I propose the following:
If the universe exists and if for all things X and Y, the utterance "X 
contains Y" is "proposition," then the universe must "operate" with more 
than the two usual truth values, true and false.

Consequently, since the universe does exist, and if we assume that "X 
contains Y" is decidable, then at least three truth values are necessary 
to describe the state of all "propositions."

First the definitions and then the argument for the above proposition. 
IMHO, the only room you might have for disagreement is in the 
definitions, as the argument is valid.

Define a proposition to be something that can be decided, given enough 
resources (such as computational power), and mapped to a single truth 
value. An example of a proposition is "I perceive the sky to be blue" as 
that is decidedly true (in good weather). Another is "I perceive the sky 
to be green," which is decidedly false. A proposition is a statement 
that is decidable, meaning there is a "best" truth value to assign to 
that statement. If there are only two truth values then an example of a 
non-proposition is "this statement is false," the liar's paradox. Later, 
we will see that "If the universe exists then it operates on more than 
two truth values" is a proposition as well because it will be decidedly 

Let TV be a set, to be determined, consisting of truth values, possibly 
such as TV = {true, false}, that represents all truth values 
-sufficient- to allow for -all- propositions to have a unique, 
assignable truth value, i.e., sufficient to decide all propositions.

/The universe/
For the purposes of this argument, the universe is the totality of all 
that exists. Remark: what exists isn't completely clear and people 
disagree on what exists; some, for example, believe that nothing exists 
save themselves; this is called solipsism. Nevertheless, the definition 
of universe stands as whatever that totality of all that exists is.

X is a thing if, and only if, X is or can be an object of thought. 
(Slightly modified version of definition 3 from dictionary.com.)

One thing /contains/ another thing (where the 'another thing' is allowed 
to be the first thing) if and only if the first thing has all of the 
second thing's contents or constituent parts. In other words, all 
content and/or constituent parts within the second thing is also content 
of the first thing. (Slightly modified version of definition 3 from 
dictionary.com.) Examples: the solar system contains the planet earth 
and water molecules contain hydrogen. The primary example is the 
universe: the universe contains -all- things.

The argument is an augmented form of Russell's theorem, sometimes 
referred to as Russell's paradox, which proves that in Zermelo Frankel 
set theory there is no set which contains every other set. The twist is, 
this time, when talking about the universe, we know it exists. However, 
we'll use the fact that a particular statement is a proposition except 
it is neither true nor false. Recall that a proposition must have a 
decidable truth value in order to be a proposition; so since this 
statement is a proposition, there must be at least one extra truth value 
that this proposition is most accurately mapped to in TV.

/The case for the universe operating on more than two truth values./

/Premise 1/
The universe as defined exists.

/Premise 2/
For all things X and Y, the utterance "X contains Y" is a proposition. 
(Intuitively, I think the proposition "X contains Y" is 'usually' false.)

Suppose the universe exists and for all things X and Y, the utterance "X 
contains Y" is a proposition. Consider the thing that contains all 
things that don't contain themselves. Let's denote this thing by the 
letter D. D is a thing because it is now an object of thought. The 
universe, which contains all things, and itself exists by assumption, 
contains D in particular as D is a thing.

Now consider the utterance "D contains D." By assumption, "D contains D" 
is a proposition. (X and Y are both D in this particular case.)

/"D contains D" can't be true/
Suppose that "D contains D" is a true proposition. Then, by the 
definition of D, "D does not contain D". Therefore, "D contains D" is 
false. Since "D contains D" can't be both true and false, our original 
assumption that "D contains D" is a true proposition is incorrect. 
Consequently, "D contains D" is not a true proposition.

/"D contains D" can't be false/
A similar argument shows that "D contains D" can't be false. If we 
suppose "D contains D" is false, then "D does does not contain D" is 
true. However, by the definition of D, "D contains D" is then true since 
D contains all things that don't contain themselves. This contradiction 
implies that "D contains D" is not false.

So we've established that "D contains D" is neither true nor false. By 
premise 2, "D contains D" is a proposition; by the definition of 
proposition, "D contains D" must have a decidable truth value. Since 
this truth value is neither true nor false, there must be a third truth 
value which "D contains D" is assigned to. This completes the argument.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to