"Your argument that mathematical law is true by its very nature doesn't even follow modern mathematics."
I have very little doubt of that, I'm just speaking from my personal thoughts here, very little research or training I'm afraid. Of course a theorem is not true "by its nature," (all theorems and relations, though, exist as consequences of basic mathematical truth) but I am arguing that the basic axioms of mathemetics do not require an external source to be true.
"it presents overriding philosophical problems by trying to remove all of these concepts."
Please be patient with me. :) Why would a self sustaining materialist universe eliminate the possibility of causation? Moreover, why would an external source permit it?
"Why is a causeless infinite chain that just 'exists' just as legitimate as a simple truth tree that 'starts off' with a question (namely, "what is truth?") In the first case you have everything in the world that has no explanation "
Yes, but your simple truth tree would have no explanation either, or am I missing something? If we include everything that has, or will, or caused something else to exist, or exists as a source or a fundamental set of axioms, I cannot see how you can avoid the problem of being left finally with an infinite chain of causation, or left with a causeless causer. That's not to discredit the idea of the Unmoved Mover, mind you, but just to tentatively establish other ideas as equally philosophically valid. Of course, this is just me talking.
I'll reply to the correspondence theory stuff later, I need to run. |