IAP Political Forum

Simply that, what is truth?

Some questions to consider:
-What do we mean by truth?
-Is their truth?
-Is truth objective or is it only subjective?
-Can things be true, yet not require a conciousness to percieve them?
-Is it true that Harry Potter went to hogwartz?(btw Callum; that made me think)
-Is their a difference between types of truths, such as physical, spiritual, imaginitave, etc.?

I found it difficult to come up with a definition. I'd say truth means a set of statements that accurately describe events, things, places, ideas etc. that exist.


Of course.


The only truth available to humans is subjective even if a such thing as objective truth exists.

The question, methinks, really comes down to whether our perception creates reality or if we are just perceiving a reality that exists already.
 

We can never know since we cannot observe stuff without our being conscious.


Interesting, I would say yes: in the fictional Harry Potter universe he did.


Not quite sure what you mean.

good questions. *applaud*

Do you mean the absolute Truth, the divine Truth, the all encompassing Truth, the vast unknowable Truth or...

The probable truth.  Notice that Truth and truth are distinctively different.  I want to make sure I know which one you speak of.   

Well thats what I am trying to get at, what do we mean when we say truth? So tell me what kinds of truths are there? (I don't distinguish between Truth and truth, its just a capital letter to me :) )

Since their seems to be a little confusion. (maybe not I don't know)I will show what I think constitutes truth.

I would say that their is a truth of what physically occurs. In other words their is a physical category of truth, this truth constitutes the mathematical nature and orientation of everything physical. Among these physical truths their is also a branch coming off of these which I would call "rational truths." These are things that remain constantly true no matter what, though I put them under the physical category they could be their seperate branch.

Then I would say that each person has "individual truths," though these individual truths are more akin to perceptions that each person has, and includes imaginative truths such as harry potter attending hogwarts, their is no physical or even non-physical harry potter attending hogwarts but it is imagined by a non-physical being that their can be or is a harry potter attending hogwartz.

The final truth I would say constitutes all things that are both physical and non-physical and since in a world with free will their are only past and present truths whilst future truths only remain true when regarding rational things (2+2=4). Now the question is, is this final truth known to a being and if it isn't, it begs the question of non-physicality in the first place. This final one I am not so sure about.

In conclusion the truths that I think exist are...
A)Physical truths: the specific orientation of all physical things
-A branch off of this is rational truths like mathematics
B)Individual truths: the perceptions and knowledge gained by an individual
-A branch off of this could be imaginiative truths or plausible truths like harry potter.
C)The final or ultimate truth which constitues past present truths for all of these categories and only the future for rational truths. (May or may not be observed by a deity)

Thats what I would say, though truthfully I know that I am wrong.

Truth is another word that many  people seem to want to redefine in recent times.  The traditional meaning has served us well and I find it troubling that those in the generation of my children more often than not conflate truth with their opinion, premise or belief.   I hear young people especially talk about their truth being different than my truth.  This makes no sense to me because truth is universal, absolute and external to ourselves.

Is the bible true?

 ::)

Can we please have a discussion that isn't immediately linked with topics that will most assuredly cause flame-fests.

D9 wasn't it you that was complaining that we talk about God all the time in these forums and that your angry that we talk about God so much?

Interesting now that you are the one to bring the subject up in a topic that isn't immediately related and it appears that your post is just an attempt to further agitate such discussions.

Hmm... Can you define it and then give us a perspective on what you think is universally true and what makes something true?

Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.

Truth is split into two camps: universal Truth and truth.*

Universal Truth is the all-encompassing, absolute, infinite Truth.   Universal Truth can not be proven because it is the universal final outcome of the infinite combinations of variables that make it impossible for any human being to be able to actually prove that such Truth exists.  When we make theoretical models, we are making assumptions that our predictions are this Truth and that it exists, however it can not be defined.  This is because we constantly test our assumptions of this Truth.  Even though all scientists may agree that a certain theory is proven correct, that doesn't mean that there isn't an unknown variable out there undiscovered that can prove a theory incorrect.  The fundamental, universal Truth will always remain undiscovered because it is unprovable. 

The idea of truth is to find the most probable theory that becomes closer to the universal Truth.  This truth is the world around that we see, hear, feel and taste.  We measure it.  We test it.  We theorize about it.  But we will never meet the universal Truth because it is indiscoverable.  There will always be unknown variables that we may never know about.  This is why we can never consider any principle is absolutely universally True.  Only that it is most probably true.

Many people resort to the fundamental principles of logic to explain Truth.  However simplified a mathematical proof may be, it can never prove that 2+2=4 is absolutely True.  In mathematics (I'm sure you can find this in Google) is the idea of backwards proofs.  Many backwards proofs have been used to prove that 1=2, 1=-1, 1+1=1 and so on.  The reason such proofs are done is because of complex or imaginary numbers.  These numbers have no testable value except in the theoretical set of mathematical rules.  The idea that the rules are arbitrarily (though rigorously tested for thousands of years) set by mathematicians shows that there is a probable instance in which 1+1 can actually equal 1. 

It seems inconceivable, and some believe untestable, but the idea of the backwards proofs plagues mathematicians.  Some take the lazy way out and just use the other interpretations of mathematical rules to prove that such a proof is false.  Others will take my way, trying to explain the principles of Truth and truth.  However, some go crazy, working in solitude, trying to revolutionize the thoughts of mathematics by proving such instances are true.  Yet many fail.  If one thinker can do such a thing, they will be regarded as the most prominent figure in the history of humanity.

*A note to consider about my post, all instances of truth used in this post were purposely and carefully used as either capital T Truth or lower-case t truth.

"The traditional meaning has served us well"  - well, it hasn't.  Witness a lot of the variation in views about it right here.  At the very least, ideas of what is true (or True) have sparked wars, genocide, exploitation and repression.

"I find it troubling that those in the generation of my children more often than not conflate truth with their opinion, premise or belief" - me too.

You might like to look up some of the ideas of what truth is in the Stanford:
 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/)

It starts "Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth."

It seems the author has a different view to Reasoned Faith's....

Would the variation in views of truth help one to conclude that maybe truth is non-existant?  Through the Stanford articles (which btw was great, I have the encyclopedia bookmarked  :)) you find some correlations between definitions of truth, especially with the one I outlined in my OP.  However, none come even close into questioning truth's existance. 

So, my question is, does this truth even exist?

How do you know this?

I agree by the way that it's annoying when people say "my truth" "your truth etc."

I don't think so.  The idea of truth seems somehow entangled with alnguade and reality.  I suppose if you are an irrealist or idealist you may well doubt the existence of a relationshio with words (in whatever construction).  Or if you have some strange view of utterances.  But if you want to consider the relationship of ANY representation with 'what is there', then you are looking at 'truth' in some way.  So I guess that when I ask if 'Harry went to Hogwaerts' is true, then strictly speaking it is not - but then is it false?  Thats why people talk of things having no truth value at all: its like asking if Escher's designs are accurate.  But that then leads to a view of propositions (or words or utterances or inner-speech beliefs) that has multiple modes of evaluation.  And then the problems of discerning WHICH standards to adopt.  This is hardly a problem in differentiating Harry Potter from CNN, but what about symbolics, satires, sketches, etc? And VERY much, what about myths, parables and legends?  How about dramatised documentaries, political propaganda, anything published by the AEI or Hugo Chavez?  What of those who have huge systems of belief that are obviously idiotic (or not...), yet so extensive and complex that one cannot 'get inside' to debunk - conspiracy theorists spring to mind. All this without getting into ideas of 'true' perceptions, hallucinations and deceptions.

I don't think its any wonder that discussions of what truth is have persisted from the earliest days of philosophy.  And given the need for authoritarian regimes to avoid uncertainty, it is no wonder that some people wish to deny that there is or ever has been reason to question just what it may be.

I don't think so.  The idea of truth seems somehow entangled with alnguade and reality.  I suppose if you are an irrealist or idealist you may well doubt the existence of a relationshio with words (in whatever construction).  Or if you have some strange view of utterances.  But if you want to consider the relationship of ANY representation with 'what is there', then you are looking at 'truth' in some way.  So I guess that when I ask if 'Harry went to Hogwaerts' is true, then strictly speaking it is not - but then is it false?  Thats why people talk of things having no truth value at all: its like asking if Escher's designs are accurate.  But that then leads to a view of propositions (or words or utterances or inner-speech beliefs) that has multiple modes of evaluation.  And then the problems of discerning WHICH standards to adopt.  This is hardly a problem in differentiating Harry Potter from CNN, but what about symbolics, satires, sketches, etc? And VERY much, what about myths, parables and legends?  How about dramatised documentaries, political propaganda, anything published by the AEI or Hugo Chavez?  What of those who have huge systems of belief that are obviously idiotic (or not...), yet so extensive and complex that one cannot 'get inside' to debunk - conspiracy theorists spring to mind. All this without getting into ideas of 'true' perceptions, hallucinations and deceptions.

I don't think its any wonder that discussions of what truth is have persisted from the earliest days of philosophy.  And given the need for authoritarian regimes to avoid uncertainty, it is no wonder that some people wish to deny that there is or ever has been reason to question just what it may be.

I like that remark. 

You are right in that the perpetuation of this philosophical debate continues today simply because there is this constant process of trying to find this truth.  That is why I simply assume that it cannot exist because how can we define what actual truth is without knowing what it is? 

Then again, if you assume that it has always existed, it still has not been discovered because mankind is constantly testing the assumptions of our world, acquiring new facts of knowledge and finding new truths every single day.  Quite exciting I might say.  I don't think that it is in our nature of intellectual depth to be able to accept the things we see as they are, especially when we have been shown snippets of what else is out there.  It is in our nature to question, understand, and repostulate our assumptions because...well, I can't think why!  However, this process I would say is definitely a look into how man has become so creative.

Maybe it is this search for the ultimate truth that has created the great modern technological world we live in now, and who knows what type of age that may evolve from it.   The process of creativity and the search for truth work side by side.

Funny, this discussion has me reminisce of Plato's the cave...

Philosofear,  Technocrat seems to have nailed the classical meaning.  Our human inability to demonstrate to one another with clear certainty that something is factually correct or actual as we perceive it does not change the actual state or condition of something.  It only demonstrates our weakness in this area. 

Things that are defined as so are generally regarded as true.  Nay-sayers notwithstanding mathematical proofs are examples of truth as well. Use of trickery that include imaginary numbers and such to generate "false proof" are just that.


What we are witnessing is the classical weakness of humans and various people's hidden agendas and multiple purposes.


Indeed, my previous comments apply here as well.

It follows from the classical definition of truth being actuality.  Those who choose other definitions for truth (generally to promote some sort of personal agenda or viewpoint) will no doubt disagree.

Then we may have to consider the possibility of classical truth not existing. How do you know that reality exists external to your mind: you may have imagined me and everything else.

I don't know that my mind's version of reality about you or anything exists with certainty.  By definition though there always will exist an actuality regardless of whether or not you or I can perceive it accurately.  Truth exists, our ability to discover it completely and with full certainty may not.

What if you are the only truly existent thing: everything else is a product of your mind?

Then it would be true that everything existing in my mind was a product of my mind.

Luckily, this isn't true - it's all in MY mind. ;-)

As a follow-up, is it important to you and/or your worldview that truth not exist?  If so, why?

You point to an additional purpose of the articles, namely to survey the various uses of the word.  My  claim was not that "ALL thinkers" who investigate the different uses display "the classical weakness . . ."  My claim was directed at those who use alternative meanings though perhaps I was less than clear regarding the author.  For that I stand corrected.  Thank you Callum.

Now as to my theory of truth, I do note that the definition of truth being absolute is not a theory, it is a definition.  I further note that I did not invent or propose this definition, rather it has existed for centuries.  Perhaps you can make a sound argument as to why we should accept that there is no actual?  Please do not argue that we have no use for actual if we can't discover or know it.  I understand that argument.

No. I simply point out that the existence of truth apart from the mind is not as obvious as you have stated.

The existence of a definition is never in question, rather it is self-evident.  The only debate is wether or not you accept the definition.  Why do you question the definition?

Would that be this definition?


I question it because it is not necessarily so.

How so?  Absence of anything beyond perception is itself still an actuality.  Your claim is the equivalent to stating "Truth is not necessarily true" or "it is possible that truth is not truth".  You cannot say "truth is nothing" or "truth does not exist" because then that statement cannot even be true.

It seems to me that determining truth is the problem. Define it all you want, we all generally know what it means, but how do you know you have reached the truth of a certain proposition?

Your definition of truth (and forgive me if this is not what you said) is separate from the human mind. Therefore if all that exists is one single human mind then there can exist no separate from the human mind. Separate from the human mind would be synonymous with non-existent. I agree that "there is no truth" is a logical contradiction unless you add that extra condition truth must in some sense be separate from the human mind. 

Even if there is only one human mind, that itself would be true regardless if that one human mind perceived it or not.  Truth remains external.

There is no external. There is nothing external to the mind in this scenario. All truths reside within said mind whether they are consciously perceived or not.

IamMe, you seem to be stuck in the physical and because of that you must construct impossibilities to cover your limitations. In your scenario where this mind has no boundary, it has become infinite in every sense.  Infinite things aren't real, they require no end of mental gymnastics to keep them afloat. 

Again I repeat, in your scenario where there is one mind and nothing else, it is still a true statement that there is one mind and nothing else and this truth is independent of wether or not the one mind ponders such a statement.

Your a priori declaration of this does not make it true. And if you go into your "no real world analog" speech again I'll scream.


But not independent of the mind itself.

No sorry, it is not an a priori declaration.  The conclusion is empirically based.  It is based on observation and experimentation. 


If indeed the mind does not contemplate it and since it is still a true statement it is indeed independent of the mind.

Silly generalisation.  The sequence of counting numbers is not real?  Better talk tosome of your mates about that.

And don't you claim your particular god is infinite....?  But I do agree that he needs "no end of mental gymnastics to keep he/she/it/them afloat".

As one counts through the sequence they never reach infinity.  The sequence is real but one never reaches the destination.


No.


Kind of takes the wind out of this sail.

So, now we need your definition of 'infinite'.  (hint: read a bit about Gregor Cantor and David Hilbert).


More work for you to do on 'infinite'.  Your god is infinitely knowing, infinily powerful, infinitely benenevolent etc ad infinitum....  Yet he isn't infinite! 


Glad you acknowledge the limitations of your assertions.

What experiment can you do to prove that infinity isn't real? What can you observe to conclude that infinity isn't real?

Is it like: "Hmmm, this butter isn't infinite. Infinity isn't real!"


If indeed the mind does not contemplate it and since it is still a true statement it is indeed independent of the mind.
[/quote]

This is going round in circles. Shall we just agree to differ?

My knowledge of Mathematics is quite good and the mathematical definition of infinity is quite precise.  I have no confusion in this area.


Scripture does not use the word infinity and does not use the sense you mean here to describe his characteristics. If one has ultimate controll over something, there is nothing that being could not accomplish and that being does not require limitless anything in order to accomplish it unless that something is also limitless.  Since there is no sign that the universe is infinite, there seems to be no logical basis to conclude that God must have infinite powers in the sense you mean.  Now scripture does speak of eternity.  Eternity, like the sequence of real numbers does seem reasonable.

???  If you take 'eternity' to mean 'outside time' - how then does this equate to the sequence of real numbers?  If it means 'time without end' (a paraphrase I am sure you have heard) then how is it not infinite?

Although we do not know, the possibility of an infinitely expanding universe is there.  In which case a god who can influence any part of it will have to be at least capable of growing with it. Infinitely.  Are you therefore sayiong that because your god is not infinite, the universe is not doomed to everlasting expansion?  Good science!

I suppose I should have used the adjective eternal rather than the noun eternity.  Now we have 'being with end'.  The set of real numbers is of course eternal. 


We would have to redefine much of the physical laws we have derived from QM and cosmology.  If our current understanding is in the ballpark, then an infinite universe is not even a remote possibility.  Should we suspend the current set of rules?


No, see above.  Good science demands that we consider that the universe should not be infinite.

Is this not the definition of infinity?

.... and is real? Don't forget that this started with your claim that infinite (non-finite=without end=eternal)things were not real.  Son her we have the set of real numbers equated with the eternal god and neither are real?
 


It is QM and its cosmological suites that entail the possibility of other universes with different physical constants.  This may be different to the one we now know.  If say, Plancks constant were different - with all the associations that entails - then the universe would never have gotten past the first yockosecond.  Other values of other constants would have the universe expanding forever or achieving stasis (unlikely but possible).  The big problem is that we do not know whether the amount of energy/matter in this universe will produce one result or others - the big crunch is not necessarily inevitable, so your immortal soul can breath a little easier!


I didn't see this above....  please run it past me again.  (The good science remark was, of course, ironic - using an unknowable, unmeasurable, unrelated entity to explain is NOT good science).

And as an aside, shall I pose my argument again, this time with 'possible' universes?  If infinitely expanding universes are possible, then there must be a god there capable of controlling them infinitely - i.e. he must be infinite.  But your original claim was that infinite things are not real.

That's a fairly good treatment of the question.  I agree that the distinction between "universal Truth" and "truth" is a critically important one.

That being said, I think it is easier and quicker to define "universal Truth" as absolute Truth.  That is to say, Truth that is, by definition, always true for everyone for all eternity.  Regular run-of-the-mill truth is always relative and thus capable of changing (or being not-true tomorrow).



 

I've just joined this thread (and this forum) so I'll ask your pardon while I play a bit of 'catch-up'. 

Do you have any academic study in philosophy or self-taught?  I'm curious.

Your reply looks exactly like what I would reply to the question - right down to the "methinks" part! :)

My only study in philosophy is what I've picked up here.

Like I said, I'm new here and just catching up!

Truth means just about anything anyone wants it to mean.  That is subjective truth (aka "small-t truth").  It is very similar to relative truth or conditional truth.  

Truth that never changes and is always true for everyone always, is absolute truth
(aka "big-T Truth").  This is similar to universal truth or eternal truth or spiritual truth.  

Small-t truth is almost always subjective, but can be objective if the conditions are stated precisely.

Big-T Truth is, by definition, objective because it is specifically not-subjective.

In strict semantic or epistemological terms, I'd have to say no.  

This appears to fall into the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' question.  The existence of some human consciousness is a required precondition of the question.  Analogies that abjure the existence of human consciousness are invalid.

Thus, if your question is asked on a personal or subjective level, then the answer is 'yes' because your own lack of conscious awareness of any given absolute Truth does not affect the existence of that absolute Truth.  For example, one doesn't have to personally understand, know or accept the law of gravity to be governed by it.

That is (or may be) conditionally true (small-t).  It is certainly not absolutely True (big-t) since absolutely couldn't have been true 100 years ago before the author was even born.

There is only a difference between absolute Truth (big-T) and relative, subjective, or conditional truths (small-t).  All types of truth that you mention fall into these categories.

That speaks well of both you and this forum then! ;)

Methinks that 'methinks' is the kind of word one picks up from reading lots of 17th and 18th century authors.

No it is not.

infinity: a number that is larger than any finite value, that can be approached but never reached

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=infinity&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search

I must say that what follows is my VERY PERSONAL definition of truth.

- Truth is what is useful. ¿Useful for what or who? It depends. But as we are social beings, we tend to establish relationships between us and therefore we NEED to approach our own truths to a collective truth from which each society can work on.
- Someone could argue that (under this definition) as a collective is the opposite of an individual, the bigger the collective of people that believes in something, the more objective that it is. We could say that but it would be false. If a collective of people shares one truth, it's because it's useful to them to do so.
- Truth is subjective at first, but, by (my recursive) definition, were it useful for me or you or the subject in question that truth is objective, it would automatically be true that truth is objective ;)
- It is useful to me that truth is objective. Therefore it follows that, FOR ME, truth is objective.
- The real problem here is that BEFORE we define what truth is, we first have to accept as true too many concepts. What i try with my definition is to use those concepts to create a definition of truth, but at the same time, at first, i don't  accept those very same concepts i'm using for creating that definition. The definition of truth must not depend on the concepts i accept to create the definition and i won't accept any definition that doesn't satisfy this requirement. My definition satisfies this requirement. It's not truth what should be objective, it's the very same definition of truth which should be objective to itself. Otherwise, it's helpless.

Each element and the series as one progresses through them are real, yes.  But you can never get to infinity.

Which is the very definition of what infinite means.

Right, the number they are at is not infinity.  They never reach it.  The number is finite.

And there is no real analog in this universe.

...that you know of.

So each number is real, but the set of all numbers isn't?   I think the old adage "when in a hole, stop digging" is apt here.

Actually, hold on. Didn't Cantor prove that there are an infinite number of truths? There's a real world analog.

I don't know Cantor's proof, but there is an easy one

A=A  is a logical universal truth.
(A=A) OR (x=y) is a logical truth.
Add whatever conjunct you want, an infinite number, it will still be true...

But I guess that reasoned faith will argue that these truths are not real.  An anti-Platonist view that is surprising in a theist!

Each number is real, and the sum of the numbers counted off at any given time is real, but one never gets to the number known as infinity.  The sum of the set counted so far is not infinite.  The set of real numbers is not closed and goes on eternally.

I agree you should stop digging. 

This little discussion about the nature of 'infinity' reminds me of Xeno's paradox (the arrow flying).

I don't think so.  he did demonstrate a major problem with the concept of infinite anythings by showing that the infinite sum of the real numbers is greater than the infinite sum of counting numbers and therefore infinity is not equal to infinity.  This is yet another indication that infinity as a concept has no real component.

He did not demonstrate anything of the sort! HE had no problem - you have. Cantor arrived at a definiton of infinity as "a set which has a proper subset of itself equal to itself".  The fact that there are fiuther dimensions of infinity than a single (aleph-0) is no indication that there is 'no real component' to infinity.  It is an indication that someone who is 'well-versed in mathematics' has not read or doesn't   understand the work of late 19th century mathematicians. (I do not claim to be a mathematician... tout court).

I think the other thing that you are overlooking is the work of Gottlob Frege and the development of set theory.... strange lacunae.

Infinite number of truths?  I don't know about Cantor, but there is a simple logical demonstration:

A=A is a truth (universal even!)
((A=A) OR (x=y)) is a truth since the first disjunct is true.
Now replace the second disjunct with ANYTHING or add as many additional disjuncts i.e. an infinite number - you still have a true statement.

I am sure that reasoned faith will find that this is simply playing with words or logical hanky-panky or some reason to deny it.  But although it is simple, it is a proof of an infinite set that exists.  Any disjunctive statement is part of this infinite set.  (And of course you can use de Morgan to make an infinite set of conjunctions from it)

I'm not sure why we continue to go through the same flavor of examples.  Counting numbers, real numbers, numbers of truths; it is all the same concept.  All of these examples are non-material constructs of our mind that do not translate to the material world.  Time can be thought of as endless, the number sets go on endlessly, the number of true statements one can make is endless etc. but you cannot demonstrate an infinite anything in this world, I claim it is because it does not translate to the material world.  You cannot show me an infinite anything.  Infinity seems to be a construct developed by the human mind and commonly applied in mathematics but only after carefully defining rules to prevent it from becoming ridiculous.

I think you are right. We cannot go on like this.  Now time is not real!!!!   Is there no end to the ludicrous statements you will make?  Your infinite ability to try to defend an indefensible position is proof enough that you are wrong.

Note that you are accepting one of the original statements you hve fought so hard to avoid.  If time is endless so are the other dimensions that exist with it (unless you wish to discourse on the spacetime continuum and re-relate the dimensions).  If the othe dimensions are, then so must your god be.  So either your god is 'not real' or your statement that infinite things are not real.  For you, which one, neither or both will be determined by your reasoning abilities and experiences to date.

Are you hoping to fool readers into believing I stated that time is not real, or that quantities (numbers) of things are not real?  I think I'll give others more credit than you seem willing to grant.

 

Am I? Have I accepted that the time dimension in this universe is endless when I say, "Time can be thought of as endless"?  Sounds more like a construct of mind than me assigning a real attribute to this universe.

The balance of your argument trips over your persistent inability to find even one example of an infinite anything in this universe.

:o
So all of a sudden truths are constructs of our minds? And you're suddenly a materialist? Wow.

No, but the idea one could observe or imagine an infinite sum total of them is.


No, not hardly, since materialism is the idea that that this universe had a material cause despite the apparent evidence that indicates matter did not exit at the time.  Should I doubt the idea that this world is made up of material?

Do y'all know there's a Johnny Cash song entitled "What is Truth?"  Can't believe nobody brought that up yet.

I think you are reducing yourself to something less than you are with this attempt to weasel around words.  However....

Lets just assume that you agree that the universe is expanding. The gravitational constant and the total amount and distribution of energy/matter in the universe will result in 3 possible outcomes.
1.  The universe will at some time stop expanding and will collapse back on itself to reform a singularity.  The space and time dimensions will cease to exist.  The universe will be in no way infinite.
2.  The constant/matter balance will be such that the expansion will reach a point where it stops but does not reverse (unlikely....).  In this case, the space dimensions will remain fixed, but time will continue endlessly.
3. Gravity will be insufficient to reverse the expansion. All dimensions will expand endlessly.

In 2 out of 3 possibilities, the universe itself is an example of infinity.

I note that amongst your wrigglings you accuse me of...

This is of course nonsense I spoke of the SET of counting numbers (the set of real numbers is equally an example of infinity - I happily used your preferred set, but didn't realsie that you were unaware of the diffrences between aleph-0 and aleph-1 infinities. Sorry)  You may have difficulties in explaining how sets are not real (even if you attempt to wriggle with 'these are mental constructs': you then have to explain how our very thoughts, words, logics are not real)

 As for time, you stated that "Infinite things are not real" and "Time can be thought of as endless".  This latter is a wonderfully vague sentence which allows you to interpret it as you wish.  Sadly, NO interpretation will support your views.  The best conclusion you can salvage would be "Time can be thought of as not real" - which is certainly what McTaggart argued... but I suspect it is beyond you to argue in his way.  So, is time real?

I don't think I ever said that one could observe or imagine them - simply that they exist and there are an infinite number of them. And since you have already said that truth is real then you must concede that infinity is real also.

Truth has a real analog in this world.  I can show you a truth.  Can you show me an infinity of something?

1.  A universe is infinite. See above.
2.  What sort of argument is this?  I can show you a banana, can you show me liberty?  This isn't argument, this is polemic and rhetoric.
3.  Truth doesn't 'have an analog'.  It has examples.  I gave a ref to a review of theories of truth.  Its still there. (Anybody wanting a superb encyclopedia of modern analytic philosphy can try http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html (http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html))
4.  If you do page back, you will see that techno gave a thumbnail summary of what 'truth' considers, which was clear and got the essential elements.  Truth is the relationship between language and metaphysics - for example, if a word (sentence, description) refers to what exists then it is true, else it isn't.  Mental constructs, and abilities to 'visualise', are within the purlieus of psychology and metaphysics.  That relationship is treated by epistemology - what, how, can we know.  Mixing modes simply leads to confusion and rather silly statements - as you demonstrate.

Callum and I did already. There are an infinite number of truths.

Write them down and show them to me, you can't you can never get to infinity. The mental construct you and Callum demonstrated is a mathematical model and does not translate to a real analog in this Universe.

Well.... pop goes the Ontological Argument....

So what are you saying? That infinity doesn't exist because you can't count to it on your fingers?

What part of this argument do you actually have trouble with?

1. Truths are real. (As you stated earlier)
2. There are an infinite number of truths. (as demonstrated)
3. Therefore infinity is real.

That's not a mathematical model. It deals with real things (truths) and shows that there are an infinite number of them.

Your argument that infinity doesn't exist because "you can't get to infinity" is nonsense. Infinity by definition is an unreachable quantity. If you could reach it it would not be infinity.

Your illustration is no different than using the endless series of counting numbers.  It is a simple mathematical construct.

???????
Pythagoras Theorem is a mathematical construct.  So its not real?
In any case, the demonstration of an infinite set of true propositions is a logical proof - where do you want the counting numbers to come in?

What ARE you trying to say ????   I am totally lost as to what point you are trying to make: and I guess you are too.

Mathematics DESCRIBES reality. 
Logic mirrors the way things relate.
Your view is so ill-considered that you not only deny fundamentals, but you screw your own sects dogma.   Give it up, reasoned.  All this stems from an obstinate insistence to defend an idle remark - just accept that 'infinite things are not real' was a simple bit of 'padding' and had no meaningful contribution to any argument.

It is a construct with direct and physical application by way of areas and triangles we can draw on a paper at any time.  It clearly has a real component in this universe.