Dump it Here

[ducati916]

I'll have to address your various arguments in stages, as, each argument requires greater detail in reply.


"If belief precedes the manifestation, of that which is believed, then all belief must logically be of the form (c), leaving both, (a) and (b), as empty sets."

So:

[If belief precedes the manifestation]

If belief precedes an event, action or object [manifestation] then the key word becomes the word 'if'.
It is not necessary for belief to precede a manifestation. A belief can come after a manifestation. I accept that in certain cases, belief will precede a manifestation.

[of that which is believed]

This is the subject of the 'belief'. This is the manifestation. There is nothing in the property of a manifestation that makes it necessary to follow a belief.

[then all belief must logically be of the form (c), leaving both, (a) and (b), as empty sets."]

This can only be true if belief always precedes a manifestation. As already discussed, there is nothing in the property of manifestations that makes it necessary that they follow a belief.

What we call beliefs that precede a manifestation...is the word faith.

Thus your statement is false.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

1. I am not certain that I correctly understand what it is you are saying here. My bases for favouring the viewpoint, that manifestation is a consequence of belief, have arisen from some direct personal experiences, of a more practical (as opposed to theoretical) nature.

2. I do not wish to taint this philosophy, via assignation of any contemporary labels, lest critics conflate, and/or convolute, a very simple philosophy, with peripheral themes.

3. Due to the premise/s of the philosophy, I sincerely doubt that the question of veracity, can be truly settled, via any amount of intellectual debate, irrespective of calibre.

1. So essentially you are saying that your position is based upon personal experience. It is not a position that has been debated by others.

2. It is a personal philosophy. It is not a philosophy that has any mainstream discussion or debate.

3. That is probably true. However, by putting forward your premises, it can be debated and possibly insight might be gleaned.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

I'll have to address your various arguments in stages, as, each argument requires greater detail in reply.


"If belief precedes the manifestation, of that which is believed, then all belief must logically be of the form (c), leaving both, (a) and (b), as empty sets."

So:

[If belief precedes the manifestation]

If belief precedes an event, action or object [manifestation] then the key word becomes the word 'if'.
It is not necessary for belief to precede a manifestation. A belief can come after a manifestation. I accept that in certain cases, belief will precede a manifestation.

[of that which is believed]

This is the subject of the 'belief'. This is the manifestation. There is nothing in the property of a manifestation that makes it necessary to follow a belief.

[then all belief must logically be of the form (c), leaving both, (a) and (b), as empty sets."]

This can only be true if belief always precedes a manifestation. As already discussed, there is nothing in the property of manifestations that makes it necessary that they follow a belief.

What we call beliefs that precede a manifestation...is the word faith.

Thus your statement is false.

jog on
duc

The word "If" was included solely as a courtesy, to those readers holding strong attachments to alternative philosophies, and was not intended for inclusion anywhere within the premises of the philosophy.

e.g. "If" philosophy xyz happens to be true, then deduction abc is logically true.

I apologise for any confusion the this ambiguity may have caused, and I thank you for alerting me to its presence.

 

[ducati916]

Continuing...

"On this, I am in disagreement with both, Locke and Leibniz.

One possible counter, to Locke's quote, might be: 'nothing is in the senses that has not been caused by the intellect"

Re. Locke:

The reality of the external world, which is perceived via sensory input, is proven by the absence of human omnipotence. There is in the external world resistance to man's wishes and desires. To realise a change, man has to act to effect change. To place that change merely in the senses, is not sufficient to maintain life as we know it. As an example: the intellect that provides the senses with the sensation of eating and drinking, will not sustain life past a certain point: dehydration and malnutrition will cause the body to die.

If the world were merely an extension of man's [an individual or group] then the external world could be changed merely by wishing it so. This may or may not involve sensory phenomena for the individual.

Those that believe that they can change the external world by so utilising the intellect are generally considered as eccentric or insane.

* I would add, that of course this does not preclude faith.


jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

1. As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!

2. Whenever I ask myself, what argument could possibly serve as disproof, the seemingly nearest thing, I ever come up with, is:
an assertion that is entirely true, whilst, simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved, by the one asserting it.

3. And the problem with the above counter argument is, that, it defeats itself from the outset, because the asserter doesn't actually believe his/her own assertion/s (i.e. lying).

1. I simply cannot follow this argument. Can you restate it in some other way?

2.
(i) [An assertion]: the assertion is the subject matter under discussion. The subject matter can be true; and
(ii) [that is entirely true,] so the assertion [subject] is in this case true; and
(iii) [simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved,] is at the same time thought not to be true; by
(iv) [by the one asserting it.] by a person who is representing the assertion.

There is no conflict here. The person can be:

(i) as you say, lying; or
(b) mistaken; or
(iii) representing a third party's opinion.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Same here, and at times in quite shocking ways. For me the evidence for 'belief causing manifestation' has piled up enough for me to now routinely shift back and forth between the standard model of reality and this alternative one. However it will never be possible to prove/disprove perhaps even to oneself.

One thing is for sure - most people don't view reality this way. Proposing a different model of reality will be perceieved as highly threatening by some. In a different field of study (not trading), a few of us have completely dismantled the prevailing belief system. It wasn't hard because most belief systems can be ripped apart. We aren't popular, because now the possibility of a new model of reality has reared its head and no one wants that. People cling to their beliefs like nothing else. I assume I do too (in my own way), but it's hard to be objective about myself.

So if I understand you correctly:

You created a belief; then
That belief created the reality.

For this to be true: the belief formed must exist outside of reality as it existed in our world prior to your belief creating it.

Care to expand?

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

1. I am not certain that I correctly understand what it is you are saying here. My bases for favouring the viewpoint, that manifestation is a consequence of belief, have arisen from some direct personal experiences, of a more practical (as opposed to theoretical) nature.

2. I do not wish to taint this philosophy, via assignation of any contemporary labels, lest critics conflate, and/or convolute, a very simple philosophy, with peripheral themes.

3. Due to the premise/s of the philosophy, I sincerely doubt that the question of veracity, can be truly settled, via any amount of intellectual debate, irrespective of calibre.

1. So essentially you are saying that your position is based upon personal experience. It is not a position that has been debated by others.

2. It is a personal philosophy. It is not a philosophy that has any mainstream discussion or debate.

Yes and no. Yes my position is based upon personal experience and, no, philosophies in which this one is incorporated, do tend to get hotly debated, however, the end result is often counterproductive. Ofttimes, in commitment to a position, one or another party will (sometimes deliberately, othertimes ignorantly) argue from a position of misunderstanding, and then proudly embark on a victory parade boasting of their glorious (albeit imagined) conquest. There is an old saying, which suggeststo the effect that the only one's wasting time, are those running around telling others that they are doing it wrong.[/quote]

3. That is probably true. However, by putting forward your premises, it can be debated and possibly insight might be gleaned.

One of those premises has been repeatedly stated (although not necessarily verbatim). That premise alone must either be true, or it is false. It can be demonstrated that invalidation of said premise, via debate, is futile. (Our interchange provides some evidence of this). However absence of proof/disproof, is not proof/disproof of absence.

Merely talking about food, will not sate one's appetite.

For those genuinely, and openly, interested in finding out for themselves, a couple of books, offering a useful blend of theory and practice, have been mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[ducati916]

It has occurred to me, that this excerpt from one of my earlier posts, might potentially hold some insight (at least in a metaphorical sense) for those market newcomers, eagerly analysing historical data, in the hope of finding a tradable edge.

Consider the coins, and cointoss results, as metaphors for a specific market instrument and its price action, respectively, and consider the entities (A, B & C), as metaphors for set periods of time.

So for period A, the market was trending upwards,

and for period B, the market was trending downwards,

and for period C, the market went up, then back down, and could be said to have reverted to mean.

Now consider the widely acclaimed practice of backtesting, and subsequent refinement, via use of historical data.

What pitfalls does this metaphor highlight?

So ignoring the metaphor of the coins and addressing the market. However I suspect this may cause some confusion.

What we know as factual:

(i) the market rises/falls as there is more buying/selling than selling/buying; or
(ii) the market is manipulated higher by market makers; or
(iii) fat finger trades.

These three facts can account for scenarios (a), (b) and (c).

We also know that if certain events occurred in the future, the price of that common stock would rise/fall: two examples being [there are others]:

(i) for the common stock in question a merger/acquisition 50% higher than the market price from a credible buyer is announced; or
(ii) for the common stock in question, the underlying business is declared legally insolvent.

We also know that future events will effect a change in the stock price. The next direction of price, not knowing the future, or how others may react to that news, leaves us with a 33% probability of higher/lower/no change.

Historical backtesting data only tells us what happened. It assumes that the past will resemble the future. If it does, then it ought to be profitable/or not, based on inputs.

This is of course an example of faulty empirical knowledge or experimental methodology [chemistry & physics being examples of correct empirical knowledge]. I accept that with quantum physics, even this is severely suspect.



jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

So these books:

In the pages of Three Magic Words, you will learn of the unlimited power that is yours. You will learn how you can turn this power to work for you, here on earth, to make your life majestic and overflowing with good. Three Magic Words is not a religion or a sect or a society. In its entirety it is a series of essays aimed at revealing to you your power over all things. You will learn that there is only one mover in all creation and that mover is thought. You will learn that there is only one creator and that creator is the Universal Subconscious Mind, or God. You will learn that this creator creates for you exactly what you think, and you will be shown how you can control your thoughts, not only to obtain answers to your problems but to create in your experience exactly what you desire.

and the second has no summary, so the best review on amazon:

3.0 out of 5 starsA now almost forgotten work except in esoteric circles, ...
March 23, 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
A now almost forgotten work except in esoteric circles, this classic work bridges the gap for all those that say "can't meditate, I tried". It reintroduces a most-novel concept not used in the West; concentration, as the title suggests. It is indeed very hard to learn to meditate if your mind has been trained to "multitask", which is not healthy from even a modern psychological standpoint. In a society that prizes "operations per second" over "quality", the reintroduction of concentration is critical.


synergy7
5.0 out of 5 starsGenuine source on meditation
August 22, 2014
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This is the only real book on meditation I've ever found. It requires a lot of focused effort, time, and discipline, but completely worth it. It covers a lot of background, yet has no fluff. It helps re-reading some sections once in a while. Every time I do it, I find something new.


jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

So essentially, we are talking about (c) ie. faith.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

So essentially, we are talking about (c) ie. faith.

Hard to follow the preceding, but that was looking the likely ending.
I am curious about the ontology of "belief", especially if it is inferring the common concept of "faith" where we typically confer the epistemological sense that it has a basis which lies beyond what can be reasonably proven.

 

[ducati916]

Hard to follow the preceding, but that was looking the likely ending.
I am curious about the ontology of "belief", especially if it is inferring the common concept of "faith" where we typically confer the epistemological sense that it has a basis which lies beyond what can be reasonably proven.

Faith is a synonym for belief.

One of the categories or domains of ontology would be 'reality'. Reality would crossover or share categories or domains with epistemology.

Belief or faith, rests on this argument:

"Needless to say, absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

Which is correct.

If this were then to occur:

Which is one of my reasons, for choosing to say, that "the proof of this particular pudding, is in the eating".

We would be dealing with something else entirely, which is essentially what this book claims:

In the pages of Three Magic Words, you will learn of the unlimited power that is yours. You will learn how you can turn this power to work for you, here on earth, to make your life majestic and overflowing with good. Three Magic Words is not a religion or a sect or a society. In its entirety it is a series of essays aimed at revealing to you your power over all things. You will learn that there is only one mover in all creation and that mover is thought. You will learn that there is only one creator and that creator is the Universal Subconscious Mind, or God. You will learn that this creator creates for you exactly what you think, and you will be shown how you can control your thoughts, not only to obtain answers to your problems but to create in your experience exactly what you desire.

This would also seemingly form the basis of Mr Gringott's claim.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Another question if I may please Skate. As a person with an Accounting background my natural bias was toward FA. I've recently started learning Tech after reading this thread. My question is; isn't Tech becoming obsolete for the average Punter due to super computers and AI? Thanks

Have a follow on the FMG thread for a possible current example of the intersection between tech and fundies.

I have no idea on the fundamentals of this stock, however, assuming they are good, it will be the fundies that save and continue the trend higher.

jog on
duc

 

[rederob]

Faith is a synonym for belief.

One of the categories or domains of ontology would be 'reality'. Reality would crossover or share categories or domains with epistemology.

Belief or faith, rests on this argument:

"Needless to say, absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

Which is correct.

If this were then to occur:

Which is one of my reasons, for choosing to say, that "the proof of this particular pudding, is in the eating".

We would be dealing with something else entirely, which is essentially what this book claims:

In the pages of Three Magic Words, you will learn of the unlimited power that is yours. You will learn how you can turn this power to work for you, here on earth, to make your life majestic and overflowing with good. Three Magic Words is not a religion or a sect or a society. In its entirety it is a series of essays aimed at revealing to you your power over all things. You will learn that there is only one mover in all creation and that mover is thought. You will learn that there is only one creator and that creator is the Universal Subconscious Mind, or God. You will learn that this creator creates for you exactly what you think, and you will be shown how you can control your thoughts, not only to obtain answers to your problems but to create in your experience exactly what you desire.

This would also seemingly form the basis of Mr Gringott's claim.

jog on
duc

One's "faith" is a thing. It is as real as numbers.
What I was looking for was what was it that informed the (perhaps more appropriately "their") reality to be.

 

[ducati916]

One's "faith" is a thing. It is as real as numbers.
What I was looking for was what was it that informed the (perhaps more appropriately "their") reality to be.

I can certainly agree that one's faith is real to the individual. I can also accept that a common faith, Christianity, Hinduism, etc are also real things to their followers or believers. This after all is simply an empirical fact.

As to the second part of your post, can't help you there.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

1. As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!

2. Whenever I ask myself, what argument could possibly serve as disproof, the seemingly nearest thing, I ever come up with, is:
an assertion that is entirely true, whilst, simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved, by the one asserting it.

3. And the problem with the above counter argument is, that, it defeats itself from the outset, because the asserter doesn't actually believe his/her own assertion/s (i.e. lying).

1. I simply cannot follow this argument. Can you restate it in some other way?

Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence, because every argument that is, will, or has been, brought into existence, is a manifestation of belief, in the validity (or potential thereof) of same.

Some time ago a friend of mine recounted a similarly futile discussion where someone made mention of the existence of "the Devil".
My friend promptly declared that she did not believe in the existence of "the Devil", to which she received the following reply: "That just goes to show how powerful he is!".

The person, claiming the existence of "the Devil", had presented an argument for which any expression of disbelief, only served, to add to the body of evidentiary support, for the argument "the Devil" (a.k.a. "the Father of lies") exists.

(There does exist, at least one, interesting counter, namely, if someone can believe in the existence of an ultimate deceiver, how did such a believer, remain impervious to the Deceiver's inordinate power/s of deception?!

But then again, could the existence of such a counter, being so logically persuasive in convincing others of the falsity of such belief by merit of its contradictory nature, not simply qualify, as further evidence for the potency of the great Deceiver?!i.e. potent enough to decieve via subversion of logic!).

2.
(i) [An assertion]: the assertion is the subject matter under discussion. The subject matter can be true; and
(ii) [that is entirely true,] so the assertion [subject] is in this case true; and
(iii) [simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved,] is at the same time thought not to be true; by
(iv) [by the one asserting it.] by a person who is representing the assertion.

There is no conflict here. The person can be:

(i) as you say, lying; or
(b) mistaken; or
(iii) representing a third party's opinion.

No!

The representative is merely relaying another party's opinion.

To relate this to trading, one might think in terms of "execution only" brokers facilitating transactions between traders and the exchange.(Over the counter, proprietary and cross trading, considerations aside), the broker is merely acting as a conduit between parties. Mediums ought not be conflated with that which is channelled.

A true statement, can qualify as a lie, if stated with deceitful intent, and, conversely, an untrue statement, made sans deceitful intent, does not qualify as a lie, despite the statement being untrue!

If a person says
"All things existing, including the stones underfoot, do so consciously, and are alive!",
many (but definitely not all) might consider such a statement to be untrue. Provided the person making that statement, did so deliberately, despite considering it to be untrue, then a lie has indeed been told, and yet, the content of the statement itself, need not necessarily be untrue.

Now, consider this, if I were to say:
"The stones underfoot are neither alive nor conscious."
I would most definitely be telling a lie, even if the content of the statement happened to be true!

Now to relate this to financial markets...

This forum is often alerted to the existence of entities, offering products and/or services, which purportedly enable the generation outstandingly healthy returns on investment.

One (of a number of useful adages), is as follows :
"If it seems too good to be true, then it very probably is (too good to be true)!".

Of the many seemingly "too good to be true" offerings, I've encountered over the years, I am aware of at least a few, that were made with sincerity.

As such those particular offerings, could not truly be declared swindles, but, nonetheless, yielded similarly unfortunate results.
Overly optimistic assumptions, about the usefulness of correlations, discovered via backtesting and/or hindsight trading, were the usual culprits, leading to misconceptions about the likely future performance of the strategies so derived.

The promised returns were not actually lies, but did ultimately prove to be untrue, after those unfortunate enough to have trusted those offerings, discovered, to their dismay, that substantial losses had been realised in lieu of their hopes and dreams.

Of course, history has also revealed multitudes of another type of "too good to be true" offering, namely, that which is proffered by swindlers.
Unlike the over optimistic hindsight traders, the swindlers, by definition, know themselves to be intentionally engaging in the perpetration of acts of deceit.

Anyhow, irrespective of whether such sensational offerings are made sincerely, or dishonestly, the sheer multitude of such offerings, combined with the noticeable dearth of demonstrably successful clients, gives ample cause for visitation of scepticism.

However, before expediently "calling a spade a spade", it may prove prudent, to first give deeper consideration, to the potential legal ramifications, of overtly doing so, within a public arena.

Overtly defamatory behaviour, has at times, been known to attract litigation, where some burden of proof is placed upon the suspected swindler's accuser (i.e. the one so bluntly declaring "It's a scam".)

So when nobly seeking to warn the unwary, take care not to inadvertantly step into a legal minefield.
Instead of overtly declaring a specific entity as definitely, (or even likely), "a scam", try offering some useful pointers on how one might go about assessing, the integrity of the sensational claims, under consideration.

Basically, where possible, "teach the unwary how to fish".

And should the unwary prove to be so captivated by the lure of fantastic returns as to be unwilling, or unable, to openly consider reasoned arguments, then simply remind oneself, that sometimes the painful lessons in life, whilst emotionally and financially painful, can prove to be highly effective educators.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Faith is a synonym for belief.

One of the categories or domains of ontology would be 'reality'. Reality would crossover or share categories or domains with epistemology.

Belief or faith, rests on this argument:

"Needless to say, absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

Which is correct.

If this were then to occur:

Which is one of my reasons, for choosing to say, that "the proof of this particular pudding, is in the eating".

We would be dealing with something else entirely, which is essentially what this book claims:

In the pages of Three Magic Words, you will learn of the unlimited power that is yours. You will learn how you can turn this power to work for you, here on earth, to make your life majestic and overflowing with good. Three Magic Words is not a religion or a sect or a society. In its entirety it is a series of essays aimed at revealing to you your power over all things. You will learn that there is only one mover in all creation and that mover is thought. You will learn that there is only one creator and that creator is the Universal Subconscious Mind, or God. You will learn that this creator creates for you exactly what you think, and you will be shown how you can control your thoughts, not only to obtain answers to your problems but to create in your experience exactly what you desire.

This would also seemingly form the basis of Mr Gringott's claim.

jog on
duc

We have all experienced different states of consciousness. The common ones are unconsciousness (deep sleep), dream sleep, reverie and waking. There are other states - some say hundreds of them - above the waking state. Probably everyone has had a glimpse of them at some point in life. When such states are happening, reality seems to become a bit more 'plastic', and there seems to be some level of interaction between the mind and what we call consensus reality. Sometimes it is so abrupt and obvious it's startling.

It's not such a strange idea. Despite appearances, reality is one thing, not multiple things. Why would my thoughts not interact with consensus reality? It's like saying the tree's roots have no influence on the leaves. They are not two things, they are one thing.

It would be nice if one could tweak this phenomenon and manifest a Ferrari. I can't do that and I've never heard of anyone who can. People who write those sort of books are usually living in a fantasy world. What I'm referring to is a very obvious synchronicity which is so far beyond chance, and so immediately tied to one's thoughts as to render it virtually impossible. And not one incident, but a string of them. When one brings will power and personal desire (ego) into the equation, the link vanishes. Some will say "convenient eh?". I'm just saying what I've experienced. It is what it is.

 

[rederob]

My comments are in red

Any argument (and/or premise/s of same), merely adds to the body of supporting evidence, because every argument that is, will, or has been, brought into existence, is a manifestation of belief, in the validity (or potential thereof) of same.
False. The argument may not be sound.
The person, claiming the existence of "the Devil", had presented an argument for which any expression of disbelief, only served, to add to the body of evidentiary support, for the argument "the Devil" (a.k.a. "the Father of lies") exists.
That the Devil exists or not is somewhat trivial. What is the nature of the Devil that it informs us that the entity is coherent?
(There does exist, at least one, interesting counter, namely, if someone can believe in the existence of an ultimate deceiver, how did such a believer, remain impervious to the Deceiver's inordinate power/s of deception?!
I am lost on that idea. How is it treated differently from my previous point?

 

[cynic]

False. The argument may not be sound.

No. The soundness of the argument is irrelevant to the veracity of my comments about the futility of debating it.
The argument can be unsound, if it is believed to be so!

That the Devil exists or not is somewhat trivial. What is the nature of the Devil that it informs us that the entity is coherent?

Why would the Father of Lies, choose to inform, or want anyone to be informed, about his nature?! Why would the Father of Lies, require coherence?!

I am lost on that idea. How is it treated differently from my previous point?

My choice of wording, does at times lack elegance.

Perhaps the two rhetorical questions, I have offered in response, to your previous point, will provide a handy clue to, the unravelling of my intended meaning.
=========================================================
Now let's see if this notion, might be, somehow relatable, to the trading of financial markets.

Whilst pondering the question: "Could there be snakes in the grass?"

Consider the following:

Are brokers "nickel and diming" their clients?

Are stop orders being harvested?

Are favourable price gaps, being withheld from the filling of limit orders?

Are market specialists (a.k.a. market makers) exploiting trader vulnerability, during periods of illiquidity?

Are manipulators ratcheting and/or spoofing the market?

Are the traders at major banks, colluding to manipulate the market, during the reporting of price sensitive news?

Is software like "Lastlook", or similar, still in use?

Are OTC brokers tweaking price feeds?

Are the OTC brokers' live accounts, less conducive, to successful trading performance, than the corresponding demo accounts?

Do OTC brokers, lie to ombudsmen case review officers, in the hope of evading, any financial liability that may arise, from being caught breaching the terms of agreement, between themselves and their clients?

Is/are the financial regulator/s effective?

Do conspiracies occur?

If so, do conspirators hide their intentions, and actions, from the view of those conspired against?

Does one know the answer to each of the above questions?

Or does one think one knows the answers?

Does one know the difference?

Or does one only think one knows the difference?

If one thinks one knows the difference, how does one actually distinguish between what is thought to be known, and what is truly known?

How might this impact one's trading endeavours?

If one thinks there are snakes in the grass, when there aren't, how might one's trading be impacted?

Conversely, if one thinks there are no snakes in the grass, when there are, how might one's trading be impacted?

 

[ducati916]

1. As soon as any counter argument (or premise/s of same) is believed, the evidential support base, of the contested philosophy, is increased by that very same counter argument (and/or premises thereof)!!!

2. Whenever I ask myself, what argument could possibly serve as disproof, the seemingly nearest thing, I ever come up with, is:

an assertion that is entirely true, whilst, simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved, by the one asserting it.

1. The problem here is that a counter-argument is not necessarily a proven fact. It is a counter-argument that is 'believed', belief is not factually proven and is therefore incapable of adding to or subtracting from the 'truth' - whatever the truth actually is.

Putting it another way: it does not matter how many believe 'X', the truth or falsity of 'X' is unaffected by the nominal belief it attracts.

Which is why Popper and falsifiability is such a strong principle.

2.
(i) [an assertion that is entirely true]: the assertion is a fact, a fact that is a true fact (in this case);

(ii) [whilst simultaneously, thoroughly disbelieved,]: the true fact is not believed;

(iii) [by the one asserting it.]:

assert
Dictionary result for assert
/əˈsəːt/
verb
gerund or present participle: asserting

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.
   "the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development"
   synonyms: declare, maintain, contend, argue, state, claim, propound, submit, posit, postulate, adduce, move, advocate, venture, volunteer, aver, proclaim, announce, pronounce, attest, affirm, protest, profess, swear, insist, avow; More
   
   
   • cause others to recognize (one's authority or a right) by confident and forceful behaviour.
     "the good librarian is able to assert authority when required"
     synonyms: insist on, stand up for, uphold, defend, contend, establish, press/push for, stress
     "elderly people find it increasingly difficult to assert their rights"
   • behave or speak in a confident and forceful manner.
     "it was time to assert himself"
     synonyms: behave confidently, speak confidently, be assertive, put oneself forward, make one's presence felt, exert one's influence, make people sit up and take notice, make people sit up and listen;
     informalput one's foot down
     "a large government majority can encourage backbenchers to assert themselves

None of the definitions of the word preclude my previous possibilities, viz:

(i) lying (your example);
(ii) mistaken; or
(iii) expressing a third party's opinion/belief.

As it is written, your argument is simply incorrect.

jog on
duc