What is truth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Next: The origin of sexually transmitted diseases
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Apr 2010 09:04 On 4/16/10 6:18 AM, troll wrote: > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. Interview with Physicist Steven Weinberg http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html
From: Androcles on 16 Apr 2010 09:38 "troll" <trolidous(a)go.com> wrote in message news:f30197f1-cd4e-417b-b696-60f427a9c3a4(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. Entropy and information > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, but > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one > can ever agree on what it actually means. > > Recently, however, I have started to wonder whether > truth has any real meaning. Is there a mathematical > or physical definition of truth, and if so what is it? > > I get the idea that I am missing something simple, > but I am not sure what it is. What is the definition > of truth in physics and mathematics? At least a > very simple web search ends up getting choked > with meaningless drivel from philosophers. I get the idea that you are missing something simple, but you are not sure what it is. The definition of truth in physics and mathematics can be found with a very simple web search and is what you call "meaningless drivel from philosophers", trolling dumbfuck.
From: ben6993 on 16 Apr 2010 10:12 On Apr 16, 12:18 pm, troll <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. Entropy and information > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, but > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one > can ever agree on what it actually means. > > Recently, however, I have started to wonder whether > truth has any real meaning. Is there a mathematical > or physical definition of truth, and if so what is it? > > I get the idea that I am missing something simple, > but I am not sure what it is. What is the definition > of truth in physics and mathematics? At least a > very simple web search ends up getting choked > with meaningless drivel from philosophers. There is no truth in physics, only ideas which have not yet been shown to be false. I don't really understand why focussing only on falsification is so productive for science as true/false should be opposite poles of a single dimension, with symmetric usefulness. Perhaps you should focus on evil rather than on goodness. It might be more fruitful? But there is no evil on this ng of course, so there is no point looking here.
From: Androcles on 16 Apr 2010 10:23 "ben6993" <ben6993(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b46267d9-d30b-44b4-95d6-7a1c4b8bd1a3(a)v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 16, 12:18 pm, troll <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. Entropy and information > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, but > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one > can ever agree on what it actually means. > > Recently, however, I have started to wonder whether > truth has any real meaning. Is there a mathematical > or physical definition of truth, and if so what is it? > > I get the idea that I am missing something simple, > but I am not sure what it is. What is the definition > of truth in physics and mathematics? At least a > very simple web search ends up getting choked > with meaningless drivel from philosophers. There is no truth in physics, only ideas which have not yet been shown to be false. I don't really understand why focussing only on falsification is so productive for science as true/false should be opposite poles of a single dimension, with symmetric usefulness. ============================================== Here's why: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
From: Peter Olcott on 16 Apr 2010 10:50
"troll" <trolidous(a)go.com> wrote in message news:f30197f1-cd4e-417b-b696-60f427a9c3a4(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. Entropy and information > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, but > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one > can ever agree on what it actually means. > Good is merely one side of the continuum of better and worse. That is ALL there is to it. > Recently, however, I have started to wonder whether > truth has any real meaning. Is there a mathematical > or physical definition of truth, and if so what is it? > Sure, Truth is the mathematical mapping between representations of actuality and actuality itself. These representations can take on two forms corresponding to the two forms of actuality. Immanuel Kant referred to these as A Priori (Conceptual) and A Posteriori (Empirical) in his Critique of Pure Reason. Basically it boils down to the fact that reality is experienced two ways: (a) Thoughts and Ideas (Conceptually) and (b) Physical sensations from the sense organs (Experientially). The mathematical mapping of conceptions is based essentially on a mapping between a representation of actuality as expressed either phonetically or symbolically using language (including the language of mathematics) to an underlying semantic meaning. The mathematical mapping of sensations is a mapping between memories of physical sensations and the original set of physical sensations themselves. > I get the idea that I am missing something simple, > but I am not sure what it is. What is the definition > of truth in physics and mathematics? At least a > very simple web search ends up getting choked > with meaningless drivel from philosophers. > Hopefully that was sufficiently clear. Back in 1991 I began a quest for the truth behind religion, and derived the meta-truth about truth itself as a necessary prerequisite to this search. |