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: tadchem on 7 May 2010 18:14 On Apr 16, 7:18 am, troll <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: > Gradually, I have started getting the idea that goodness > has no real meaning at all. "Goodness" is a morally relative term, defined by the user according to idiosyncratic concepts. > Entropy and information > has a clear definition in physics and mathematics, Two terms, two definitions... Generally physics and mathematics share definitions fairly well. > but > goodness is just a nice sounding word and no one > can ever agree on what it actually means. ....because everybody has their own idea what it is, like "god" > 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? "Truth" is a context-dependent term. In philosophy (specifically epistemology) each 'philosopher' has their own individual concept of what 'truth' means, and generally they aren't even aware of the fact that they are 'comparing apples and oranges'. Mathematically 'truth' refers to a logical proposition that can be proven within the context of propositional calculus. Goedel did a lot of work with describing the limits of applicability of propositional logic. Physically 'truth' refers to an empirically testable proposition which has not yet failed an empirical test. Physics differs from mathematics in that the arbitration of truth requires an element that is independent of logic - empirical validation. > 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. Caveat: don't accept anything said about 'physics' or 'truth' from a philosopher who fails to recognize that simple fact that 'science' is a *method* of investigating propositions to identify 'the truth', not an art or a body of lore. HTH Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 11 May 2010 09:21 rods <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> writes: > The way Tarski works this out is to use a pure semantic definition of > truth. Just what is it you take Tarski to be "working out"? > Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that if there is a theory, you > can have something that is true in this theory and not provable. But > something that cannot be proved is not an experimental truth. Why not? On the face of it there's nothing to relate the existence of formal derivations to truth of statements about experimental matters. Your invocation of G�del is entirely vacuous, pure waffle, of no substance whatever. > I think it is easier if we just assume that truth is something that > cannot be provable and a experimental truth is a tautology. This is pure nonsense. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 11 May 2010 09:22 Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> writes: > The problem is: how does one classify truths as being empirical or > logical? It is a matter of arbitrary convention. More nonsense. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Frederick Williams on 11 May 2010 09:42 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > > Frederick Williams <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> writes: > > > The problem is: how does one classify truths as being empirical or > > logical? It is a matter of arbitrary convention. > > More nonsense. Not at all. One's choice of logical constants will affect what logical truth is, and one's choice of logical constants is a matter of arbitrary convention. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Frederick Williams on 11 May 2010 09:55
troll wrote: > > 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? A lot--but not all--that has been written in this thread is utter bollocks, but the questions you ask deserve serious answers: you may care to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ and the works they refer to. -- I can't go on, I'll go on. |