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: Frederick Williams on 13 May 2010 08:32 tadchem wrote: > 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. Quite wrong. I hope that the unfortunate OP isn't misled. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Ostap Bender on 7 Jun 2010 22:13 On Apr 16, 4:18 am, 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. A brain? Just joking... > What is the definition > of truth in physics and mathematics? Probably as useful as that of "charm", "strange", "top", "bottom"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark > At least a > very simple web search ends up getting choked > with meaningless drivel from philosophers. They get paid by the word. Double if the the journal editor doesn't know this word. Triple if this word doesn't exist. It's like Scrabble, in a way.
From: Ostap Bender on 7 Jun 2010 22:16 On Apr 18, 10:11 pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Ludovicus wrote: > >On Apr 16, 7:18 am, troll <trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: > >>What is truth? > > >If Christ was unable to answer when > >Pilate questioned him, how you dare > >to inquire that? > > Pilate was a politician asking a cynical, rhetorical question. > > To a politician, that which is expedient may be "truth." > > Christ answered the question before: > John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the > life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. So, Jesus was like our own JSH and Inverse 19 at sci.math?
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Jun 2010 22:32 On 08/06/2010 03:13, Ostap Bender wrote: > On Apr 16, 4:18 am, 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. > > A brain? > > Just joking... > >> What is the definition >> of truth in physics and mathematics? > > Probably as useful as that of "charm", "strange", "top", "bottom"... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark > >> At least a >> very simple web search ends up getting choked >> with meaningless drivel from philosophers. > > They get paid by the word. Double if the the journal editor doesn't > know this word. Triple if this word doesn't exist. It's like > Scrabble, in a way. Truth is the measure of accuracy of one representational mapping to another -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Billy on 8 Jun 2010 01:54
In article <877hnah8uv.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid>, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: > 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. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' - Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll, CHAPTER VI -- - Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html |