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: Androcles on 19 Apr 2010 10:53 "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8338qhFisnU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 19/04/2010 15:44, Igor wrote: >> On Apr 16, 3:09 pm, troll<trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 16, 10:28 am, Igor<thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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. 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. >>> >>>> Concepts of truth in mathematics and physics differ. In math, >>>> basically anything that is internally consistent can be said to be >>>> true. >>> >>> So in mathematics, as long as both sides of an equation reduces to >>> equivalent terms, this is said to be true? What is meant by the words >>> internally consistent? >> >> Without contradiction. All the axioms and postulates that you start >> with must not be not be in conflict. Or it will spell trouble further >> down the road. > > I thought trouble was spelled "Godel" > > -- > Dirk I thought a double double negative must not be not be not be not be permitted.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 19 Apr 2010 11:36 On 19/04/2010 15:53, Androcles wrote: > > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:8338qhFisnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 19/04/2010 15:44, Igor wrote: >>> On Apr 16, 3:09 pm, troll<trolid...(a)go.com> wrote: >>>> On Apr 16, 10:28 am, Igor<thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. 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. >>>> >>>>> Concepts of truth in mathematics and physics differ. In math, >>>>> basically anything that is internally consistent can be said to be >>>>> true. >>>> >>>> So in mathematics, as long as both sides of an equation reduces to >>>> equivalent terms, this is said to be true? What is meant by the words >>>> internally consistent? >>> >>> Without contradiction. All the axioms and postulates that you start >>> with must not be not be in conflict. Or it will spell trouble further >>> down the road. >> >> I thought trouble was spelled "Godel" >> >> -- >> Dirk > I thought a double double negative must not be not be not be not be > permitted. I don't disagree -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Ludovicus on 19 Apr 2010 17:25 On 19 abr, 01:11, 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. If Christ answered the question before, why the question is now cynical and rhetorical? If actually Jesus appear as a Joe Smith telling that he is the truth, surely you will question him exactly as Pilate. Ludovicus
From: rods on 23 Apr 2010 07:41 On 16 abr, 08:18, 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. You may want to look at the work of Tarski ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tarski ). Rodrigo
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Apr 2010 09:36
It looks like Tarski merely proposed the same thing that I said, regarding conceptual truth and failing to propose what I said about empirical truth. Truth is the mathematical mapping between representations of actuality and actuality itself. (That's the whole thing, there is no more) The representation can take two forms: (1) symbolic and or phonetic language, including the language of mathematics. (2) Memories physical sensations as experienced by the sense organs. These two forms of representation map to two forms of actuality respectively: (A) Semantic meaning. (B) Physical reality as directly experienced through the sense organs. I don't think that there is any other definition of truth that is correct. It looks like most of the other "theories" of truth that have been discussed here are not really theories about [truth] at all. These other theories are instead focusing on what [validation] is and calling this "truth". "rods" <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2c0de61-d707-4724-95d9-c5deb67424a4(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On 16 abr, 08:18, 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. You may want to look at the work of Tarski ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tarski ). Rodrigo |