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: rods on 23 Apr 2010 09:42 On 23 abr, 10:36, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > 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. I may be wrong about this, but I think that if you look at this using Godel's incompleteness theorem you may arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a empirical truth. Rodrigo
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 23 Apr 2010 10:29 rods <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> writes: > On 23 abr, 10:36, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: >> 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. > > I may be wrong about this, but I think that if you look at this using > Godel's incompleteness theorem you may arrive at the conclusion that > there is no such thing as a empirical truth. You're not wrong -- it's possible to arrive at any imaginable conclusion using G�del's incompleteness theorems, and people often do. The theorem does not, alas, in itself tell us anything about empirical truth. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: rods on 23 Apr 2010 10:41 On 23 abr, 11:29, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > rods <rodpi...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On 23 abr, 10:36, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > I may be wrong about this, but I think that if you look at this using > > Godel's incompleteness theorem you may arrive at the conclusion that > > there is no such thing as a empirical truth. > > You're not wrong -- it's possible to arrive at any imaginable conclusion > using Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and people often do. The theorem > does not, alas, in itself tell us anything about empirical truth. > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Just to make it clear what I wanted to say. I think that there is no such thing as a empirical truth. I would call such a empirical truth as a tautology, in the end we are always comparing things like 1=1. And this is a tautology. Rodrigo
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Apr 2010 11:12 "rods" <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fb58bae7-2920-4b25-9887-0e4a5340b9bb(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 23 abr, 10:36, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> > wrote: >> 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. > > I may be wrong about this, but I think that if you look at > this using > Godel's incompleteness theorem you may arrive at the > conclusion that > there is no such thing as a empirical truth. > > Rodrigo You dip your hand in water, it feels wet, later on you remember feeling that your hand was wet, thus providing a single counter-example refuting your claim that empirical truth does not exist.
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Apr 2010 11:13
"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote in message news:87633igs2z.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid... > rods <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> On 23 abr, 10:36, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> >> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I may be wrong about this, but I think that if you look >> at this using >> Godel's incompleteness theorem you may arrive at the >> conclusion that >> there is no such thing as a empirical truth. > > You're not wrong -- it's possible to arrive at any > imaginable conclusion > using G�del's incompleteness theorems, and people often > do. The theorem > does not, alas, in itself tell us anything about empirical > truth. > > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man > schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus It is actually a ruse. |