What is truth?
in [Math]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
Next: Green's Theorem & Cauchy Integral Theorem
From: Adrian Ferent on 26 Apr 2010 00:35 We have a bidirectional connection with God. I AM CREATING GOD is the title of my first book. The TRUTH (my view): GOD is creating me, I am creating GOD.
From: Alan Meyer on 26 Apr 2010 13:37 troll 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. Trolls so often pose interesting questions - even when they really think that the answers are meaningless drivel. Here are three possible approaches to a definition of truth, as near as I can recall from the not so meaningless education I received in philosophy. I make my apologies in advance to those who understand these theories deeply and can see all of the gross simplifications or worse that I am introducing here. 1. Correspondence to reality. This is the most straightforward definition and unquestionably the one that most people intend when they say that a statement is true. If I say "It is raining" or "The dog is wet", those statements are true if and only if, in fact, it is raining or the dog is wet. Problems only arise with this view when we get away from simple observational statements and start to talk about values, or about models of reality, or about objects which exist within a certain body of theory but which are not directly observable - like subatomic particles or infinite quantities or states of mind. The other two theories given below are attempts to handle cases where we need to go beyond observational reality. However I don't think either of them denies that true statements are statements corresponding to reality, although the "reality" in question is not always an observational one. 2. Coherence within a self-consistent theory. By "coherence" I mean that a statement to be evaluated is found to be consistent in all respects with a larger and self-consistent theoretical framework. This is the kind of "truth" that seems to make the most sense when discussing mathematics. 7 + 9 = 16 coheres with the theory of arithmetic. This also happens to correspond with reality when we discuss 7 apples and 9 apples, but the definition can be just as easily applied in theoretical frameworks such as non-Euclidean geometry, n-dimensional spaces, etc., where "correspondence to observational reality" becomes problematical or impossible. The coherence theory is also valuable in everyday life. When someone tells us he saw water flow uphill, or a ghost, or a perpetual motion machine, or anything of the like, we normally reject such statements without having to investigate them. Such statements are inconsistent with a body of theory that has so much history and so much weight of evidence behind it that it would be a waste of time to investigate purported exceptions. Sometimes that gets us in trouble. Very occasionally someone discovers something that is inconsistent with a very widely accepted and supported theory and further investigation shows that there really is a problem with the theory that no one saw before. But in spite of such exceptional cases, the requirement for coherence saves us from error vastly more often than it leads us into it. 3. Forming the basis of accurate predictions. When we say that "the dog is wet", we are implying that certain experiences can be predicted. For example, if you touch the dog, your hand will get wet. If you stand next to the dog and the dog shakes himself, you will get splattered. If the dog lies down on the carpet, there will be a wet spot. And so on. If these observations are made but the predicted events do not occur, then the original statement "the dog is wet", is false, or at least not completely true (maybe his feet are wet but not his fur.) Where this theory of truth becomes particularly valuable is in discussing empirical objects or events that cannot be directly observed, such as nuclear particles and forces. We can't see an electron or an x-ray, but we can make predictions about observations which, if they are in fact observed, give us reason to assert that statements about the electron or x-ray are true. This theory, proposed by the American philosophers Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, is called the "pragmatic" or "instrumental" theory of truth. Alan
From: Adrian Ferent on 27 Apr 2010 06:49 Quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse...
From: Adrian Ferent on 28 Apr 2010 13:10 Here is my view(look at my wave function) why it is not good to watch people: Today people are like the animals at Zoo they are watched by the government, a lot of informers(prostitutes)... Because 98% are at animal level they do not care, they are afraid to talk about it. In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the process by which a wave function, initially in a superposition of different eigenstates, appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
From: Adrian Ferent on 28 Apr 2010 23:16
Here are professors from MIT, Harvard, University of Lund...talking dummy things about God. They do not understand the Evolution, God... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=content |