What is truth?
in [Math]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
Next: Green's Theorem & Cauchy Integral Theorem
From: Frederick Williams on 7 May 2010 10:44 Peter Olcott wrote: > > "Frederick Williams" <frederick.williams2(a)tesco.net> wrote > in message news:4BE3072C.E5964BCF(a)tesco.net... > > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> > >> "rods" <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:fb58bae7-2920-4b25-9887-0e4a5340b9bb(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > 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. > > > > The problem is: how does one classify truths as being > > empirical or > > logical? It is a matter of arbitrary convention. > > > > -- > > I can't go on, I'll go on. > > Empirical truth is the direct first-hand memory of sensory > experience, close your eyes and picture a red rose. > > Conceptual truth (of which logic is a part) must be > represented in the mind using language. You can't close your > eyes and picture the concept of square root. Claiming that truth (of any kind) is to be equated with what one can picture in one's mind's eye is clearly wrong. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Transition Zone on 7 May 2010 10:58 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. And if you have enough money on your mind, that can only be the beginning.
From: Transition Zone on 7 May 2010 10:59 On Apr 16, 8:41 am, Ludovicus <luir...(a)yahoo.com> 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? Its all in asking and answering.
From: Bradley K. Sherman on 7 May 2010 11:04 Set your wristwatch to a random time. Ask the person next to you to tell you what time your watch displays. If the time that person says matches the time you read it as saying, you've experienced objective reality to the maximum extent possible. --bks
From: rods on 7 May 2010 11:10
On 7 maio, 12:04, b...(a)panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote: > Set your wristwatch to a random time. Ask the person > next to you to tell you what time your watch displays. > If the time that person says matches the time you > read it as saying, you've experienced objective reality > to the maximum extent possible. > > --bks Giving this kind of "objective reality" how do you see the uncertainty principle. I seems that there is a clear limit on this "maximum extent possible", and what is above (or bellow) this limit? Isn't this reality? Rodrigo |