What is truth?
in [Math]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
Next: Green's Theorem & Cauchy Integral Theorem
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: MeM on 20 Apr 2010 11:11 On Apr 20, 5:32 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > "Adrian Ferent" <afer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:688439698.41779.1271757756652.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org... > > > The TRUTH (my view): > > > GOD is creating me, > > I am creating GOD. > > > This means I have a bi-directional connection with God. > > Yes, and the most amazing thing about this is that this is a > verifiable fact. > > The Hindu's call this verification Moksha, the Buddhists > call it enlightenment, the Zen Buddhists call it Satori, and > the Christian, Jewish, and Moslem mystics call it union with > God. It is a beautiful idea. How does it tine into math? --Musatov
From: Peter Olcott on 20 Apr 2010 11:34 "MeM" <marty.musatov(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:adb313ec-8e35-4d8e-9f5c-e867d5923850(a)k33g2000prk.googlegroups.com... On Apr 20, 5:32 am, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > "Adrian Ferent" <afer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:688439698.41779.1271757756652.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org... > > > The TRUTH (my view): > > > GOD is creating me, > > I am creating GOD. > > > This means I have a bi-directional connection with God. > > Yes, and the most amazing thing about this is that this is > a > verifiable fact. > > The Hindu's call this verification Moksha, the Buddhists > call it enlightenment, the Zen Buddhists call it Satori, > and > the Christian, Jewish, and Moslem mystics call it union > with > God. --It is a beautiful idea. How does it tine into math? --Musatov All of truth has math as its foundation, since truth is the mathematical mapping between representations of actuality to actuality itself.
From: master1729 on 19 Apr 2010 09:32
Adrian Ferent wrote : > The TRUTH (my view): > > GOD is creating me, > I am creating GOD. > > http://knowledge.shorturl.com your logic is like this : http://spacegrant.colorado.edu/boulder/past/Peregrine05032007/photogallery/esher-300.jpg tommy1729 the master |