What is truth?
in [Math]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
Next: Green's Theorem & Cauchy Integral Theorem
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Apr 2010 15:05 "Adrian Ferent" <aferent(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:772447949.5081.1271956333773.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org... > http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Esher.jpg > > Einstein did not any link between science and spirituality All of Einstein's greatest discovers were based on taking God's point of view.
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
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 |