What is truth?
in [Math]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
Next: Green's Theorem & Cauchy Integral Theorem
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.
From: master1729 on 22 Apr 2010 04:01 peter olcott : > > "Adrian Ferent" <aferent(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:688439698.41779.1271757756652.JavaMail.root(a)galli > um.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. > > http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Esher.jpg tommy1729
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 23 Apr 2010 17:20
rods <rodpinto(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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. I'm afraid this isn't very clear at all. Putting that to one side, perhaps you could explain what these odd proclamations have to do with the incompleteness theorem? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |