Absolute Truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 01:43 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Subjective - exists in the mind.
Objective - exists independent of the mind.

That would be more Realism vs. Idealism; Realists believe that reality exist independent of the mind, and Idealists believe that reality is, in whatever way, mind dependent.

(Subject)ive just refers to the subject-- the mind, the 'I', whatever. Objective would be something that is true 'mind-independent' or independent of the subject; but, that is not to say that it isn't reliant upon a subject, or a mind, because that would be in conflict with idealism believing that things are dependent on a mind. E.g. Think of Chas examples of mathematics. It might have to be the case that 'a' mind is required to have the thought '2+2'; but under the construct of mathematics, the essence of the thought '2+2' will objectively lead to the same truth, regardless of 'the' mind.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
27-08-2012, 03:18 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 02:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 02:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  2+2=4 no matter how you write it.

if you have a 3 number set {0,1,2} and a plus b := (a + b) mod 3 where + is the usual addition then 2 plus 2 = 1 Smartass

I had a chemistry teacher that said (well applying what he said at least), 2+2 is unsolvable. What is 2? Is it the number 2 as we find a number or a number that represents something + an identical number 2? Is it 2 cars + 2 oceans? 2 moles + 2 lbs? 2+2 is meaningless without saying what the 2's are, or just saying "there is a 2 and a 2 and we're attempting to add them together or otherwise combine them". 2+2 could equal 34 (2lb+2oz), or even 963.884 (2lb+2oz in grams). If you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, you still have 2 apples and 2 oranges, but you may also have 4 fruit or even 1 pie.

Of course he went on a rant because in chemistry, we had to always say what the numbers were--it was very important.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes elemts's post
27-08-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 03:18 PM)elemts Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 02:47 PM)morondog Wrote:  if you have a 3 number set {0,1,2} and a plus b := (a + b) mod 3 where + is the usual addition then 2 plus 2 = 1 Smartass

I had a chemistry teacher that said (well applying what he said at least), 2+2 is unsolvable. What is 2? Is it the number 2 as we find a number or a number that represents something + an identical number 2? Is it 2 cars + 2 oceans? 2 moles + 2 lbs? 2+2 is meaningless without saying what the 2's are, or just saying "there is a 2 and a 2 and we're attempting to add them together or otherwise combine them". 2+2 could equal 34 (2lb+2oz), or even 963.884 (2lb+2oz in grams). If you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, you still have 2 apples and 2 oranges, but you may also have 4 fruit or even 1 pie.

Of course he went on a rant because in chemistry, we had to always say what the numbers were--it was very important.

It doesn't matter what the variables are. Two apples plus two apples gives you four apples.
Two cars plus two oceans gives you four objects.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 03:54 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 03:31 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 03:18 PM)elemts Wrote:  I had a chemistry teacher that said (well applying what he said at least), 2+2 is unsolvable. What is 2? Is it the number 2 as we find a number or a number that represents something + an identical number 2? Is it 2 cars + 2 oceans? 2 moles + 2 lbs? 2+2 is meaningless without saying what the 2's are, or just saying "there is a 2 and a 2 and we're attempting to add them together or otherwise combine them". 2+2 could equal 34 (2lb+2oz), or even 963.884 (2lb+2oz in grams). If you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, you still have 2 apples and 2 oranges, but you may also have 4 fruit or even 1 pie.

Of course he went on a rant because in chemistry, we had to always say what the numbers were--it was very important.

It doesn't matter what the variables are. Two apples plus two apples gives you four apples.
Two cars plus two oceans gives you four objects.

Actually it does matter what the variables are as I also put in there. 2lbs + 2 oz != 4lbs or 4 oz. Likewise, 2 grams + 2 tons != 4 grams or 4 tons. Numbers represent something, sometimes what they represent does not make it equal to 4 in the 2+2 equation. People assume it does when they see numbers being added, but it doesn't make it true. In standard math problems, potentially, but then it's the number 2 + the number 2 (wherein the numbers may be anything, but for the purpose of the question they can be put together safely as-is without conversion).

One egg + one sperm may = one baby (or more, or maybe none). What the numbers represent are more important than the numbers themselves in some instances--especially if they aren't the same thing and need converted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes elemts's post
27-08-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
Hey, Chas.

Quote:Don't go post-modern on me.

TOO LATE!!!





Quote:It's not the symbols - it's the math; it's not the text, it's the meaning. 2+2=4 no matter how you write it.

Now I'll go all Plato on ya. This is the point. All of that, the numbers, the words, the meaning, it's all a form of mediation. We have absolutely no way of understanding the real without that mediation. We can't even understand the mediation without some form of mediation. So we are never, at any time, dealing directly with the real. We are at all times dealing with our modeled version of it. This is the genius of Box. However useful that model is, it is still wrong. But wrong doesn't mean bad because it is still useful. It is, after all, reality as we understand it.

Within the context of our construct (the one you and I and most people here share) that's math, that's aerodynamics, that's a wing, that's lift, etc... But that's all still just our cultural understanding of it.

Hey, Moron.

Quote:if you have a 3 number set {0,1,2} and a plus b := (a + b) mod 3 where + is the usual addition then 2 plus 2 = 1

ROFL!

Hey, Truly.

Quote:It might have to be the case that 'a' mind is required to have the thought '2+2'; but under the construct of mathematics, the essence of the thought '2+2' will objectively lead to the same truth, regardless of 'the' mind.

Yup.

The thing that all models require is internal consistency. I think where we get discombobulated is that when we see internal consistency and usefulness, we confuse it for Truth.

A model is like a finger pointing to the Moon. We must take care not to confuse the finger for the Moon.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
27-08-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:07 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Chas.

Quote:Don't go post-modern on me.

TOO LATE!!!





Quote:It's not the symbols - it's the math; it's not the text, it's the meaning. 2+2=4 no matter how you write it.

Now I'll go all Plato on ya. This is the point. All of that, the numbers, the words, the meaning, it's all a form of mediation. We have absolutely no way of understanding the real without that mediation. We can't even understand the mediation without some form of mediation. So we are never, at any time, dealing directly with the real. We are at all times dealing with our modeled version of it. This is the genius of Box. However useful that model is, it is still wrong. But wrong doesn't mean bad because it is still useful. It is, after all, reality as we understand it.

Within the context of our construct (the one you and I and most people here share) that's math, that's aerodynamics, that's a wing, that's lift, etc... But that's all still just our cultural understanding of it.

Ok, we're talking past each other a bit. I'm certainly not a Platonist, but regardless of one's culture, 2 apples plus 2 apples is 4 apples.

I am separating the apples from my perception of the apples. With no humans in existence, there are still 4 apples.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:07 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The thing that all models require is internal consistency. I think where we get discombobulated is that when we see internal consistency and usefulness, we confuse it for Truth.

Ghost's almost got it. Truth is an artifact with no meaning outside of a formal system. We don't find ourselves in a formal system. Change the system, you change the truth. Relax the law of the excluded middle, you get different truths. But a model doesn't require consistency. We know it can never be both consistent and complete, but we can get one if we relax the other. Want completeness? Sacrifice consistency and admit paradoxes and contradiction. Hey, now you're religimous. Sacrifice completeness for the utility of consistency. Hey, now you're a pragmatic rationalist. Neither position is true, but one is clearly more productive than the other.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-08-2012, 04:34 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 04:07 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The thing that all models require is internal consistency. I think where we get discombobulated is that when we see internal consistency and usefulness, we confuse it for Truth.

Ghost's almost got it. Truth is an artifact with no meaning outside of a formal system. We don't find ourselves in a formal system. Change the system, you change the truth. Relax the law of the excluded middle, you get different truths. But a model doesn't require consistency. We know it can never be both consistent and complete, but we can get one if we relax the other. Want completeness? Sacrifice consistency and admit paradoxes and contradiction. Hey, now you're religimous. Sacrifice completeness for the utility of consistency. Hey, now you're a pragmatic rationalist. Neither position is true, but one is clearly more productive than the other.

Girly ! You're such a hero... Must be all that programming Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-08-2012, 04:34 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 04:07 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The thing that all models require is internal consistency. I think where we get discombobulated is that when we see internal consistency and usefulness, we confuse it for Truth.

Ghost's almost got it. Truth is an artifact with no meaning outside of a formal system. We don't find ourselves in a formal system. Change the system, you change the truth. Relax the law of the excluded middle, you get different truths. But a model doesn't require consistency. We know it can never be both consistent and complete, but we can get one if we relax the other. Want completeness? Sacrifice consistency and admit paradoxes and contradiction. Hey, now you're religimous. Sacrifice completeness for the utility of consistency. Hey, now you're a pragmatic rationalist. Neither position is true, but one is clearly more productive than the other.

Almost correct. In the context of Gödel, "completeness" has a specific, well-defined meaning, that of being able to prove all the truths of a formal system that is isomorphic to arithmetic or logic.

How are we using 'completeness' here?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 04:37 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Ghost's almost got it. Truth is an artifact with no meaning outside of a formal system. We don't find ourselves in a formal system. Change the system, you change the truth. Relax the law of the excluded middle, you get different truths. But a model doesn't require consistency. We know it can never be both consistent and complete, but we can get one if we relax the other. Want completeness? Sacrifice consistency and admit paradoxes and contradiction. Hey, now you're religimous. Sacrifice completeness for the utility of consistency. Hey, now you're a pragmatic rationalist. Neither position is true, but one is clearly more productive than the other.

Almost correct. In the context of Gödel, "completeness" has a specific, well-defined meaning, that of being able to prove all the truths of a formal system that is isomorphic to arithmetic or logic.

How are we using 'completeness' here?

In the sense of putting the cookies on the lower shelves where everyone can reach them. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: