22 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “Sorry… …geometry.”
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant 'obvious flaw' in your claim that all truth is relative. I have no objections to the existence of right angled triangles in certain geometries. But as I said before, you only bring them up as a kind of word game. You are essentially deliberately misunderstanding a claim that a triangles angles add up to 180 degrees, and pr ...[text shortened]... er having agreed on a common language between us. The tree itself is an absolute truth.
No, I don’t only bring them up as a kind of word game. A triangle’s angles add up to 180 degrees in the Eucledian geometry, but this is not the case in Riemman’s geometry. Furthermore, I do not pretend that the particular geometry is specified or not. I say that any specified geometry is just a language, with its own conventional set of rules, prerequisites and conditions. Thus the “truths” of a specific geometry are relative, because they hold only in a given context. This is the reason why, for example, Eucledian geometry cannot be used in the context of General Relativity.
Edit: “And… …(and thus universal) ”
The answer is both a matter of consensus and fluency. As regards the aliens (we had this conversation about a couple o’ years ago and our Bosse De Nage told you correctly that you are a Platonist!), they could well have incomprehensible ideas about many things and their Math would not necessarily map on to ours because it would still be up to Us to decide which parts of the alien perception/ analysis/ evaluation we could call “Math”. We can merely hypothesize, as you appear to do, that if we pick out the parts that look like our Math, then they will anyway map onto our Math. But we could well face aliens with behavior that does not allow us to identify clearly anything that corresponds to “doing Math”, just the way it happens with the rest high IQ/EQ animals of our planet. Go argue with a dolphin about Math, even at the primitive level of 2+2=4, and see what you ‘ll get. Don’t you think that it could well be the case that the successful feats of engineering of the “aliens” might not be based on a coherent mathematical theory of physics but on what looks to us like a set of rules of thumb? Or, can’t you imagine of aliens that do study mathematical questions but with a totally different approach than ours? Even if we find we can agree on Math with all the aliens
that we will meet, it would simply mean that in certain respects our minds are alike and nothing else. No absolute truth, just the same modification of the mind.
Edit: “Once… ...an absolute truth."
The tree itself is an absolute truth for you and for every human being that perceives it the way we perceive it. A bird does not perceive it the way a human being perceives it.
On the other hand, amongst human beings, methinks labels are important to the hilt because the sole thing we are based on is communication. Cut us off the ability to communicate effectively and you hold us empty handed, unable to prosper, unable even to survive. Once again, I would love to see you enjoying our conversation in case you ask me whatever you want about that wee tree in Swahili (I don’t speak this language) whilst I reply to you in Greek (I assume that you don’t speak Greek, that is)
đ”
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleAnd I hope all is well with you and yours in Athens!
Greeting from Athens, Greece, my friend, I hope all is OK with you and yoursđ
Methinks reflection is a superposition –we connect the dots (we perceive) and we calculate making our way through the arising events (the way we perceive and evaluate them). The capacity to learn constantly during connecting the dots in an everchanging environment is not a ...[text shortened]... products of our products I reckon.
Fences? I give away what I cherish most and I travel lightđ”
22 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell.
So you believe that some people may think hard about 2+2 and come up with 5 as an answer and this will be as equally true as my 4? I disagree. The person who got 5 failed to connect the dots correctly and has not found the truth. And 4 is written in stone.
For some 'absolute truth' points beyond 'mere appearance'. BB would call them superstitious, I think.
Then, does it add anything to the expression '2 + 2 = 4' to say that this expression is 'absolutely true'?
If you say '2+2=4' I have no reason to disagree with you - although if I count in a base other than 10, you may have some explaining to do.
Of course the intention behind your utterance poses a question. Why are you telling me that 2+2=4? Is this some kind of test? Are you perhaps making fun of me?
22 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleYou are also wrong on a triangle having 3 right angles. This is not true in
Oh I misspelled Riemann's name, as you already noticedđ”
any form of mathematics, regardless of how you spell it. đ
P.S. That would describe an incomplete rectangle or square for your
information.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageShades of Wittgenstein!
Well.
For some 'absolute truth' points beyond 'mere appearance'. BB would call them superstitious, I think.
Then, does it add anything to the expression '2 + 2 = 4' to say that this expression is 'absolutely true'?
If you say '2+2=4' I have no reason to disagree with you - although if I count in a base other than 10, you may have some explai ...[text shortened]... ou telling me that 2+2=4? Is this some kind of test? Are you perhaps making fun of me?
22 Feb 12
I am currently reading about the quantum superposition to try to get a handle on this, but I think it might be helpful to make a distinction here between epistemological and ontological considerations, so as not to get them confused (at least it seems helpful to me).
Epistemology. Call the facts of the case Q. What we can know about Q, and how we can know it, depends on our point(s) of observation (perspective) and our observational apparatus. And it is possible that Q is causally overdetermined. But, at this level, Q does not change according to our observations. The facts of the case are the facts of the case.
—It strikes me that there is an analog in deductive logic, where the conclusion is logically dependent on the premises and the validity of the deductive process. It might be possible that a given true conclusion can be deduced from different sets of true premises, such that it is “deductively overdetermined”. In such a case, there could be parallel inferences, each arriving at the same valid and true conclusion.
Ontology. My minimal understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics is that the fact of an observer (and the “how” of the observation) is a determinant of the facts of the case. In this case (if it is the case), the observer and the observed are ontologically entangled.
If the facts of the case, Q, are not observer-independent, then there would seem to be a reflexive relationship between the ontology and the epistemology. This does not mean that our conclusions (our “truth statements” about Q) are wrong—only that they are limited by the fact that an observation is one of the initial conditions determining the outcome.
[Note: it does not seem, at first blush anyway, that the Multiple Universes Interpretation resolves the desire for determinate outcomes (facts of the case), since every possible outcome is allowed for in some universe. The most that one could then say is: “In this universe, this is what appears to be the case”.]
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleAnd I say again - word games. The rule about 180 degrees only applies in Euclidean geometry. You pretend that that this is not the case then point out an 'exception' in another geometry. If you were not doing this pretence, you would not have even mentioned it. And no, Euclidean geometry is not convention. Euclidean geometry and its properties is a universal absolute truth. It is an error to think that all the rules of Euclidean geometry will work in another geometry. But this in no way makes those rules less true. It just means you don't know the conditions for the rules to be true.
Edit: “Sorry… …geometry.”
No, I don’t only bring them up as a kind of word game. A triangle’s angles add up to 180 degrees in the Eucledian geometry, but this is not the case in Riemman’s geometry. Furthermore, I do not pretend that the particular geometry is specified or not. I say that any specified geometry is just a language, with its own conven ...[text shortened]... ason why, for example, Eucledian geometry cannot be used in the context of General Relativity.
Euclidean geometry can be used in the context of General Relativity, but its rules will not apply to the non-Euclidean geometry of space in General Relativity. Nobody expects them to. This doesn't make them 'relative'. It makes them specific.
You are essentially arguing that when I say "all cows are mammals" then you can say "hey, that's relative because fish aren't mammals, so in the 'fish space' your rule is not valid". But nobody said the rule was true for fish. Just because cows and fish are animals does not give you a valid reason for deliberately drawing a parallel and extending the rule then finding exceptions.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say again - word games. The rule about 180 degrees only applies in Euclidean geometry. You pretend that that this is not the case then point out an 'exception' in another geometry. If you were not doing this pretence, you would not have even mentioned it. And no, Euclidean geometry is not convention. Euclidean geometry and its properties is a univer ...[text shortened]... or deliberately drawing a parallel and extending the rule then finding exceptions.
But this in no way makes those rules less true.
Just a comment from the peanut gallery, But I would not use the word "true" as a qualifier of "rules". Within a system S, conclusions can be true-in-S. Thus a "model" M of a part of the natural world W can have conclusions that are true-in-M, acknowledging that M is the model, and is, possibly, inaccurate as to the facts of W.
For example in an S having elements A, B and C. where transitivity is a rule, if A>B and B>C, then it is true in S that A>C. But it seem imprecise to say the transitivity rule is "true" in S. It seems to say nothing more than that it is a rule in S. Is more meant than this?
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by JS357Hence Wittgenstein's slur: that mathematics is a bundle of tautologies. (Well, and what of it?)But this in no way makes those rules less true.
Just a comment from the peanut gallery, But I would not use the word "true" as a qualifier of "rules". Within a system S, conclusions can be true-in-S. Thus a "model" M of a part of the natural world W can have conclusions that are true-in-M, acknowledging that M is the model, and is, possibly, ...[text shortened]... in S. It seems to say nothing more than that it is a rule in S. Is more meant than this?
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhitehead" 2. In a recent thread I hypothesised about Adam doing something, and a poster was offended and accused me of making up scripture. But this is a person that believes Adam really existed. Surely if Adam really existed, then I was at best making up history (not scripture) and again, there is nothing personal about it. "
I have been thinking about this recently. Does the truth need protection, and is it ever personal.
Two examples highlighted this for me:
1. On tv, I see that some Muslims in Afghanistan are protesting because somebody burned some Qurans. Their justification is that the Quran is the word of God and is holy. But they seem to take it as a personal insult. ...[text shortened]... truth is deliberately intended as an insult, for example in the case of holocaust denial.
I'll give you the reasons if it is my post your refering to, and thank you for the
"poster" and not naming me. I actually like that you did that.
I don't like taking God's Word like that, (If God did this instead of that what
than?) You may as well argue if 2+ 2 is really 5 than what! If you are going
to talk about scripture, talk about scripture, if you want to talk about what
if 2 + A = 5 than say so, but as soon as you setup the what if around 2 + 2
it is a meaningless conversation in my opinion and worse when you apply
that to scripture, where we are not to add to or take away from what God says.
Kelly
22 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd no, Euclidean geometry is not convention. Euclidean geometry and its properties is a universal absolute truth.
And I say again - word games. The rule about 180 degrees only applies in Euclidean geometry. You pretend that that this is not the case then point out an 'exception' in another geometry. If you were not doing this pretence, you would not have even mentioned it. And no, Euclidean geometry is not convention. Euclidean geometry and its properties is a univer or deliberately drawing a parallel and extending the rule then finding exceptions.
This does not appear to be a settled view among mathematicians, however—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
I’m still reading, and I do not have the background (most of which I have forgotten anyway) to challenge you on maths. In which “school of thought” outlined in the above-cited article would you see yourself? (Mathematical empiricism?) In any event, I assume from the article that alternative theories—such as formalism, conventionalism and structuralism—are still in play in the discipline.
[Re also JS's comment and Bosse's Wittgenstein quote. I admit that I am partial to Wittgenstein...]
________________________________________
EDIT: Your point about truth being “domain specific” (my words) is well-taken, though.