The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is truth

What is truth

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 41
  15. 42
  16. 43
  17. All
Agreed david f; one must take into account the definitions of all symbols involved when one is asserting that something is the truth.

I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the symbols +, =, 2 and 4 are well enough understood, to the extent that one CAN assert that 2 + 2 = 4 in arithmetical terms.

Thus, this IS an example of a hard and fast truth.

If someone wants to apportion a different definition to what is universally understood to any of these symbols, then of course that truth may no longer apply.

Poirot, a similar sort of thing applies when you are looking an illustration or a computer screen and saying; ‘that is a pipe’ or ‘that is not a pipe’.

If you take it for granted that you are looking at an image, then you can assert that you are looking at a pipe. If you don’t take for granted that you are looking at an image rather than the real thing, then you can assert that it isn’t a pipe, but rather, is an image of a pipe.

But it is bleedingly obvious that it is an illustration and computer-generated image that we have been looking at. With that in mind, and with no need to mention it because it is so obvious, we CAN indeed assert that what we are looking at is a pipe… just as we don’t need to question the meaning of +, =, 2 or 4.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 21 February 2013 10:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Here is my understanding of truth

.

I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission. Or should I say it is whatever version of reality, thought, ideas, qualia, dreams, or imagination a particular individual is capable of perceiving or experiencing and subsequently transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.

In this definition, truth and the object of truth (reality, thought, ideas, qualia etc…) are totally different entities. Truth is simply the absence of intent to voluntarily deform information concerning the object of truth.

That, of course, does not exclude the involuntary deformation of information concerning the object of truth. To such an extent, that the information that is emitted may be totally erroneous but perfectly truthful.

There are as many truths as there are observers and each one may be completely different from all the others, though each observer is telling the truth from his or her particular perspective, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I see truth as a perfectly subjective notion.

Our initial perception may be false. We may incorrectly interpret what we perceive. Shock or prejudice may prevent us from correctly registering what we perceive. We may suffer a lapse of memory at the time of transmitting the information. We may not employ the correct expressions or be sufficiently precise in relaying the information. Our body language may be inconsistent with our oral expression, etc. All these and many other factors may possibly result in the involuntary deformation of information concerning the object of truth.

The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. Truth is not reality in this instance.

Truth is a horizon that keeps its distance no matter where we turn and what strategy we adopt in order to approach it.

For there to be truth, somebody must emit information. If there is nobody around to do that, there can be no truth. No human being, no truth.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 21 February 2013 10:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If one wants to be precise, 2+2 does not have to be 4:

2 + 2 = 1 if 0, 1, 2 are seen as members of a ring of characteristic 3, (and + and = have the usual meaning). In high school mathematics this would read 2+2=1 mod 3.

Of course, natural numbers - as formally defined by the Peano axioms - form a ring of characteristic 0, and they are the useful mathematical model for doing everyday counting. The same as Euclidean geometry is the useful mathematical model for doing everyday geometry, i.e. measurements. Both are “models” that our minds arrives at directly, relying only on our sense perception.

Nevertheless, speculations that lead people to imagine rings of characteristic other than zero, or non-Euclidean geometry, found a posteriori applications in science (physics). This is what Eugene Wigner called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.

Banjo Paterson,

I agree with your last two paragraphs (I am not sure I understand the rest), but I think one must be careful not to confuse “truth” with “information” since both have a number of possible meanings (and although there is information science, where information is defined as a scientific concept, there is no such thing as “truth science” only formal logic and philosophy of science).
Posted by George, Friday, 22 February 2013 1:18:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction:

"natural numbers … form a ring of characteristic 0"

should, of course, read

"natural numbers … are part of the ring Z of integers which is of characteristic 0"
Posted by George, Friday, 22 February 2013 2:04:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction:

"natural numbers … form a ring of characteristic 0"

should, of course, read

"natural numbers … are part of the ring Z of integers which is a ring of characteristic 0".
Posted by George, Friday, 22 February 2013 2:06:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

[I think one must be careful not to confuse “truth” with “information”]

I am pleased to note that we agree that all information is not truth.

On the other hand, it is my view is that all truth is information, but only that information which has not been deliberately deformed.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 22 February 2013 2:52:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 41
  15. 42
  16. 43
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy