Re: Definition of truth

On Nov 12, 9:37 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:

No, I don't "force" my definition into anything, but yes, if you
insist, it is MY definition of THE "Truth," and mathematics/logic are
only "languages" used to present the idea, as they are "true" in both
Western and Eastern culture, and we both [cultures] agree the truth
produced by math or logic is "true." And with that reference then we
can tell what is not true. Btw, this thread is originated in sci.math,
that's why the math/logic slant.

It appears to us, myself and others on this
forum, that when you after the fact, insist
on a rigorous definition of a word (remember
'slipping' and 'skidding') and have not
defined your terms before you start using
them, it 'feels' like you are forcing *your*
definition on a group whose definition doesn't
match yours.

Interesting to see that you people would "feel" being forced by a more
rigorous definition, but don't think/realize your original definitions
were inadequate to begin with.


In a technical discussion, as I said in the
'slipping/skidding' discussion, you must define
your technical terms before you enter into
descriptions of the effect of such things.

"Slipping/skidding" are natural phenomenon, their definitions and
behaviors are well established and documented in Physics. No need to
reinvent the wheels. And as the argument goes, if "slipping" and
"skidding" are both meant the same thing (as you people's argument)
why create two words to confuse yourself?


Yes, I agree that the 'truth' obtained by
math/logic means are indeed 'true'. However,
when you get to science, even these 'true'
statements must be confirmed by observation.

Newton's Mechanism was well established and confirmed in 18th century.


This is the purpose of CERN. The physicists/
mathematicians have come up with some some
new 'truths' that nobody can see and have
devised experiments to test these 'truths'
to see if indeed they are 'true'.

The most new concept concerning the "fundamental building blocks" is
"String Theory"; it is said that these building block "strings" are so
small and rudimentary, there's no device can do the experiments to
test the theory, which prompted a NASA scientist to comment, if a
scientific theory cannot be proved, does it makes it science or
philosophy. And my question is, if a philosophy, e.g. Taichi, can be
"proved," does it make it a "science"?


About what comes "first," you've just opened another can of worms. In
Western culture, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or believe in
science, the "origin" of life comes from outside of the body. However,
in classical Eastern culture, the origin of life comes from within--
mind, and that's where Taichi philosophy comes from. From nothing it
begins, "the way of becoming," from "scenes," "voices,"
interpretations, "definitions," words, orders, rules, to meanings,
which explains everything in the world/reality. It is all in the mind.

In my world, life it the inevitable result
of conditions which promote a greater
negation of entrophy. I suppose that's
the religion of science.

However, the spark which allows life to
continue seems to me to indeed come from
within.

That's about as far as I'm willing to go
with my belief system. It's not appropriate
to this thread nor this forum.

......
No, science has simplified words and refined meanings, so the "scenes"
become less ambiguous, which serves well to produce a better
understanding, only when layman tries to use it it becomes a jargon.

Maybe, but the common everyday definition
still came first.

Not really, (given the partition nature of English,) common everyday
folks have no idea what "Strings" is.

......
That is what I meant by "what has happened is truth."

Not quite, not quite. What has happened and
what is happening are the events which shape
the truth in an individual. The events may or
may not be 'true' or 'truths' in any sense,
but they shape truth for a person.

No, that is commonly known as "illusion," or "day-dreaming," if the
truth does not match the physical phenomenon.

......
That is "new math."

Do you mean "What is 'new math'"?

No. it is "new math" that talks about "definition," "operation," and
"domain," i.e. new math is talking about structures and principles of
the math. Set Theory is a "new math."


It is set theory and boolean logic as a
means to solve all mathematical operations,
as opposed to conventional algebra and
other math forms.

"Old math" is more emphasized on calculations and solving problem
techniques.


It was the rage in the 60's. I actually
took courses in it in college. Trouble
is, even though students had a higher
degree of success with the method than
they did with conventional methods, the
teachers had a lot of trouble having been
brought up with conventional methods. They
couldn't get their heads around the new
method. This is only teaching method. The
results were the same as conventional.
The worked 'looked' different, but it
wasn't, it was just easier to learn for
those who hadn't been exposed to earlier
'conventional' methods.

How mathematical theory/model works/applies?

I took a class of "coding theory" in college. The subject of the
coding theory is to discuss how to encode and decode the massages to
transmit them over a line and check the transmissions are correct; a
new subject brought up by the advent of new computer age. To develop a
new theory from scratch takes a tremendous work and no guarantee that
would even work in the end. So, what's the solution?

I cannot recall the details now, but the solution is very intriguing.
The theory dissects data, defines the operations and the domain and
comes up with a set of properties, then proves that set of properties
meets the requirements of another math body called "Ring," and
establishes the set of data is a "Ring." As the set is a "Ring," so
all theories, facts, and proofs of the "Ring" will apply, and the
accuracy of the transmission is guaranteed by the theory of "Ring."
There can be no fuzzy about the transmission.

......
Everyone has their own truth means there's no truth, as everyone is in
fact different from each other.

That's one way of looking at it. But it
doesn't work that way in real life. Groups
of people are inclined to hold the same
'truths'. These become members of the same
church for instance.

No, they may hold the same "ideas," but not "truth," by definition.

......
Yes, there are many definitions of "truth" around, but a "good working
definition" is what we are driving at here. So, what is YOUR "good
working definition"?

Been saying it for the last few iterations
of this thread.

The truth of "no truth"? It doesn't work. And you "legal system for
truth" argument is a mess, sniped for brevity.

......
Well, my ideas, a "closed system" is a system where every element
within the system is accountable. As every element is accountable, so
its behavior is predictable; as all elements are predictable, so their
interactions are also predictable, so the whole system has no unknown
element, e.g. mathematics, which, by the way, is a kind of "language"
on its own.

However, an "open system," like English language, is a system where
not every element is known or accountable. As because not every
element is known or accountable, a statement/words may not guarantee a
complete meaning, or even has meaning, which may only produce an
ambiguous result, and "open" for interpretation. So it is an "open
system."

Perfect. Except that you started out this
part of the discussion stating that English
language was a closed system. That was where
I initially took exception.

Yes, [English is a closed system,] see explanation below.

......
Go back now to what you wrote about 'open' and
'closed' systems, where I said 'perfect'. You've
just reversed yourself again here.

No. English has a rigid grammar structure, so it is a "closed system."
And the "system" cannot account for all its members/elements/words
within its domain, so the system is "open."


Yes the math/logic is high resolution, but of
a small segment. Think of microscope.

Not really, math/logic's solutions cover/explain the "whole" universe;
do you have a microscope that big?


What we are talking about is not what the word
describes, but what 'most' of the people understand
the word to mean.

Yes, the math/logic meaning of 'truth' is cleaner.
clearer and more precise than whatever 'everyday'
meaning we might want to choose, but the number of
people who use that meaning on an everyday basis is
ever so much smaller than the 'rest of us'.

Nevertheless, don't the "rest of you" like/want to see something
clearer and more precise?


If you wish to use these definitions, feel free,
but you must say so at the outset and not take it
too personally when someone takes you to task for
doing so without first stating that you are indeed
using jargonized definition of words.

Funny thing is I had no problem to communicate with people who have
skied with me, even when I was talking about Taichi Skiing. I only
have problem with people on the 'net, kind of making one wonders, why
is that?

Easy. You communicate with MUCH more than simple
fallible language when you ski. Here it's only
language.

So, the language alone doesn't really shed the light on "truth"?

:)
IS
.

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Math people ARE different
    ... To me arguing comes naturally in the search for truth as people have ... The big surprise for me from the math community was figuring out that ... those so that the journals editions--and the papers published in it ... a lot of mathematicians are currently doing research. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • More math stuff, truth and social reality
    ... the math people have basically set up one criteria to block the proofs: ... the truth is not what these people care about, ... where mathematicians tell you they decide ... published showing a major result would have been news. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: More math stuff, truth and social reality
    ... >the math people have basically set up one criteria to block the proofs: ... >the truth is not what these people care about, ... where mathematicians tell you they decide ... I for one have suggested that you quit posting only when you ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Definition of truth
    ... and we both agree the truth ... behaviors are well established and documented in Physics. ... if you wish to put specific meaning on certains ... Do you mean "What is 'new math'"? ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... There is no such thing as "the" axioms of arithmetic. ... of axioms "containing a truth". ... > math facts cannot be proved within math, ... math facts" can be proved within math?). ...
    (sci.logic)