Re: Definition of truth

taichiskiing wrote:
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.

I understand that it isn't your intent to 'force'
your understanding of words on others (or maybe
it is, I don't know), but insisting on definitions
of words other than what is commonly understood
without first saying so is counterproductive to
a good discussion.

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?

And my argument at the time was that you may not
assume that all your readers are physicists. Therefore
if you wish to put specific meaning on certains
words that are "well established and documented
in Physics," then you must do so before you start
the discussion.

Now, if you will remember correctly, when we got
down to it, the way in which you were using slipping
and skidding was analogous to the physics of
automobile handling with slipping being analogous
to understeer and skidding being analogous to
oversteer.

In other words slipping describes the tips of the
skis departing from a carved radius, or said
another way, increasing the radius of the turn.
A skier might say the tips are 'washing out'.
Tending to go straight.

Skidding is having the tails of the skis come
around in such a way as the radius of the turn
is being reduced and the tails are sliding side-
ways as opposed to carving. This is most clearly
shown in windshield-wiper turns.

This was all well and good except most skiers
are not physicists and do not use the word
'slip' or 'slipping' in the sense you wanted to
use the word. The way a skier most usually uses
the term is in 'sideslip' or 'sideslipping' in
which there is no turning and the entire ski
is moving perpendicular to the line described
by the ski edges.

Skidding is pretty much defined the same way
in skiing as in auto handling physics. So you
were pretty much OK with one term but not with
the other. It was apparent from that discussion
that you were unaware that there was a difference
in the usage of the term 'slip' and it took a
long while to get around to that fact.

This discussion is not so much over how you use
a word but about how the rest of the world
uses it and how that affects your ability to
communicate in a meaningful way.

I agree that the definition of 'truth' in the
math/logic/science methodology is neat, clean,
tidy, easy to understand and all of that.
However, 'most' everybody in the world are not
mathematicians/logicians/scientists and have
a different idea of 'true' and 'truth'.

Perhaps there should be another word for truth
as 'most' people understand it which is different
from the math/logic/science definition, but
I'm afraid we are stuck with the same word and
must make allowances in order to communicate.

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"?

Well yes, IF it can be 'proved'. But what
test would you put to it to 'prove' that
it is more than a philosophy?

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.

Actually common folks DO know what 'strings' are.
They are small diameter rope. So if you wish to
use the Quantum Physics definition of 'strings' in
a discussion, you MUST define 'strings' first,
before entering into the discussion or you will
have lost your audience after the first sentence
unless they are all Quantum Physicists.

Interesting.
You cannot deny the paragraph I just wrote above
because it is SO self-evident in that the QP
definition of 'strings' is so vastly different
from the 'everyday' definition of 'strings'.

Yet:
On the surface, the math/logic/science definition
of 'true'/'truth' is only a little bit different
from the 'everyday' definition. I think because
of this apparent 'just a little difference', you
are resisting my suggestion that if you want to
use the math/logic/science definition you need to
say so at the beginning of the discussion.

.....
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."

Yes, what I said below.

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.

Yes, and the method is very different
from Set Theory, Boolean Logic, and
Venn diagrams, which is what messed up
math teachers when it was introduced.

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?

Coding theory sounds to me like a method of
expressing something in an unambiguous way
with no fuzziness so that a computer can
understand precisely what you want every
time you write it.

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.

Now hold on there. You talk to these folks and
they will say that these hard-held beliefs are
the absolute truth. They are defining the word
'true' as what they believe, therefore their
defintion of 'true' is their belief system.

This illustrates perfectly what I've been saying
about word definitions. You and I will very likely
say that their beliefs cannot be 'truth' because
no proof or direct observation of these beliefs
can be had. I would agree with that.

However, this shows that their definition of the
word 'truth' is not the same as yours and to have
a meaningful conversation with them, you must
accommodate yourself to their meaning or define
your understanding of the word up front.

Nowhere in any of this have I said that your
definition of 'truth' is wrong or inaccurate
or anything like that. I've just said that other
people hold other definitions for the term and
you must, to be able to have reasonable
communication, know this, accommodate yourself
to it or define your terms up front.

.....
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.

Nah, my definition of 'truth' in the legal system
is pretty close, and as I said, it works enough
of the time so that no better way has been found.

.....
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."

I've discussed earlier how English is open
in that vocabulary is fluid.
Syntax, the part of grammar which governs
how words are combined to make sentences, and
which is VERY rigid in some languages isn't
so rigid in English.

'Normal' syntax is:
<Subject><Verb><Predicate>. To native
speakers this seems logical. In other languages,
<Subject><Predicate><Verb> might be the
'normal' syntax.

While this is what we most often expect
in English speaking and writing, it isn't
hard and fast and some of the most beautiful
writing and poetry does away with rigid
word order completely and is still
completely understandable.

Y'see, you've picked on English to describe
a 'closed' system. English is probably the
largest (most words in its vocabulary), most
complex, most versatile language in the world.
It is this because it is NOT a 'closed' system.

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?

No, not really. The everyday 'working' definitions
of words work just fine for the 'rest of us.'

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"?

You got it.

:)
IS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition of truth
    ... and that's only of the "true" truth. ... behaviors are well established and documented in Physics. ... if you wish to put specific meaning on certains ... Yeah, probably I should have, but didn't know at the time that English ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • 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: 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)
  • Re: The mathematical weakness in SR math:
    ... >> The math of SR is most interesting, ... Tell us how to remove personal choices from science. ... science is NOT about Truth. ... > represents what is relevant for physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading