Re: Definition of truth

On Nov 13, 12:55 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:
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.

No, not "insisting" but only reflecting the consistency/persistency of
a truth, which "proves" that your "commonly understood definitions"
inadequate, and that's only of the "true" truth. You may say
otherwise, but then again, what makes what you say "true"?

On the other hand, do you think that insisting on your inadequate
understanding makes a good discussion? How do you learn new things/
ideas?

"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.

Yeah, probably I should have, but didn't know at the time that English
is so partitioned that two groups of people may use the same words,
but they don't have the same meanings. But you think that "slipping/
skidding" are new terms I brought in for different meanings? Here's
the question, do you know what happens if your car are in "slipping"
or "skidding"? Do I have to declare what I mean by "slipping" or
"skidding"?


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.

Yup, that's what surprises me, "slipping" and "skidding" may be
physics terms used to describe certain phenomenon of circular motion,
where skiing is definite one of them, but they are not in the PSIA's
teaching. Well, you don't really need to know physics in order to ski,
but it does help if you want to go "high level."

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.

But you don't see that "sideslipping" describes a movement that is
different from "slipping turn"? If I used "sideslipping" to describe
it, would you know I was talking about the "slipping turn"?


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.

Actually, "slipping turn" is a new technique to the "ski world,"
haven't seen anybody else talks about it, let alone do it.

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.

Nevertheless, why you're "insisting" on the different meaning of
"slip"? That's why you cannot get beyond that presumed domain.


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.

Do you notice how you get trapped in your "closed system" language
pattern and cannot get beyond to get the "full"/true meaning?


I agree that the definition of 'truth' in the
math/logic/science methodology is neat, clean,
tidy, easy to understand and all of that.

So we do establish what definition of "truth" is? Or just a prelude of
your continuing argumentative?

However, 'most' everybody in the world are not
mathematicians/logicians/scientists and have
a different idea of 'true' and 'truth'.

They may have a different idea of "true" and "truth"; however, the
issue here is to exam those "true" and "truth" is indeed "true." Your
"insisting" only reflects your "closed system" thinking/closed-
mindedness.


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.

Chinese has a saying, (regarding how to provide a passage for two
family cats,) "big hole for big cat and small hole for small cat"? Ok,
"partitioned" practice it is. Will it be easier just making a one hole
that is big enough for both cats to pass through? Oh yeah, that's an
analogy if you don't already know.

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?

Actually, I have already proved it; however, since you denied it, you
have to tell me what, in your mind/own words, constitutes a "prove."
And as you insist that "truth" is individual dependent, we also need
to know what you mean by "science" or "scientific methods" and
"philosophy" before we can continue.

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.

So, they did (defined the "Strings"), now do you think that average
"common folks" know what is talking about in "String Theory"? Language
alone doesn't discern reality or generate knowledge.


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'.

No, I don't deny the facts you stated in your argument; however, since
it does not cover/hold true in a big area (e.g. common folks and
quantum physicists combine), so it is in a small domain, in
comparison, a small knowledge, or a small truth.


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.

No, that's only to say that you have a partitioned knowledge. I use
the "meaning" of "truth" the same way in both "everyday definitions"
and doing math.

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.

Iirc, Coding Theory is what proves why and how "checksum" works.


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.

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.

You may believe whatever you want to believe, but that does not makes
what you believe true.


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.

And you are confused the "truth" with "belief."


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.

You need to learn how to read "holistically."


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.

Didn't say that "legal system" bad, just you've confused the "good or
bad" with "truthfulness."

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.

And comparing to some other language (e.g. Chinese), it is.


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

While English must have this kind of syntax, that is to say English
may only have/recognize a completed meaning in a completed sentence.
And that is "rigid." Chinese language carries its meaning on
"characters," so it doesn't have a "fixed" sentence structure. While
many characters have many different meanings, but it is the contexts
of the statement that determine which meaning is used for a particular
character. Precise on imprecise structure, Chinese language is a kind
of fuzzy language, and English is not.


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.

Of course. To my understanding, English major in college studies two
branches of subjects: literature, and critical thinking. You must have
missed the critical thinking part.


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.

Given English must use a "tense" in its sentence, it would be
difficult for you English speaking people to perceive something that
is "timeless," or independent of time, so the concepts of "timeless"
may be difficult for you to grab.

No, the fact is, I don't really think that English is a "closed
system," nevertheless, that's what reflected on this board.

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.'

Yes, but they failed in "high level" knowledge. And you people say I
put you people down? No, it is you people put yourselves down, when
you hug on those low level arguments.

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

You got it.

So, what are you people wrangling about?

:)
IS
.