Clarke - No that's not the thread. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

A=A, and A=B=A are not relative, but only because they are interpreted like values. However, those values still had to be determined, which leads back to the original relativity (trying not to say "arbitrary") of systems of observation. Systems of interpretation are still subject to the logic of those who wrote them, and different cultures have different sets of logic (a quick example being the base-10 of humans vs the base-8 of Na'vi, and this difference leads to different systems of mathematical logic). Derick Jenson did a piece once about a group of indigenous people and finger counting. I think I'll post it. Tbh this is kinda hard to word.

And yes, I do believe that inference can be relative, if people have different starting points. Take the example of political ideology. People make different conclusions about issues based on where they fall on the spectrum, and where they fall on the spectrum is usually based on how they choose to interpret a single question, human nature. How one chooses to answer this question (which easily can be answered in different ways), has the potential to branch off into completely different ideologies.

My last $0.02...for now. I'm kinda interested in seeing how this thread hatches out.

EDIT: Damn, that video got yanked. :(

Anyway, here's the thread: http://www.tree-of-souls.com/science...was_right.html

Ah politics, the environment where you "have" to have a particular view on everything.

I don't know I'm pretty good at having no opinion on anything political right now :P

Anytime someone asks me about a political question I'm pretty much always like "I don't know enough about this", which is pretty much true. It's probably true for the majority of people that talk too.

That entire paragraph very was self contradictory. Isn't what you just said a school of thought? Did you not just construct a truth?

I will say in advance that I do not like post-modernism the least bit.

There is a difference between speaking of a person objectively in terms of having a certain viewpoint and whether said viewpoint reflects reality or not. In such cases, subjectivism defines terms according to a relative viewpoint and not some objective cirteria. My definition of what is reasonable may differ from yours but we should not make the error of treating them as the exact same thing even though language lumps them together under the same term.

You're right that mathematics branched off physical objects, but now bears no connection to them at all. It is entirely deductive reasoning, and so valid by definition. (That is, assuming the premises must produce the conclusion.)

Mathematics does not have to reflect reality, so our perception doesn't come into it. It's arbitrarily defined into being. Some sections of it do reflect reality, but that's got nothing to do with maths itself.

I've found it's very hard to argue that truth is relative, since you usually end up saying that something is true. :P

In that case, you are just giving the same entity different names. Na'vi logic would be, semantically, completely identical to our logic, because the only difference is how integers are written, now how integers behave. You can't make eleven divide into equal pieces whether you call it "eleven," "11," "13," or "vopey." (Or "elephant" for that matter. :awesome:)

Conclusions are what you're talking about, IMO, and yes, they're relative. However, the arguments coming that back up the conclusions aren't relative; it is easy to see whether or not they are valid. "P, therefore Q" can still be valid if P isn't actually true. Subsequently, "[P, therefore Q] is valid" is a truth completely independent of P being true.

Thanks for that.:)

But surely that is the purpose of mahematics, to define what reality is, assign it to a constant and in turn these constants can be worked in a number of ways to produce an outcome, or an answer which we seek.

Maths is not done simply for maths' sake, but for the sake of a real question that needs an answer.

Without reality maths would cease to make any sense. Yes, the numbers may not physically represent a physical object any longer, but if a 1 or a 2 in a working (even the simplest of equations 1+1=2 for example) arbitrarily disappears, and we do not seek where it went in order to 'correct' the mistake then the answer that we resolve the question to be will have to be wrong as - just as something cannot just 'suddenly disappear', in reality - nor can the non-physicalised values determined in a problem.

Or, maybe they actually *can* disappear in reality - we just do not know it can happen by our scientific reckoning or because we are limited in our view of the universe. In which case, the language we are following has been written on the wrong perception, that things that seem impossible in actuality are not, and thus, we are limited by the strictness of the language. We 'wrote' mathematics based on our Earth constants, and from our outside view of the universe which really is miniscule compared to the scale of it, so we cannot properly, nor fully know or predict anything beyond that as we simply cannot see that far.

(Again, apologies if I don't come across correctly, I struggle to convey my theories properly. As would seem to be demonstrated in the last post. When I say "we just cannot perceive it", that may have been poor word choice... Rather, our 'language' would not allow us to calculate it that way. I didn't mean it in terms of emotional or mental perception, if it came across that way.)

I am assuming that you intend to say that reality may be different than we think because there are things that exist outside of our perception.

We are trying to discover everything inside a closed system with mathematics and logic. I can observe interactions around me. If I am touching a brick, then it interacts with me as I can sense its touch. But even if I cannot directly sense something, I can still discover it by observing how it interacts with other objects. I cannot sense radiation directly but I can observe its effects on other objects and deductively reason that it exists.

Now let us say that there is an object which cannot be perceived. An invisible substance that cannot be directly sensed by our five senses. It also does not interact with anything else in our universe so we cannot observe its effects indirectly. Why then would we even try to concern ourselves with it? The question of whether the substance exists doesn't matter as it has no possible effect on us whatsoever.

Basically we only concern ourselves with the closed system of everything that interacts with us. That set of all things whose interactions have any effect on us whether it be directly or through a great chain of various interactions. Those things which do not interact exist within some other different closed system. Between our closed system of interactions and some other closed system of things interacting, nothing happens. They are separate.

Now in case what you were saying about things outside our perception has some metaphysical aspect to it: if we die and said substance interacts with us, then it is of our concern. If we live and we die not being able to interact with it, then it is of no concern.

If for example a god exists that interacts with our universe or meets us after we die, then it is of our concern. If a god exists somewhere but does not interact with our universe at all (i.e. said being was not involved in creation, does not influence our everyday lives, we do not meet him after we die), then why call him god to begin with?

Does that answer your question?

Yes, that is a much better way to sum up what I tried to say esentially... But my question still remains. If we are trying to find universal truths inside a closed and narrow system, how can we claim these findings as "the truth" when they really are only a percieved and widely (being the key word, not all share the same views, which in itself is inherently problematic) agreed understanding of what we - as humans, with our own sets of limits and barriers - can consider.

I see that is what we are trying to do with (at least some branches of, anyway) mathematics. Indeed, maybe we only should consider our own system, and not another that is inaccessable/incomprehendable using the techniques we are limited to... But we seem to want to apply what we know to *everything* including things beyond our reach and claim it as the truth, which is unreasonable. Reasonable, perhaps to us, as we can only use what we can prove, but unreasonable to claim as a fundamentally 'right' answer.

Mathematics is completely disconnected from reality. You can define arbitrary structures and arbitrary relationships and study them, regardless of whether they have any real-life meaning whatsoever. For instance, infinite-dimensional function spaces can be studied.

Pure mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics is basically playing by rules, and the accepted rules don't allow you to drop numbers arbitrarily. You could use rules that did, and see where it got you.

For instance, if I accept certain rules, I can chop a sphere up into two of itself. :D
We didn't write mathematics based on Earth constants. We wrote mathematics to formalize intuition, and then make it consistent. It appears to be a coincidence that useful things fell out the other end.

As mentioned earlier, mathematics cannot be wrong, because it operates within known rules. Physics can be, but because physics relies on mathematics, all it has to do is use and extrapolate from the new evidence, and then it's fine.

All expressible statements about the world can be dealt with by mathematics.

That all are not in agreement is not a problem. Take for example a rock. Some people may claim that it is square, other may claim that it is a pentagon. Regardless of what people think, the rock still is still either a pentagon or square regardless of what people think of it.

Now I will go ahead and try to predict your counter claim: what if the people really do perceive the rock differently as being a square or a pentagon?

My response would be that perception is a product of reality and not the other way around. My senses are the result of physical mechanisms at work. What I see are merely photons entering my retina. If I perceived it differently, then it is not that the rock actually changes shape based upon perception but that something is distorting your view of the world.

We define truth as being that which is in accordance with reality. We may see it through a lens but that does not mean nothing exists on the other side of the lens. That we see anything at all is evidence of an objective truth because clearly, something is interacting with us. We may not be able to say with exact certainty what is in terms of being (what is a shovel? how can you know unless you are the shovel yourself) but we can be certain of truth in relationship to how it interacts with us (a shovel will stay at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by some force).

My response here would be, what is the purpose of this? Why do we do it? If it has no real bearing on anything, then why are we doing things 'for a laugh'?

Wouldn't this serve to prove that maths really does not mean an awful lot when taken outside of the context of reality, seeing as 'rules' can be arbitrarily created as and when we please?

Mathematics cannot be wrong, simply because it plays by it's own suggested rules. If I personally said "all fish are toasters" and I believed it as a completely true rule, then I would never be wrong either, but in reality I quite obviously am. (A nutjob, that is. :D)

And if those rules can be changed to fit whatever we need to do, and - in turn - separates fellow mathematicians into schools of thought on whether things can be accepted or not, surely this only splinters the idea of mathematics as 'the truth' even further...

If physics relies on mathematics, then surely, again, we are limiting ourselves by what mathematics can seem to provide for the real, regardless of the physicality of things.

I actually meant that in terms of 'english language' expression, rather than mathematical expression. Unless that was a joke, in which case, well played. :P

(Alright, I need a break, before I literally go mad.)

Lots of things are being stated here as "facts" that are really just one philosophical interpretation. Kind of makes me not want to say anything

Don't, get out while you still can!

Save yourself, it's too late for me...

RUN!

:D

Clarke - Yes, in Na'vi logic basic algebraic functions would still work the same way, but differences in writing can still cause major differences in higher mathematical and scientific methods. A Na'vi metric system would likely be based around base-8, thus leading to differnt forms of measuring states in the universe (which I already said I believe can be absolute). Let's go back to the wavelength of blue. When trying to measure the wavelength of blue light (which, itself, moves at an absolute physical wavelength), a different measurement system would lead to that wavelength being given a different numerical value. Thus, again, our non-exact ways of measuring exact states in the universe, and how it can vary for different species. Have you ever seen the movie "Contact"? This is a pretty good example of this. The aliens had to translate the schematics for the teleporter into a very basic number system that would be almost universally understood, because their higher mathematical systems were entirely different.

Arguments can be relative, too. How one forms arguments is all how people interpret evidence. The London riots are a perfect example. The Right believes they were caused because of people being lazy in the face of program cuts, the Left believes they were caused by desperation in the face of austerity. In fact, this describes all of history. People always complain about "historical revisionism," but all history is revisionist! An event occured, all history is is how this event is interpreted by those who go on to tell the tale of it (thus making the history). The Nazi Regime was simply a time in Germany (Godwin's Law, I know, but I don't care, this is relevant). For Aryans, and today modern white supremacists, it was a glorious time. However, for Jewish people, homosexuals, unionists, etc., and their modern descendants, it was a horific nightmare. One event, two viewpoints, two completely different worldviews.

The physical world and things that occur in it, are absolute. The world IS. I AM. Etc. The world exists, that is fact. Events are a fact. However, IMO, the only objective truth is when these things are taken for face value (1 = 1, that is fact, etc. Or the "Contact" schematics). However, I think higher objective truth does not exist (or higher mathetical or scientific methods). When values are given to the world and events, and they are interpreted, that is when truth becomes relative. Though TBH I think we're talking past each other a lot.

In other words, think Ayn Rand's 3 axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness. To me, existence IS objective. However, the higher axioms (identity and consciousness) are relative, and it is by these higher axioms that we define our world the most, how we define ourselves the most.

*goes back to sidelines, ices temples*

Fkeu/Icu - I think that's one of the downfalls of the linguistics of debate. In a debate, people pick a side and choose to make an opinion their "fact," and thus they will likely use language that reflects this. TBH trying to use that as an example of evidence of objective truth is pushing things a bit too far.

I suppose it is a school of thought..but you should know that everything in life is contradictory..truth is no different.

I understand your take on postmodernism it's not for everyone.