Nature of "truth?"

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

2+2 may be 4 and the sky may be blue, but what is 4?

1+1+1+1. SSSS0. The successor of 3.

And what is blue?

Pick your arbitrary constants. The wavelengths 400-500nm specify a good chunk of what I consider "blue."

How we define systems has a large part to do with the values that we apply to them in our use of them.

This only really becomes an issue when you start trying to apply mathematics/logic to the real world. When you're operating in pure logic, "values" shouldn't come into it.

It's even interesting to see just how far this can go. For example, in 1984, O'Brian made Winston Smith believe that 2 and 2 made 5.

You can make that work. It won't give you the same results as arithmetic where 2+2=4, but it's no less "right," assuming it's axioms hold. (Though in this case, the axioms don't reflect the boring place called reality, and so it's not as practically useful.)

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

That's a good point. There's a lot of uncertainty in science (rounding values/significant digits, factor of error, statistical [in]significance, etc). Our means of qualitating and quantifying data can never be exact. Sure, we might be able to calculate theoretical results (still limited by digits and rounding), but there will always likely be some deviation during actual observation.

But our quantification of data can be precise in their fuzzyness.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Clarke

1+1+1+1. SSSS0. The successor of 3.


Pick your arbitrary constants. The wavelengths 400-500nm specify a good chunk of what I consider "blue."


This only really becomes an issue when you start trying to apply mathematics/logic to the real world. When you're operating in pure logic, "values" shouldn't come into it.


You can make that work. It won't give you the same results as arithmetic where 2+2=4, but it's no less "right," assuming it's axioms hold. (Though in this case, the axioms don't reflect the boring place called reality, and so it's not as practically useful.)


But our quantification of data can be precise in their fuzzyness.

(I'm on a phone, so this will just be something quick.)

Blue is on those wavelengths because that is the method of quantitative analysis that we have invented, with a number system we created to grasp these quantities. An alien race might have a completely different way of quantifying states. Yes, the actual wavelengths that blue occupies may be constant, but how we quantify them can vary, and thus the value we assign to blue. The same basic logic for placing value on 3.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about that calculus trick to make 4 = 5. My fault, but you know what I'm getting at.

And that's also what I'm getting at. Things can be pretty precise on paper, but that's not the way things work in the real world (where "truth" of any value exists), where we must apply value to them to make them useful. But that still brings in the issue of our systems of quantifying things (on paper), and possible non-precision in calculation.

I guess my view can be summed up in a word: relativity. In fact, I think the fact that something like "debate" exists is the ultimate proof of the relative nature of truth. It's all in the eye of the beholder (or a whole civilization of beholders).

Chew on that a while. I'm off the rest of the night.

Edit: A member named ZenitYerkes once posted a thread about relativity in relation to geocentrism. If someone can dig that up, it would be a good addition to this thread.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I guess my view can be summed up in a word: relativity. In fact, I think the fact that something like "debate" exists is the ultimate proof of the relative nature of truth. It's all in the eye of the beholder (or a whole civilization of beholders).

Is A=A relative? Is the excluded middle relative? (i.e. can a single proposition be both right and wrong simultaneously?) Is inference relative?

And if you're answer to the last one is "yes," why do you think that?

Edit: A member named ZenitYerkes once posted a thread about relativity in relation to geocentrism. If someone can dig that up, it would be a good addition to this thread.

This one?