Dear Bruno, think about it as "absolute truth: Isn't 1+1 not 2, but 11? Respectfully John

## Advertising

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hello John, > > On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote: > > Bruno: > > Doesn't it emerge in this respect "WHAT truth?" or rather > "WHOSE truth?" is there an accepted authority to verify an "absolute" > truth judgeable from a different belief system? > > > I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree on hypotheses, > about such truth, concerning some domain of investigation. > > We can also agree on the existence or non existence of facts confirming > some truth concerning some reality. > > But we can bet such truth exists, even if we cannot believe it or know it > "for sure". > > Examples: > > - Few people doubt that "1+1=2" is an "absolute truth", when 1 and 2 are > used as the usual name for the standard natural numbers, and "+" represents > the standard addition operation. Likewise for the whole elementary (first > order) arithmetic. > > - We usually don't doubt the mundane informations. So, 'Obama is the > actual president of the US' can reasonably be assumed as absolute. I mean, > with "actual", that "Obama is the actual president of the US in our > reality" is the absolute truth. Not the proposition "Obama is the actual > president of the US" which might be false in the universe next door. > > Most theoretical truth are absolute, thanks to their conditional shapes. > For example the existence of parallel universes in the theoretical > framework of QM-without-collapse is absolute, accepting some reasonable > definition of what is a universe (a set of events closed for interaction, > for example). This is absolute as it is a theorem in QM-without-collapse > (or of comp). Of course the proposition "parallel universes exist" is not > absolute at all. > > Bruno > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 23 Jun 2012, at 09:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >> >> On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following: >>> >>>> On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have many questions. >>>>> >>>>> One is "what if truth were malleable?" -- >>>>> >>>> HI Brian, >>>> >>>> If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our >>>> "standards" of truth varied, how could we tell? This reminds me of >>>> the debate between Leibniz and Newton regarding the notion of >>>> absolute space. >>>> >>>> >>> If one assumes the correspondence theory of truth, then the question >>> would be if a reality were malleable. >>> >> >> >> >> Right. Which leads to the question; what does Brian mean by "truth is >> malleable"? >> >> Would this entail that arithmetical truth is malleable? What would it >> mean that the truth of "17 is prime" is malleable. It looks like we need a >> more solid truth than arithmetic in which we can make sense of the >> malleability of the truth in arithmetic, but I cannot see anything more >> solid than elementary arithmetic. >> >> Some truth can be malleable in some operational sense, but this will be >> only metaphorical. For example the "truth" that cannabis is far more safe >> than alcohol, appears to be quite malleable, but this is just because >> special interest exploits the lack of education in logic. People driven by >> power are used to mistreat truth, but it is just errors or lies. I guess >> Brian's question is more metaphysical, but then in which non malleable >> context can we make sense of metaphysically malleable truth? Perhaps Brian >> should elaborate on what he means by "truth is malleable"? It seems to me >> that such an idea is similar to complete relativism, which defeats itself >> by not allowing that very idea to be relativized. >> >> >> Bruno >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> >> . >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.