On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Belief vs Truth

On 11/22/2013 3:24 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent's dichotomy - as you pointed out - about exist and true may go deeper in my opinion: If we THINK of something: it DOES exist indeed (in our mind) but may not be true. I refrain from calling T R U E anything in our restsricted (partial) knowledge capability. "WE THINK IT IS TRUE" is in our belief system. Now it is up to you to call the "EXISTING" thought as 'truly existing'???? We fabricate 'truth' in this respect but only in this respect. Otherwise I am just waiting for additional input disproving what I 'beleived-in' so far.

John M

PS I read this remark of mine to my wife who asked: if somebody KILLS a person (cuts her throat): is it TRUE, or NOT? (pointing to the more convoluted sides of the topic). I tried to save face by saying: Don't you apply our 'wisdom-concepts' to practical life! We seek the theoretical truth! (laugh). (As a matter of fact 'true' is not confoundable with 'truth' just as conscious is not the adjective representing consciousness - in most cases)

In my meta-physics "true" is an attribute of a sentence meaning that the sentence expresses some fact. Facts do not depend on sentences, they can be facts even though no one says so in a sentence. "Exist" has different meaning in different contexts. In physics the essential parts of a model are thought to exist just in case the model is true.

Truth, perhaps, depends on some frame of reference; one could even describe it as an emergent phenomena that has meaning only within the frame of reference from which it emerges.

Logicians distinguish "theory" (which are set of sentences close for some applications of some inference rules), and models, which are mathematical structures together with a notion of "satisfaction of sentences". So a sentence (close formula) is never true per se. It is only satisfied, or not, by this or that model. Validity or theoremhood will correspond with the idea of being true in *all* models of a theory, at least for first order theories (which have such nice model theory). In that case the validity of a reasoning is independent of the interpretation of the theory.

Physics, biology and theology brought some difficulty here, as it assumes some "reality", and normally we should distinguish the theory, the models of the theory, and the relation between those models and reality. Physicists usually ignore the model theory level intermediate between theory and reality, and logicians, like mathematicians, ignore "reality", which they take as a dirty notion used only by engineers or philosophers.

Now, I can agree that many truth can emerge, but they have to emerge from some truth, which are needed to be considered as primitive. With comp, computer science or just arithmetic constitute(s) enough basic truth to explain the emergence of many different notions of truth and existence (indeed one for each "person points of view").



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to