the factual notions of truth and existence are linked by the notion that
what is true kick back and what kick back can render you nonexistent at the
moment  `t +1`  if you negate its truth at the moment `t`.

Now natural selection can make the units of time really really long. So it
is not a surprise that people agree most in the truth and existence of
things that kick back in order of seconds by the natural law of physics
than abstract things that kick back in orders of generations by the natural
law of game theory applied to social proceses..

But both kinds of truths are in our common sense by means of the
Lorenzian-Kantian-evolitionary process that I mentioned above. The first
kind of knowledge are in our common sense by means of the perception of
solid objects in space and time. The second kind of knowledge are in the
form of moral intuitions.


2013/11/23 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> 2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>
>>
>> On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com<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:
>>
>> Bruno:
>>  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)
>> JM
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Very well stated.
>
>
>>  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").
>>
>
> For example?. For me comp explain to much., (even what is not observed)
> and to few (of the truths that are self evident). There are other basic
> truths that work better
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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