On 23 Nov 2013, at 16:47, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
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.
OK.
Bruno
2013/11/23 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]>
2013/11/23 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:09, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:11 PM
To: [email protected]
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
