by salima - i think this is why so many of the threads here seem to get bogged down, because nobody wants to say or respond to something that isnt exactly 'corresponding' to what they mean to say and what others will understand when they hear it. in some instances, such as the case of philosophical discussions or law, it is necessary.

It is in my view meaningless to discuss truth in the abstract, because it is 'neither this nor that'. There is no such 'thing' as truth. It can't be defined because a definition only states what something is not. In fact it is only when we have a commitment to truth that it means anything at all. This is one of the reasons, or the only reason, why we study philosophy, is it not?

I'm in the camp that truth is defined by a group of people by consensus. The primary function of this exercise being the ability to monetize whatever is declared to be true. People pay good money for learning the truth, so why not figure out a way to take advantage of this behavior.

Most economic groups (groups making a profit), are generally involved in some way with marketing something that is true - anywhere from religious organizations, to deodorant products, to research organizations. They all claim to know the truth and make a darn good living promising to deliver. I was a consultant at one time, and of course companies paid me to tell them the truth - which I did to the best of my ability.

I guess, a good question would be, why do humans want to know the truth. Maybe it is just a game - i.e. to learn the truth? Sort of like a jigsaw puzzle. I don't know, but it is interesting. Personally, I love looking for clues, but I don't think I ever feel like I have the truth. Works for me while playing the stock market. A bit of humility has saved the day more than once.

Rich

Well, I am in the camp that truth is not defined by a group of people in consensus. So, is it true that truth is defined by people in consensus, or is it not true that truth is defined by a group of people in consensus?

"A puzzlement", as the King of Siam would say.

But, of course, 1+1=2 is true not because of any consensus, but because it is a tautology. Tautological truths never need consensus, do they?

hi Zetherin

i think mathematics is an interesting case because it is a very special type of language. Of course 1+1=2 is not necessarily true if we use it to model reality, depending on how we interpret the symbols in that relation to reality.

A language that seems to take off into incredible complexity and without contradiction, if the operations and concepts are unambiguously defined. If a contradiction is found, then something is not true. Like an axiom or proposition that leads to the contradiction, or the logic of the chain.

A dream language for abstract determinists apparently timeless. Very enticing in a search for 'the truth'. If only we didn't have to slip something like a scientific narrative on top in order to get it to model reality as a whole.

hi Zetherin

i think mathematics is an interesting case because it is a very special type of language. Of course 1+1=2 is not necessarily true if we use it to model reality, depending on how we interpret the symbols in that relation to reality. But in and of itself it does have a strange feel about it. It acts upon itself like as you say a tautology, splintering into a myriad of equivalence.

A language that seems to take off into incredible complexity and without contradiction, if the operations and concepts are unambiguously defined. If a contradiction is found, then something is not true. Like an axiom or proposition that leads to the contradiction, or the logic of the chain.

A dream language for abstract determinists apparently timeless. Very enticing in a search for 'the truth'. If only we didn't have to slip something like a scientific narrative on top in order to get it to model reality as a whole.

How can we have a committment to truth if there is no such thing as truth (as you say)?

According to this theory (correspondence), truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view ... seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth. The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.
1- In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?
2- The making of the comparison is itself a fact about which we have a belief. We have to believe that the belief about the comparison is true. How do we know that our belief in this agreement is "true"? This leads to an infinite regress, leaving us with no assurance of true belief.

Ordinary languages are much more loose and slippery. The history and meaning of a common word is not obvious from its form or relation to the narrative it is a part of. There is gain and loss in both.

Ordinary languages are much more loose and slippery. The history and meaning of a common word is not obvious from its form or relation to the narrative it is a part of. There is gain and loss in both.

well for me Zetherin mathematics is like an incredible crystal. I remember the day in casual conversation with a mathematics professor at the start of my physics degree and he wrote

e^i*pi = -1

on the blackboard. I just stood and stared at what appeared to me to be such a magical equation. I still do. I think it is beautiful. It does not obviously follow from

1 + 1 = 2

which i agree can be part of axiomatic definition within a mathematical scheme. Changing the symbols wouldn't alter this effect, this creative discovery in the history of mathematics.

You mean you appreciate the aesthetic quality of that group of symbols [e^i*pi = -1]? That is, you just like the way it... looks? What would you otherwise be appreciating? The concepts behind the numbers (e.g. "e" has an exponent "i", the multiplying of the "pi", the equaling of "-1")?

No matter how creative a mathematical equation looks, it still follows a "mathematical scheme". Changing the symbols wouldn't alter the effect (mathematical outcome, I suppose you mean), but changing the concepts sure would.

You mean you appreciate the aesthetic quality of that group of symbols [e^i*pi = -1]? That is, you just like the way it... looks? What would you otherwise be appreciating? The concepts behind the numbers (e.g. "e" has an exponent "i", the multiplying of the "pi", the equaling of "-1")?

The way it all fits together. What each of the symbols mean in the mathematical world. The surprise! The exponential number, pi, imaginary numbers even negative numbers and 1 itself. These are interesting concepts in and of themselves. To learn what x^2 means, and then x^1/2 and then imaginary numbers and then see what happens when the exponential number is raised to what at first looks like a non sensical power of i*pi. And the answer is -1! .... and yes the simplicity and even the way it looks.

Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder i guess. The truth of that equation is still amazing to me, even after i learned to use it in understanding concepts in physics ..... even after i had to use it as a sausage machine for number crunching results.

rich

yes relativity equations are cool.

.... c=me

:a-ok:

The way it all fits together. What each of the symbols mean in the mathematical world. The surprise! The exponential number, pi, imaginary numbers even negative numbers and 1 itself. These are interesting concepts in and of themselves. To learn what x^2 means, and then x^1/2 and then imaginary numbers and then see what happens when the exponential number is raised to what at first looks like a non sensical power of i*pi. And the answer is -1! .... and yes the simplicity and even the way it looks.

Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder i guess. The truth of that equation is still amazing to me, even after i learned to use it in understanding concepts in physics ..... even after i had to use it as a sausage machine for number crunching results.

it looks even better hand written lol