Printable View
actually absolutely absolute.
true is a valid statement, and that leds to the next qwestion, are we capable of validating something? I think the relativeness of our measurements is what fails us.
On the other hand i can't find a definition on truth, it's a valid statement and a valid statement is true, so i'm going in circles. Logic to me is a mathematical language and probably just common way to describe our environment, so reality remains clouded
The definition of truth that I have read about (Infinity and the Mind) is something like this:
"This statement is true."
is defined as:
" 'This statement is true', is true"
which is defined as:
" ' 'This statment is true', is true', is true"
And so on (to infinity). In fact you can substitute 'This Statement' with any sentance and the same problem arises.
I don't know how anyone can insist (except a fundamentalist) that there is any such thing as absolute truth when it comes to moral, value and taste judgements.
I think that when most people talk of an absolute truth they are refering to the physical world (Which we can usually verify one way or the other). Intuition leads us strongly to believe that something exists wheather or not we are around to observe it.
The only problem is that the physical world is made from sub-atomic particals that do not have any definite underlying state until they are measured. Measuring them forces them to take on a definite reality but we cannot say that it therefore had a definite reality before measurement (or with any certainty what it will do next).
The overiding problem is this:
Even if there is an absolute truth, we (with our finite minds) can never know it in it's entirety or ever be sure (without any degree of uncertainty) how close we actually are to the truth.
So that is the real issue. Not if there is an 'Underlying' objective and absolute reality or not, but if we are capable of knowing it (without any uncertainty attall).
If you're wrong and truth is relative, then the study of logic and formal systems is still a worthwhile pursute.
Formal systems are just imaginary constructs that we use as a tool to solve problems. If used well they can be very useful but any formal system is only as valid as the assumptions they are based on and we can never be 100% certain of these (or else they wouldn't be assumptions).
Still, we trust in the systematic process of deduction that we call logic to asses the implications of our assumptions being true (i.e. what else must also be true). This tends to work very well most of the time but even this process may fail (if you accept Godel's Theorem).
The essence of what I'm saying is that logic is a worthwhile pursuit in a universe of relative or objective truth.
You said 'Probabilities are a way to mix logics and unknown elements'.
What you say is true in classical physics but not in quantum mechanics. These 'unknown elements' are unknown because there is nothing to be known. If an electron has a 50/50 chance of going one way or the other, it is truly random because there is no determanistic way to infer which way it will travel.
Unknown elements are elements that are not assumed neither conclusions, which makes them unknown. There's no "known" elements. Everything is therefore also truly random and nothing is deterministic.
But if i'm right, a reality exists, logics have a meaning and truth is reality, otherways, there's absolutely no connection.
I don't see the point in relative truth, that's some kind of decision you make because you don't know, if i knew, i would call it truth but since i don't, i call it unknown, not relative truth. If you split up an enough complex boolean function you will find that the result is dependent on each variable, "unknown", but if you don't, you could draw a conclusion "it's random", and "it has a probability of 935 of 1 to return true." It's still not relative truth.
I am not basing my belief on relative truth on the fact that I cannot know everything. I base it on the notion that two people could experience two conflicting but equally valid truths.
The point is with your complex boolean funciton is that you could (if you had the inclination) find out all the unknown variables.
The point of Quantum mechanics is that these 'unknown' variables do not have a definitive state until you measure them. The act of measurement gives them a definite state but then the collective behaviour of the system changes.
The fact that measuring these 'unknowns' changes the behaviour of the system implies that these variables have no actual value until you measure them.
Infact, two identical experiments could be set up by two different scientists. Each tested in the same way and two different but equally valid results might emerge. Hence the relativity of truth.
You might think it unfair of me to base my argument on quantum mechanics (and perhaps it is) but at least it gives a "real world" example of the non-objectivity of truth.
It's your true world, i've seen how you use these words now and i think you assume you have the right to measure reality. Actually giving everyone/anything the right to not to assume but measure reality.
Two identical experiments has to be the same experiment to be identical, since otherways we have other circumstances. I don't think you should just say "infact..." and ignoring all parameters you don't even know how to measure. If you knew, you would proove determinism and fail, so stating facts would contradict you.
My boolean function won't give any result until all variables have been given value, assigning them by assuming would not proove determinism, but would not have any connection with reality, but if i have the inclination i proove determinism by knowing the result, since i don't, i proove indeterminism. Time will still tell you the result, by truely assigning the unknowns according to reality, in both your and my case. This would not be possible if a variable couldn't be calculated. It would flaw logics and turn reality to be meaningless.
Maybe i'm not making sense, but i should. If you don't then you should ask because i have this feeling people never understand my words, i'm bad at expressing myself and if something is missunderstood, the whole thing could be.
OK, I'll admit; Sometimes I struggle to understand what you are trying to say but I believe I have the gist of it (I may be wrong of course).
I'm not to sure about your first paragraph in the last post: "It's your true world, i've seen how you use these words now and i think you assume you have the right to measure reality. Actually giving everyone/anything the right to not to assume but measure reality. "
With regard to the next two paragraphs,
You stated :"Time will still tell you the result, by truely assigning the unknowns according to reality, in both your and my case. "
The above statement seems to me to indicate that you do not have an understanding of quantum principles. If you did, you would not say that you can assign to the unknowns according to reality because the only reality they 'have' is the subjective reality one assigns to them in the act of measurement.
The behavior of subatomic particles do not conform to what we know as classical mechanics. In classical mechanics, Objects have an underlying reality independant of what we might know about them. I stress again that you cannot apply this chain of thought to quantum particles.
So I stand by my statement that two identical experiments (of quantum particles) could yield different results. This is because the probabilities involved represent an underlying randomness that doesn't exist in the classical mechanic's view of the world.
I have to admit too, i do not understand Quantum mechanics at all, and i can't see the connections between subjective realities, it there are such. I slill can't say should i believe in any reality, but i hate the way they assume they can measure reality, so i have to be brainwashed before i can understand.
If Quantum mechanics explains the behavior of subatomic particles, but substitues objective reality with nothing and tell me my measurements is a subjective reality, i don't believe i ever could. What i meant with my first paragraph is just this, that you assume you (or anyone) can measures reality, or redefine reality.
I don't think you can compare two subjective realities, and apply any logics, for contradiction will flaw it.
If Classical physics does not explain something that i measure, i won't care. I'm not relying on it anyway.
If I can explain that an objective reality exists, i'd prefer myself living in one even if i have no idea how it looks like.
After all i'm happy not knowing anything at all.
I understand you now.
I didn't mean to give the impression that quantum scientists measure reality. They don't. They measure properties of sub-atomic particles (in the same way a classical scientist might measure the properties of a macro object).
The difference is that where a classical scientist takes measurements to get a clearer understanding of the 'objective' underlying state (reality) of an entity, In quantum mechanics, a subjective reality emerges from the process of interaction between the object being measured and the measurer.
I know this is hard to accept (and I must admit that I myself find it difficult to grasp) but this really is the weird nature of the quantum universe.
To be honest, I don't think there's any harm in believing reality to be objective, as you also accept that you can never really know what it is. It's those who believe in an objective reality and think they know what it is (Better than everyone else) who are dangerous.
I just can't see how anybody can reconcile the notion of an objective reality with quantum mechanics.
There's certainly something missing in the picture, Quantum mechanics wouldn't explain why we have these measurements at all and QM wouldn't explain why you are alone when you measure you're not.
Thinking about what you said, if QM might just be another way to look at the reality, not that we take it as truth, while truth remains unknown and absolute.
I'm not sure what you mean but I would recommend further reading on the subject (it is very interesting).
At the end of the day, I must admit that I probably do believe in a kind of underlying reality. That is a reality that it meaningless until someone gives it meaning by interacting (observing, measuring etc.) with it. Generally it leas us to 'share' reality with others as we tend to perceive things in a similar way.
As for as Godel's theorem, I don't think you can choose between the inconsistancy and incompleteness of truth; You have to accept both. i.e. There are some things that are true that we can never prove and there are some things that we can prove but contradict other truths. The only way one can accept contradictions in truth is to allow for (at least a degree of) subjectivity.
Strange.
Well, I admit that I'm not as consise with my terminology as I should be and I know I have strayed far from the original point of the thread but, I still stand by my point that we should accept the possibility of contradictory truths.
Why does this have to kick the doors open and lead to the notion that if one 'truth' can be proved true that contradicts andother 'proven' truth, then all versions of truth are equally valid (or invalid). I don't believe it does. It just means that things aren't as black and white as they we would like them to be.
I did read something interesting that drew a distinction between 'weak' objectivity and 'strong' objectivity.
'Weak' objectivity is the belief that any particular scientific experiment can be performed by anybody at any time (as long as they follow the same rules) to achieve the same set of results.
If you believe that these results will then go on to illuminate a consistant and objective truth then this is called 'strong' objectivity. If they don't, it is merely 'weak' objectivity.
The author who made the above distinction said that only a belief in weak objectivity is required for a scientist to do his job. Furthermore, quantum mechanics seems to go against the notion of strong objectivity.
Anyway, as you say, This should really be in another thread (perhaps even in another forum) so I'll let the matter rest (unless a new thread is started up).