Definition of truth

On Nov 5, 12:12*pm, galathaea wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:53*am, Richard Henry wrote:

I recently came across this supposed definition of truth on a
different newsgroup (rec.skiing.alpine)and I am seeking professional
opinions of it:

usually
* you cannot define truth in the theory that uses it

this is a famous result of tarski
* and applies to any theory where the liar diagonalisation works

instead truth is modelled
which is a whole different procedure than definition

""No, you are confused "principle of truth" with "argumentative."
Truth states a state of truth based on matter of facts/premises; that
is, it is done by the formula "IF A THEN B," where A is the premise
and B is the outcome/prediction. That is to say, if A is true, it is
sufficient to show that B is true. However, given "NOT B then NOT A,"
A becomes a necessary condition for B to become true within
established relationship. So, you can only disprove a truth/true
statement by showing the incongruity of the premises, that is, lack of
integrity and/or incomplete; the rest of arguments are only
"argumentative.

this isn't a definition
* it's just the "usage" of truth

application of rules of inference preserve truth in the model
that is the fundamental relationship between theories and their models

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Cross-posted to rec.skiing.alpine

On Nov 7, 6:26 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:12 pm, galathaea wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:53 am, Richard Henry wrote:

I recently came across this supposed definition of truth on a
different newsgroup (rec.skiing.alpine)and I am seeking professional
opinions of it:

usually
you cannot define truth in the theory that uses it

Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.


this is a famous result of tarski
and applies to any theory where the liar diagonalisation works

Interesting, how do you know me? Hopefully, call-name is not what you
pros practice here.


instead truth is modelled
which is a whole different procedure than definition

Yes, and no. How do you define the "truth"?


""No, you are confused "principle of truth" with "argumentative."
Truth states a state of truth based on matter of facts/premises; that
is, it is done by the formula "IF A THEN B," where A is the premise
and B is the outcome/prediction. That is to say, if A is true, it is
sufficient to show that B is true. However, given "NOT B then NOT A,"
A becomes a necessary condition for B to become true within
established relationship. So, you can only disprove a truth/true
statement by showing the incongruity of the premises, that is, lack of
integrity and/or incomplete; the rest of arguments are only
"argumentative.

this isn't a definition
it's just the "usage" of truth

BURT said it better "Eternal absolute and self evident"; nevertheless,
in Taichi, (where "Taichi" is referring the ancient Chinese philosophy
Taichi,) we call it "self-contain." In mathematics, "well-define"?


application of rules of inference preserve truth in the model
that is the fundamental relationship between theories and their models

That's quite true; however, questions remain, *what* are the "rules,"
*why and how* "inference preserve truth," i.e. what kind of
"mechanism" you use to determine the tangible, and more importantly,
intangible result? As we push the boundary, inevitably we run into the
"boundary conditions," why is logic logical/valid?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Cross-posted to rec.skiing.alpine

Thanks for the link.


IS

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.

Yeah! Try to argue with that line of reasoning!!!

Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.


That definition may work quite well for the model problems of
mathematical logic, but should not be confused with what most people
would contemplate as being a "hysically manifested truth".

If you believe in quantum mechanics, then the foundations of the
physics are wrapped up with probability theory. And one must
ultimately come to the conclusion that either :

1) Truth is unknowable for the same reason that the outcome of a
random coin flip is unknowable prior to flipping the coin.

and/or

2) That "The Absolute and Consummate Truth" may be regarded as either
existing, or not. You guessed it - just like God.

and/or

3) [insert something that sounds insane]


But most importantly ! - Truth is a highly contextual word which has
different meanings in different contexts. Truth to a Jury is different
than the truth of a mathematician, or logician, or the truth of a
philosopher, or the truth of a religious person, or even two people in
love, or a politician, or a salesman. You have to look at the context
in which it's being used.

On Nov 7, 5:14*pm, Mistress Helios wrote:
Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.

That definition may work quite well for the model problems of
mathematical logic, but should not be confused with what most people
would contemplate as being a "hysically manifested truth".

If you believe in quantum mechanics, then the foundations of the
physics are wrapped up with probability theory. And one must
ultimately come to the conclusion that either :

1) Truth is unknowable for the same reason that the outcome of a
random coin flip is unknowable prior to flipping the coin.

and/or

2) That "The Absolute and Consummate Truth" may be regarded as either
existing, or not. You guessed it - just like God.

and/or

3) [insert something that sounds insane]

But most importantly ! - Truth is a highly contextual word which has
different meanings in different contexts. Truth to a Jury is different
than the truth of a mathematician, or logician, or the truth of a
philosopher, or the truth of a religious person, or even two people in
love, or a politician, or a salesman. You have to look at the context
in which it's being used.

I think that truth is meant to be known.

Mitch Raemsch

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 17:14:27 -0800 (PST), Mistress Helios
wrote this crap:

If you believe in quantum mechanics, then the foundations of the
physics are wrapped up with probability theory. And one must
ultimately come to the conclusion that either :


That's crap, and you know it. Quantum physics has has nothing to do
with probability theory, Have you been drinking?


1) Truth is unknowable for the same reason that the outcome of a
random coin flip is unknowable prior to flipping the coin.


Fairy tales. Facts are truth.

and/or

2) That "The Absolute and Consummate Truth" may be regarded as either
existing, or not. You guessed it - just like God.

and/or

3) [insert something that sounds insane]


OK, I got it, you are joking.





A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:01:22 -0800 (PST), BURT
wrote this crap:

I think that truth is meant to be known.

Mitch Raemsch


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!


Naive.


Look it up.




A mighty Hungarian warrior
The blood of Attila runs through me

On Nov 7, 5:14 pm, Mistress Helios wrote:
Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.

That definition may work quite well for the model problems of
mathematical logic, but should not be confused with what most people
would contemplate as being a "hysically manifested truth".

What is a "hysically manifested truth," and how does it come about?


If you believe in quantum mechanics, then the foundations of the
physics are wrapped up with probability theory.

"Believe" is not a part of "logical reasoning."

And one must
ultimately come to the conclusion that either :

1) Truth is unknowable for the same reason that the outcome of a
random coin flip is unknowable prior to flipping the coin.

Not really, probability may be many, but outcome is knowable--"yes or
no." Truth is knowable, and the ultimate reality is "a scene with a
voice," the true Truth reveals itself when the "voice" matches the
"scene."


and/or

2) That "The Absolute and Consummate Truth" may be regarded as either
existing, or not. You guessed it - just like God.

God doesn't exist, but Nature does.


and/or

3) [insert something that sounds insane]

When you push to end and beyond the stereotypes, the real truth (true
theory) is always paradoxical.


But most importantly ! - Truth is a highly contextual word which has
different meanings in different contexts.

Not in mathematics.

Truth to a Jury is different
than the truth of a mathematician, or logician, or the truth of a
philosopher, or the truth of a religious person, or even two people in
love, or a politician, or a salesman. You have to look at the context
in which it's being used.

You are confused the "definition of truth" with "truth."

The real truth can only be present in two ways: logical reasoning, and
physical experience. The rest of them are only "argumentative."


IS

A mighty Hungarian warrior wrote:
(snip)


Facts are truth.

but 'truth' is not necessarily 'facts'

(and snip the rest)

I figured someone would get around to
this. In everyday usage (not logical
'truth' or statistical truth or any
thing else, just everyday use) truth
is subjective. Facts enter into this
subjective judgement, but 'truth' is
more than just a compendium of facts.

It's the sum total (for an individual)
of all facts, beliefs and observations
that go into making up a person's
experience.

discuss...

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
...
On Nov 7, 5:14 pm, Mistress Helios wrote:
Huh? There goes the integrity of "completeness and consistency" of
the
premises that is required for A to be true/valid in the formula "IF A
THEN B." That is to say, for example, your truth/knowledge in skiing
may be different from mine, so your skiing "truth" is not defined in
my skiing "theory"; nevertheless, what you cannot do doesn't
invalidate what I can do, Taichi Skiing. Taichi Skiing is the matter
of fact, so you have not disproved my theory.

That definition may work quite well for the model problems of
mathematical logic, but should not be confused with what most people
would contemplate as being a "hysically manifested truth".

What is a "hysically manifested truth," and how does it come about?


If you believe in quantum mechanics, then the foundations of the
physics are wrapped up with probability theory.

"Believe" is not a part of "logical reasoning."

And one must
ultimately come to the conclusion that either :

1) Truth is unknowable for the same reason that the outcome of a
random coin flip is unknowable prior to flipping the coin.

Not really, probability may be many, but outcome is knowable--"yes or
no." Truth is knowable, and the ultimate reality is "a scene with a
voice," the true Truth reveals itself when the "voice" matches the
"scene."


and/or

2) That "The Absolute and Consummate Truth" may be regarded as either
existing, or not. You guessed it - just like God.

God doesn't exist, but Nature does.


and/or

3) [insert something that sounds insane]

When you push to end and beyond the stereotypes, the real truth (true
theory) is always paradoxical.


But most importantly ! - Truth is a highly contextual word which has
different meanings in different contexts.

Not in mathematics.

Truth to a Jury is different
than the truth of a mathematician, or logician, or the truth of a
philosopher, or the truth of a religious person, or even two people in
love, or a politician, or a salesman. You have to look at the context
in which it's being used.

You are confused the "definition of truth" with "truth."

The real truth can only be present in two ways: logical reasoning, and
physical experience. The rest of them are only "argumentative."


IS
So there is truth and then there is real truth? Truth based on logical
reasoning and physical experience can be fake or a lie or misunderstanding.
If you logical reasoning you are making some assertions that the logic being
used is correct. If you use physical experience then you are again making
an assertion that the person having the experience understands what the
experience is. Truth is only temporary until something comes along to prove
it wrong or change the understanding of it or its basic assumption.

JQ
Dancing on the edge