• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Restoring The Republic

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Meh, the only Marquis I liked in the latter ST series, was Commander Riker's transporter malfunction twin, yummy~ <3



I'm not a college grad, so I can't really dispute that, but here in the USA, 1 [plus] 1 [equals] 2. Thats how I learned it, how my mother, father, and teachers taught it to me, how the majority of the world population, if not all, knows it. Yes, it is a Universal truth. Even in Philosophy, yes?

But are you adding large, small or nominal values of 1? That relationship only holds for some values of 1, for large or small values of 1 you would be incorrect.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
It does appear to be trivial. However, for this discussion a reminder seemed appropriate.

Yes, but measuring and properly understanding and describing reality is the tricky part.

And math is always true, if a math model doesn't reflect reality, then its a poor model; however, the math is still true.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Yes, but measuring and properly understanding and describing reality is the tricky part.

And math is always true, if a math model doesn't reflect reality, then its a poor model; however, the math is still true.

Hmmm... some that I know with math degrees would say the same thing... But I'm an engineer so practicality is a must.

Consider this:

Math is a language we invented to describe reality. Our base 10 system and the various operators we're familiar with exist because they're a useful representation of reality so...

If what you say is correct, then we could arbitrarily assign 1 + 1 = 3 and we could call that "mathematically" true. However it is only true because we've agreed on the rules and 1 + 1 = 3 obeys our rules. Just because the math follows the rules we've discovered and agreed upon over time doesn't make it true. It only makes it true if those rules continue to reflect reality... at which time the math would represent a valid model.

Referring to the "math" guys I mentioned... they enjoy math for math's sake, usefulness be damned. In those cases I would call their math "correct". The question is, how would we know it's "truth" if it's not testable by reality?
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Hmmm... some that I know with math degrees would say the same thing... But I'm an engineer so practicality is a musThe question is, how would we know it's "truth" if it's not testable by reality?
Read Karl Popper, cited above. The whole point is of hypotheses and theories structured to NOT be falsifiable, e. g., all that hang on statistics.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Yes, but measuring and properly understanding and describing reality is the tricky part.

And math is always true, if a math model doesn't reflect reality, then its a poor model; however, the math is still true.

Okay, let me try to explain my position on "universal truth" a bit more accurately. since9 stated "You're joking, right? 1+1=2 is a universal truth." He did not say adding two plus two", so my Boolean example (although presented somewhat inaccurately) is valid. Two or more minds experiencing the same event will generally process the available information differently, and therefore often come to different conclusions.

Scenario: George Boole is shot to death on a busy city street at 11pm. There are multiple witnesses to George's demise, and one says the shots came from a northerly direction, yet another witness (to the same incident) says the shots came from the east side of the street. Another says the report sounded like a firecracker, but another says it was the loudest noise she had ever heard. Each of their truths is based upon personal perception and experience. The one truth/reality they do share is that George is deader than three boiled owls.

My proposition was not about the "math". It was about the truth (or 'reality', as some have chosen to call it). In the preceding scenario, there are multiple individual truths, but only one shared (limited "universal") truth among only those witnesses.

And I agree that math, when properly executed, is true within the parameters of the calculation. However, numbers themselves have no weight, no volume, no mass - they are simply our designated representations by which we describe/explain/record a quantity of something. We were taught - and we accepted as valid - that certain procedures must be followed when doing mathematical calculations. The ancient Egyptians didn't begin with calculus and trigonometry. Their initial system of counting was simply recording a count by ones, and using symbols nothing like those we use today. The quantity of one was represented with a vertical line "|" and when the quantity of ten was reached the symbol was "^", a quantity of twenty three looked like "III^^" (yes, they wrote/write from right to left). The process of counting remains the same, but the representational symbols are no longer the same.

We were also taught (since the 1930s) that Pluto is/was a planet (an arbitrary designation based upon man-made conditions). In 1950, Pluto continued to be "universally accepted" as a planet, and it was still being taught as such. Today, poor Pluto has been stripped of its full planet status, and is referred to by some as a "dwarf planet". Technically, Pluto's name is now 134340 after being declassified as a planet, yet there are those in the scientific community who believe Pluto should still be classified as a planet. Whose "truth/reality" is universal? How accurate was our initial classification of Pluto as a Planet? Is everything we were ever taught as factual, by anyone, "true" today? The answer to those three questions are, (1) Nobody's (2)Questionable, and (3) No. There is also the ongoing butter-margarine battle within the medical community, between people who are supposed to know, but can't seem to settle on which product is the least detrimental to our health. Their only combined agreed upon position seems to be that neither is especially good for us. That's the best they can come up with after 50 years of wrangling over it? And, if they ever do agree, will that necessarily qualify their findings as "reality"? No. What it means is that one side capitulated in order to end the confusion and present a united front.

We all see life a bit differently, and also process our experiences in life differently. There are innumerable "personal truths", and who walking this Earth is to say that any one is more correct than the others? There are many truths which we as a society have agreed upon - shared realities - but, another culture may find them to be mostly false within their belief system.

I accept that there will always be those who do not agree with a single word I say, just as there are those who will agree with any utterance I may make. Neither one really changes my reality, but those who accept my philosophies reinforce it... while those who ridicule have little or no lasting impact. And that, my friends, is my personal reality. Pax...
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
There are no universal truths known to man. However, we all have our personal truths, which may - or may not - be accepted by anybody else... and they don't have to be accepted by anybody else. They can be uniquely our truth, and still be "right" for the individual believer. Or, it can be a shared truth (mainstream religions are based upon that principle - but that may just be MY personal truth). Pax...

Are you absolutely sure there are no absolute truths?
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Hmmm... some that I know with math degrees would say the same thing... But I'm an engineer so practicality is a must.

Consider this:

Math is a language we invented to describe reality. Our base 10 system and the various operators we're familiar with exist because they're a useful representation of reality so...

If what you say is correct, then we could arbitrarily assign 1 + 1 = 3 and we could call that "mathematically" true. However it is only true because we've agreed on the rules and 1 + 1 = 3 obeys our rules. Just because the math follows the rules we've discovered and agreed upon over time doesn't make it true. It only makes it true if those rules continue to reflect reality... at which time the math would represent a valid model.

Referring to the "math" guys I mentioned... they enjoy math for math's sake, usefulness be damned. In those cases I would call their math "correct". The question is, how would we know it's "truth" if it's not testable by reality?

Math is not a description of reality, physics is using math to describe reality. 1 + 1 = 3 is only ever true for large values of 1 (consider using more than one significant figure for less confusing looking math). How to test if math is true without testing it by reality? Easy the same way software, math done by silicon structures instead of carbon structures, is verified and validated. Physics, not math, needs experimentation or observation to test how its truth.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
:lol: You may have discovered the only one! But that's only my personal opinion - which does not make it a "universal truth". ;) Pax...

Sorry, your personal opinion is wrong. When properly stated the laws of thermodynamics are universal truths. I could list many more, but to prove such a statement wrong only needs one example.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Sorry, your personal opinion is wrong. When properly stated the laws of thermodynamics are universal truths. I could list many more, but to prove such a statement wrong only needs one example.

My opinion may be wrong in your eyes, and perhaps the eyes of many others, but it is nonetheless MY opinion. My other opinion is that your opinion of my opinion is wrong, and that your example is conditional as stated. To wit: "When properly stated..." and even the laws of thermodynamics are subject to known variables/I]. Change one condition and the result becomes different. Inject a previously unknown condition, and you get an unexpected result. Unless, of course, all possible conditions are known to man. But, that's just an opinion on my part. (It raises the question, if there can be nothing new in thermodynamics because of the three "laws" (ignoring Zeroths Law), why were the first bombs gunpowder based, and not thermonuclear?) We only "know" that which we have learned by a given point in time, and we have not yet learned all there is to know. And an opinion - by definition - can never be wrong. It is a "personal view", and does not have any basis in fact. Pax... ;)
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
... your opinion of my opinion is wrong...

Sorry, wrong again, and here is some evidence:

dictionary.com
o·pin·ion
   [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I have no opinions, I refrain from passing judgement until there is enough evidence to produce complete certainty. Opinions are weak and useless, they pigeonhole the mind into what might turn out to be an incorrect judgement.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Sorry, wrong again, and here is some evidence:

dictionary.com
o·pin·ion
   [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I would suggest that you try reading for understanding, rather than contention - if you are capable of doing so. You might begin by actually reading the definition that you posted above, inasmuch as it supports my statement. A "personal view" requires no basis in what is accepted as factual by anyone other than the person holding that view - that's what makes it "personal".

Opinions are weak and useless, they pigeonhole the mind into what might turn out to be an incorrect judgement.

Apparently you are omniscient... at least in your own mind. And the "pigeonhole" seems to be where you hold yourself captive. Conformity of thought is the final refuge of the unimaginative mind - try "thinking outside the box" in which you are your own captor. (Or, it is possible that you are a living example of the axiom, "The only thing the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist, is another nonconformist who doesn't conform the the prevailing standard of nonconformity".) Albert Einstein once had an opinion about relativity. He pursued the refinement of that opinion, and, luckily for him, he died before you had a chance to tell him it couldn't possibly work. Congratulations on your acquisition of all the knowledge of the universe! I accept the fact that your reality is yours, however pedestrian it may be. :banghead: Pax...
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
... A "personal view" requires no basis in what is accepted as factual by anyone other than the person holding that view - that's what makes it "personal".
...

Oh, please. A personal view or opinion is not beyond being wrong. You can have the opinion that you can float and fly with no gadgets or technology, but that doesn't change the fact that you would be wrong nor change the fact that gravity would impart a great and deadly energy should you try to jump off a tall building and fly.

As a child, did you get participation awards or some other "everyone is right/a winner" bs?

And why would I claim a theory wrong when it is the logical extension of prior well proven work, has easily proven mathematical models and has been shown to fit reality very well through experimentation and observation?

Don't you think the entire conformist/nonconformist paradigm a bit pubescent?
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Math is not a description of reality, physics is using math to describe reality.

Breakfast Club -

without trigenometry there'd be no physics...

without lamps, there'd be no light. LOL!!

1 + 1 = 3 is only ever true for large values of 1 (consider using more than one significant figure for less confusing looking math).

Why would I be concerned with the number of signigicant figures when they add nothing to the accuracy of 1? Unless someone's trying to be funny?

How to test if math is true without testing it by reality? Easy the same way software, math done by silicon structures instead of carbon structures, is verified and validated. Physics, not math, needs experimentation or observation to test how its truth.

Software/hardware is a form of reality... Geeezz, My head hurts... you win. I nominate you to restore the Republic!
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Why would I be concerned with the number of signigicant figures when they add nothing to the accuracy of 1? Unless someone's trying to be funny?
I've always thought of 1+1=3 as a math joke, it needs a punch line to be true, only nerds get it, even when true it doesn't really matter and usually causes one to smack their forehead.
Hint:
What would you call 1.483402983402834 with a single significant figure?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I've always thought of 1+1=3 as a math joke, it needs a punch line to be true, only nerds get it, even when true it doesn't really matter and usually causes one to smack their forehead.
Hint:
What would you call 1.483402983402834 with a single significant figure?

That's what I thought. I never thought it was very funny... but I didn't wanna spoil your fun. :)
 
Top