Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
If observations can't define reality, then there is no possible way to do it.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Truth and Science: One And The Same?
- Thread starter asianaussie
- Start date
- Status
No one said that we could define it absolutely.
However we assume that we can through observations, which is a metaphysical assumption.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Quite the subtle change of wording, especially since we're talking about truth.
I think we can safely say that in any system[1] we have to make certain assumptions[2] and from that we can derive truths[3]
[1]examples would be the physical universe, flat geometry, number theory, etc. It's anything bound by certain rules or definitions really
[2] In our physical universe, this would be what Dre. has stated, and in mathematical system these are called axioms. They are not to be proven (sometimes they even can't be), only to be taken for granted.
[3] this would be anything that logically follows from the given rules and axioms
Science cannot determine truth. Evidence in science can only disprove when used in evaluating a proposition (compare it to finding the equation of a hidden mathematical function, where evidence is analogous to finding a point consistent with that function). Because success in science is measured by an idea's predicative power, the closest science can come to determining truth is "way beyond reasonable doubt".
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
the scientific method is a perfect way to test a theory. it doesn't prove anything by itself.
asianaussie
Smash Hero
The scientific method is hardly perfect in the same sense that human truth is imperfect.
We cannot verify a theory, only disprove it, so a 'test' is basically testing whether or not the theory is a possibility.
We cannot verify a theory, only disprove it, so a 'test' is basically testing whether or not the theory is a possibility.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Pythagoras made a theory about the relationship between sides of a triangle. We can never prove it right, but there has never been a case when it has been disproven. I would consider that proof.
Seikend
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 415
Maths =/= Science
Maths can be proved because all the possible factors (axioms) were defined by humans. There isn't a possibility of an outside factor that we don't know about.
With science we don't have this luxury. We can observe an interaction, but we can never be certain that we know of all the factors affecting the interaction.
asianaussie
Smash Hero
Proofs in maths aren't the same as 'proof' given by the scientific method.
Seikend basically said it. Cause-and-effect relationships are what we attempt to infer through control of extraneous variables, and if good variable control shows a significant result, then we can safely say that the effect might be the result of the proposed cause. We can never say it for certain.
Seikend basically said it. Cause-and-effect relationships are what we attempt to infer through control of extraneous variables, and if good variable control shows a significant result, then we can safely say that the effect might be the result of the proposed cause. We can never say it for certain.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Proofs
Also your logic is in general flawed:
I might say that all swans we have ever seen are white, and therefore all swans are white (there has never been a case where it has been disproven).
But then if someone finds a black swan, the statement "all swans are white" will be proven false. So it was never proven in the first place.
D
Deleted member
Guest
not to get off-topic, but a "theorem" (such as the Pythagorean one) in math is something that has been proven.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Someone just got SERVED!
... oh
... oh
Seikend
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 415
I don't believe science and universal truth are the same at all.
Science is the observation and interpretation of cause and effect. However, we cannot be certain that there are universal influences that are outside of our understanding. Since our understanding of the universe is limited by what humans can experience, science attempts to create a model of the universe that is within these confines. Through history, as we've found different ways to observe and experience the universe (Microscopes, X-ray scanners etc.), we have been able to improve our understanding, and thus improve our model. However, I don't believe that we will ever be able to fully experience the universe. And we can certainly never be sure that we have fully experienced the universe. Through this, I conclude that science is not a universal truth, but a representation of it.
Science's goal is not the pursuit of this universal truth either. We don't create this model purely for the sake of knowledge. In the same way that mathematical problems can be solved through the use of axioms, science can solve real life problems through the use of our modelled universe.
For example, we have a model for how friction works. Based on this model, we can create things like ball bearings to reduce the effect of friction, improving efficiency of machinery. It doesn't matter if our model isn't entirely correct, as the conclusions we make from it work, and that's what matters. Ball bearings do reduce friction, whether that's due to forces and our model of friction, or magical faeries and pixie dust. Science has done it's job.
The goal of science is to solve real world problems, not the search for truth.
Science is the observation and interpretation of cause and effect. However, we cannot be certain that there are universal influences that are outside of our understanding. Since our understanding of the universe is limited by what humans can experience, science attempts to create a model of the universe that is within these confines. Through history, as we've found different ways to observe and experience the universe (Microscopes, X-ray scanners etc.), we have been able to improve our understanding, and thus improve our model. However, I don't believe that we will ever be able to fully experience the universe. And we can certainly never be sure that we have fully experienced the universe. Through this, I conclude that science is not a universal truth, but a representation of it.
Science's goal is not the pursuit of this universal truth either. We don't create this model purely for the sake of knowledge. In the same way that mathematical problems can be solved through the use of axioms, science can solve real life problems through the use of our modelled universe.
For example, we have a model for how friction works. Based on this model, we can create things like ball bearings to reduce the effect of friction, improving efficiency of machinery. It doesn't matter if our model isn't entirely correct, as the conclusions we make from it work, and that's what matters. Ball bearings do reduce friction, whether that's due to forces and our model of friction, or magical faeries and pixie dust. Science has done it's job.
The goal of science is to solve real world problems, not the search for truth.
1048576
Smash Master
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,417
The goal of science is to find truth. The goal of engineering is to solve real-world problems. The two are closely related though.
As we come closer and closer to "God's equation," our representation of the universe will approach reality to an arbitrary statistical likelihood.
Also, theories cannot be proven completely true, only proven false. But if you test them an arbitrary number of times, you can get a likelihood that a particular theory is true that approaches 1.
As we come closer and closer to "God's equation," our representation of the universe will approach reality to an arbitrary statistical likelihood.
Also, theories cannot be proven completely true, only proven false. But if you test them an arbitrary number of times, you can get a likelihood that a particular theory is true that approaches 1.
Solaris1110
Smash Journeyman
Mathematics and logic imply purity, but there is no such thing as purity in the universe (or at least, not in the way our mind could understand it). You might say "There are zero rubber ducks on my head" but how can you be so sure? 0.000000... 01% of a rubber duck is molecule x, and molecule x may also be present on your hand. You might then argue that rubber ducks are the sum of all it's parts, but then wouldn't any molecular scratch or grain of sand present on the duck render it no longer a duck?
Math and logic are created through the mind, but the mind itself is not in any way perfect or pure. The neurons, glia cells and other fatty cells that compose the brain are not perfect; they might have microscopic fissures here and there, or have damage from free radicals and other miscellaneous "noise".
With logic, you need to "draw a line" somewhere (to separate A from B, like to seperate "mental illness" from "not a mental illness"), and that's the problem. You cannot draw lines in the universe, because nothing is pure. You can build a calculator that calculates 1 + 1 in Minecraft, because the code within the game makes it possible. You might "draw the line" between two lines of code, one representing the color red and the other representing the color blue. But what would happen if you decided to punch your computer, and you happened to dent the electrical currents that brought forth the coding? Suddenly an 'outside factor' has broken the laws of the logic you have drawn. But it is not really an outside factor: is it just as much part of the universe as the electric currents in the computer were. The same analogy could be implied to the mind.
"Universal truth" is something I think the mind will never be able to understand, because it implies everything, (our five senses are the only window into this existance from which we can think and deal with information. we are finite, the universe isn't. but a finite number can still be a segment of an infinite number.)
and what Seikend said.
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. It might be because your last paragraph doesn't end with a complete sentence. Why do you claim the universe is not finite? What are you implying when you say, "Math and logic are created through the mind, but the mind itself is not in any way perfect or pure"? Basically, what is your point?
Solaris1110
Smash Journeyman
Thanks for bringing that up; I should have clarified it better as I got lost in my own
mess of words. So let's assume the universe is finite, and that at the bottom of our constanly expanding model of what makes up matter lies a fundamental building block. The obvious question would be: how did that building block come to exist? It's natural to assume that everthing must come from something else, and for that not to happen would violate our ability to make sense out of things.
As far as logic goes, coming from the mind, having something come from nothing isn't very logical. Yet it's obvious we exist, which means either there would HAVE to be something coming from nothing, or it would just be an infinite continuum of motion and energy. For the sake of, well, flow, I would personally choose the latter over the first. But who is anyone to know?
My point would be that universal truth itself cannot even be found, unless there is some magical way we can figure out how the universe itself came to be.
mess of words. So let's assume the universe is finite, and that at the bottom of our constanly expanding model of what makes up matter lies a fundamental building block. The obvious question would be: how did that building block come to exist? It's natural to assume that everthing must come from something else, and for that not to happen would violate our ability to make sense out of things.
As far as logic goes, coming from the mind, having something come from nothing isn't very logical. Yet it's obvious we exist, which means either there would HAVE to be something coming from nothing, or it would just be an infinite continuum of motion and energy. For the sake of, well, flow, I would personally choose the latter over the first. But who is anyone to know?
My point would be that universal truth itself cannot even be found, unless there is some magical way we can figure out how the universe itself came to be.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
The universe functions predictably therefore the universe follows laws. Because the universe follows such patterns, it can be understood. Not to say that it could be ever discovered what those laws actually are, but those laws could be understood if they were discovered.
Solaris1110
Smash Journeyman
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but aren't quantum fluctuations a result of the quantum vacuum (which obeys physical law) occasionally spewing out particles into being? (and then quickly dissolving back)
How is that 'something coming from nothing'?
Or, lets assume that the quantum vaccum = Nothing. If it's nothing, how can it spew particles into existance? If something was able to do that, it would have properties. If it has properties, then it wouldn't be nothing. Unless you can apply attributes to nothingness.
How is that 'something coming from nothing'?
Or, lets assume that the quantum vaccum = Nothing. If it's nothing, how can it spew particles into existance? If something was able to do that, it would have properties. If it has properties, then it wouldn't be nothing. Unless you can apply attributes to nothingness.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
The empty set, which is the mathematical equivalent of "nothing", has properties. It's perfectly reasonable for nothingness to have properties like "there is no object that is contained in nothing".
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
But once "nothing" creates/releases/interacts with something, it ceases to be nothing and is then "unknown something that created/released/interacted with another thing".
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I don't know what you mean by mathematics and logic imply purity. Also, I think mathematics and logic are independent form the universe.
On the rubber duck example: Your argument seems to imply that language is meaningless because we can't even define what a rubber duck is. There are some reasonable criteria to apply though. For one, an obvious necessary condition would be actually containing the molecule rubber (not just molecule x). But more obviously, a rubber duck should have the general shape and characteristics of a duck - a beak, wings, webbed feet, etc. Thus we can define a rubber duck without worrying about molecular scratches.
It is possible to make mistakes in one's math and logic, but this doesn't mean that they aren't objective truths (when done correctly of course).
It's actually very easy to draw lines. They may be arbitrary lines, but they are lines nonetheless.
Just because you punch your computer and your code doesn't work, that doesn't mean that you haven't found some objective truths. If your logic would have worked, it is still objectively correct logic, but it was never executed in your program because you punched the computer.
Logical and mathematical truths don't become untrue just because I stop thinking about them.
No idea what it means to "imply everything", but the rest of this assumes that logic/math are tied to the universe, when they aren't. Our five senses don't have anything to do with the truth of mathematical propositions.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
Just this one thing I want to comment on. I think the concepts of logic (causality) and therefore mathematics are independent from the universe, but the actual instances are completely dependent on the universe.
A quantum vacuum isn't actually an 'existing thing', it's a concept that describes the properties of a region in space. It is not the quantum vacuum that is creating particles, rather particles are coming in and out of existence in a space called a quantum vacuum.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
only other part i disagreed with.
when he said "imply everything" he meant that there are worlds of interaction that don't register to our senses. Some of the things we have discovered such as radio waves and infrared give precedence to this idea. Your post seemed off topic.
edit-
But it has a name and properties... the quantum vacuum is something even if it doesn't have mass.
Giving something a name does not suddenly make it exist. For example, 'nothing' is called 'nothing', but saying that it exists contradicts its very definition! Also, a quantum vacuum does not have any properties because it is not an existing thing; it is an abstract concept.
In science, something does not exist (i.e. is nothing) if it is not observable. The fact that previously unobservable things are popping into existence logically implies that something is coming from nothing.
But the fact this "space" can invoke existences means it has potency, making it a something.
You can't have a nothingness with a potency, because you can't have two types of nothingness. You can't have nothingness with a potency, and a nothingness without a potency.
You can't have a nothingness with a potency, because you can't have two types of nothingness. You can't have nothingness with a potency, and a nothingness without a potency.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
If you observe something interacting with another thing that counts as observing the something at least to the extent to know there is something there or something going on.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
I don't see causality as having anything to do with logic. Causality is a property of the universe.
And what do you mean by concepts vs actual instances?
My point about logic is that there is no universe where this statement is not true:
Men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
I would consider this an "actual instance" of logic but it is not dependent on the universe.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
logic is a form of causality
ballin4life
Smash Hero
What is causality then?
I don't see the connection at all, but I may be using a different definition of causality.
I don't see the connection at all, but I may be using a different definition of causality.
Space is the medium in which quantum fluctuations are observed to occur. It doesn't necessarily invoke them.
@ballin4life: I think Sveet is referring to how a logical conclusion is made by arguing, "beCAUSE my premises are true, my conclusion is also true". This is entirely different from the scientific definition.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
There's more to logic than just implications though. And really A -> B is just saying ~A or B.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
A -> B is causality. A and B are just statements, ideas, isolated. Any interactions between them follow causal relationships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
"Causality[1][2] describes the relationship between causes and effects, is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics, and has an analog in logic. It is also studied from the perspectives of philosophy, computer science, and statistics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
"Causality[1][2] describes the relationship between causes and effects, is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics, and has an analog in logic. It is also studied from the perspectives of philosophy, computer science, and statistics."
Solaris1110
Smash Journeyman
Wouldn't it be dependant on the universe in the sense that you need the language and meaning to form such statements in the first place, and that has to come from somewhere?
It doesn't become untrue, it just disappears. The entire thing is conceptualised with the mind in the first place, and once you stop thinking about it, it no longer exists. Like how you input numbers into a function and get a graph: as soon as you clear it, the graph disappears.
They are tied to the universe in that people conceptualized it, and people are tied to the universe. Without our five senses we would be unable to invent numbers. We would need some way of gathering data from the environment and manipulating it, organizing it, etc.
Yeah, I would be implying that language is meaningless as a medium for perfect logic, since it is not absolute. But that's what math is for. Language is not synced with a mathematical framework but constantly fluctuates with context and the people who use it. The purpose of language is to communicate; it comes from people, and people come from the universe. A dictionary might help capture a loose framework around language, but to make an absolute framework around it would be to invent the universe. Otherwise, you would never completely entangle every change in meaning as time passes.
As for conditions, how could you define a rubber molecule? You might define it's chemical structure and mass, but how do you know the individual components of the chemical structure are absolute, and cannot be broken down further? Would you not have to start at the bottom up in order to define parameters?
How could you define general characteristics of a duck? You would still need to define those general characteristics from the bottom up, because the perception of a rubber duck is subjective, and in order to mathematically calculate one's opinion on whether something is a duck or not, you would need to invent the universe. "Reasonable criteria" is only reasonable because we already know what beaks, wings and webbed feet look like. But starting from the bottom up, there would be no human perception.
So you would have to compartmentalize the scope of the logic in order for it to be true? That is, you need to draw a line somewhere between what the computer is supposed to do and what it isn't, such as when being damaged? My thought is that nothing in the universe can be isolated and still run on it's own; it's existance is one with the universe as a whole, and is inseparable. With this being said, wouldn't logic have to include everything? This could be where my definition of logic is incorrect though.
I'm talking about absolute lines that perfectly seperate two things from eachother. Then again, if everything acts as a unified whole, it would be like trying to seperate the color white from the color white.
ballin4life
Smash Hero
Not really, there are tons of different logical operators besides "->".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_operator
Logical implications are not the same thing as physical causality.
Causality can be looked at as an instance of logical implication, but implications are really much broader.
Logically, "Paris is in Europe" -> "New York is in America" is a true implication, although we wouldn't really say that the former caused the latter.
But this is all pointless semantics. I originally wanted to know what you meant by the "concepts" and the "actual instances" of logic.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
I agree. You guys >>>> me in semantics arguing.
is that referencing this post?
The concepts, as in the fact that causality, math, logic, ect follow certain structured rules. These rules are universal in the sense that any time things have relationships and interactions, there is a structured way to interpret and explain them.
This idea is independent of any specific instance of itself like 2+2=4 and A->B = ~AvB (though those are difficult to imagine to be false, i hope you understand what i'm trying to say).
- Status