Comments on: On Total Certainty About God http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/ A Mathematician Writes About Philosophy, Science, Rationality, Ethics, Religion, Skepticism and the Search for Truth Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:51:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ClockBackward http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8395 ClockBackward Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:44:56 +0000 http://www.clockbackward.com/?p=547#comment-8395 I would say that a statement like "1+1=2" is fundamentally different than a statement like "if i have one ball, and you have one ball, and we both put them into an empty bag, then there are two balls in the bag", insofar as the first is a statement about numbers which are not physically existent (i.e. they are merely concepts), and the second is a statement about the properties of the physical world. Sure, the second involves counting, but it is still a statement about physical reality, not about numbers themselves. I would say that a statement like “1+1=2″ is fundamentally different than a statement like “if i have one ball, and you have one ball, and we both put them into an empty bag, then there are two balls in the bag”, insofar as the first is a statement about numbers which are not physically existent (i.e. they are merely concepts), and the second is a statement about the properties of the physical world. Sure, the second involves counting, but it is still a statement about physical reality, not about numbers themselves.

]]> By: Eugene http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8298 Eugene Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:48:12 +0000 http://www.clockbackward.com/?p=547#comment-8298 Thank you for your descriptive answers! Indeed there are statements or questions for a right (truthful) answer which are so blurred, that giving this answer or seeing the truth might seem impossible. I might be wrong, but a proper example might be the good'ol Liars Paradox, in which, as far as i understand it, truth and falsehood are undivided. Of-course it is written, that this paradox has many solutions to it, but i do not know anything about that. Why i asked you about truth and it's absoluteness or relativity is because i noticed this phrase in your "Is Math True" article and wanted to know, yet again, your own personal opinion about my thought about it. Here goes - <i>"In conclusion: numbers and other mathematical objects are simply concepts, and not things that are actually observable in the universe, so we cannot say that statements like 3+2=5 are true in the same way that we can say that the statement “massive objects exert forces on other massive objects” is true."</i> What i think about here is that if in this separate occurrence we allow the thought, that truth is relative, then we can come to a conclusion, - numbers and other mathematical objects, say 3+2=5 are not true in the same way as the thought of massive objects exerting forces on other massive objects, but the latter conclusion, if i am not mistaken, to some extent, does too include calculation, or by the very least it acknowledges weight or size, so it's a elementary form of calculation, although i might be mistaken. If so, EVEN this statement is by some extent mathematical counting, and might not be as true as some other more abstract thinking about sizes, objects and so forth. Thank you for your descriptive answers!

Indeed there are statements or questions for a right (truthful) answer which are so blurred, that giving this answer or seeing the truth might seem impossible. I might be wrong, but a proper example might be the good’ol Liars Paradox, in which, as far as i understand it, truth and falsehood are undivided. Of-course it is written, that this paradox has many solutions to it, but i do not know anything about that.

Why i asked you about truth and it’s absoluteness or relativity is because i noticed this phrase in your “Is Math True” article and wanted to know, yet again, your own personal opinion about my thought about it.

Here goes – “In conclusion: numbers and other mathematical objects are simply concepts, and not things that are actually observable in the universe, so we cannot say that statements like 3+2=5 are true in the same way that we can say that the statement “massive objects exert forces on other massive objects” is true.”

What i think about here is that if in this separate occurrence we allow the thought, that truth is relative, then we can come to a conclusion, – numbers and other mathematical objects, say 3+2=5 are not true in the same way as the thought of massive objects exerting forces on other massive objects, but the latter conclusion, if i am not mistaken, to some extent, does too include calculation, or by the very least it acknowledges weight or size, so it’s a elementary form of calculation, although i might be mistaken. If so, EVEN this statement is by some extent mathematical counting, and might not be as true as some other more abstract thinking about sizes, objects and so forth.

]]> By: ClockBackward http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8295 ClockBackward Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:34:04 +0000 http://www.clockbackward.com/?p=547#comment-8295 Probabilities are relative. For instance, if you roll a balanced die, and then you look at it (and see it's a five), but I haven't looked at it yet, then the probability it is a 6 (from my perspective) is 1/6, but the probability it is a 6 from your perspective is 0. There is no objective truth to the matter about the probability of an event, until you take into account what information is available. Truth though, generally speaking, is not relative. Either I'm a salmon, or I'm not. Of course, many statements are too ambiguous to be true or false (e.g. am I tall?), or don't fit into the true/false dichotomy (e.g. how tall am I?). Probabilities are relative. For instance, if you roll a balanced die, and then you look at it (and see it’s a five), but I haven’t looked at it yet, then the probability it is a 6 (from my perspective) is 1/6, but the probability it is a 6 from your perspective is 0. There is no objective truth to the matter about the probability of an event, until you take into account what information is available. Truth though, generally speaking, is not relative. Either I’m a salmon, or I’m not. Of course, many statements are too ambiguous to be true or false (e.g. am I tall?), or don’t fit into the true/false dichotomy (e.g. how tall am I?).

]]> By: Eugene http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8291 Eugene Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:37:49 +0000 http://www.clockbackward.com/?p=547#comment-8291 Well then i will rephrase my question, although i most likely will assume that i know the answer, do you believe that truth is absolute or rather relative? Well then i will rephrase my question, although i most likely will assume that i know the answer, do you believe that truth is absolute or rather relative?

]]> By: ClockBackward http://www.clockbackward.com/2010/07/27/on-total-certainty-about-god/comment-page-1/#comment-8284 ClockBackward Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:47:50 +0000 http://www.clockbackward.com/?p=547#comment-8284 Hello, Thanks for the comment. Yes, I believe that some things are true and others are not. For example it is true that this sentence contains eleven words. On the other hand, yes, truth is a concept, so it doesn't "exist" in a physical way, like you and I exist. Hello,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I believe that some things are true and others are not. For example it is true that this sentence contains eleven words. On the other hand, yes, truth is a concept, so it doesn’t “exist” in a physical way, like you and I exist.

]]>