Thread: gd

It is said that creativity and truth are two important notions. While truth can sometimes hurt you it is better to keep it aside. But the problem is that all religions say "Truth is God" and viceversa. Ultimately truth will prevail. Lies can buy you time, but in the end truth shall prevail. It is also true that it is "lies" that make life interesting. Suppose for some reasons everyones true nature was revealed to everyone then it would be difficult to have relations with anybody. Lies and ignorance play a vital part in the continuity of society.
my point is: why speak truth at all unless its absolutely necessary.
Does anyone deserve to know the truth?

Creativity admits it isn't the truth, but is interesting anyway.
A lie claims to be the truth, but isn't.

the person lying knows he is lying and yet he has to get out of an uncomfortable situation. So he is creative for those who know he is lying including himself.

Well what you are describing are white lies, the social lubricant. When it comes to science I don't like to use the word truth because that is subjective, I use the word 'facts'. Lying comes in handy as long as it isn't harmful, when it does then its unacceptable. When it comes to relationships white lies need to be less in their frequency and honesty more in the open, lying is a betrayl in those social relationships it shows you don't trust them which is a very dangerous risk to breakup. On the other hand if your partner is sensitive and you are truthful you can hurt them, it is a tricky one that needs consideration for each situation and person.

I find it is best to be honest in general and don't say anything unless you have to. Deal with lying and lie yourself when you feel it is appropriate and accept consequences if and when you are wrong about those decisions you made to lie, and sometimes don't take the white lies of others personally, we are all in it together wanting not to be hurt and not really wanting to hurt others. Its our society.

Funny how this shit isn't taught in schools.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Creativity admits it isn't the truth, but is interesting anyway.
A lie claims to be the truth, but isn't.

Isnt interesting do you mean?

Originally Posted by Quantime

Well what you are describing are white lies, the social lubricant. When it comes to science I don't like to use the word truth because that is subjective, I use the word 'facts'. Lying comes in handy as long as it isn't harmful, when it does then its unacceptable. When it comes to relationships white lies need to be less in their frequency and honesty more in the open, lying is a betrayl in those social relationships it shows you don't trust them which is a very dangerous risk to breakup. On the other hand if your partner is sensitive and you are truthful you can hurt them, it is a tricky one that needs consideration for each situation and person.

I find it is best to be honest in general and don't say anything unless you have to. Deal with lying and lie yourself when you feel it is appropriate and accept consequences if and when you are wrong about those decisions you made to lie, and sometimes don't take the white lies of others personally, we are all in it together wanting not to be hurt and not really wanting to hurt others. Its our society.

Funny how this shit isn't taught in schools.

I dont get it.Truth is subjective. Use facts! Why? Because facts are like truths? Then they also are subjective! OR truths arent subjective.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I dont get it.Truth is subjective. Use facts! Why? Because facts are like truths? Then they also are subjective! OR truths arent subjective.

Truth is subjective as people will use it for their gain and benefit. You can twist the truth and it still be called the truth, with everyone having their notion of 'truth'. If by true in a scientific term then you mean fact because fact just is. For instance it is a fact that evolution is the causality for our current human existence, it is a fact that electrons are bound to the nucleus, it is a fact that the sun rises in the east etc. Yet it is 'true' that God exists, it is the 'truth' that humans were created by aliens, people throw around the 'truth' as they see fit. All there are are facts and whatever people choose to do with them is for their own discretion, facts don't lie.

Facts are not subjective, it is not subjective that atoms have mass for instance, that quarks and other particles have spin, that schizophrenics hallucinate, that blood temperature lowers in morning and rises in the evening, that the curvature of spacetime by mass causes what we call as gravitation, that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth etc.

'Truth' and facts are totally different in that the former can still be a lie.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I dont get it.Truth is subjective. Use facts! Why? Because facts are like truths? Then they also are subjective! OR truths arent subjective.

Truth is subjective as people will use it for their gain and benefit. .

I think that you use the wrong word. Truth doesnt change when you replace it with a lie! The liar KNOWS the truth but he decides not to USE the truth when he thinks a lie serves him better! Truth is NOT relative!´Its only relative to the interpretation of the truthcarrier... sentences in most cases.

Originally Posted by Quantime

You can twist the truth and it still be called the truth, with everyone having their notion of 'truth'.

[No! facts cant be twisted. Facts gets distributed by truths!Truths are decided by the sentense construction!

Originally Posted by Quantime

'Truth' and facts are totally different in that the former can still be a lie.

Tell me then what is the relation between fact and truth!
Here is a sentence "the sun shines" show me: where is the fact and where is the truth?

EDIT: I dont want to wait so I will tell. Sentens has two components x and Z. Th x componet NAMES the object spoken of and the Z names the quality the object is supposed to have. To simplify the treatmnen of language I use a special sign"#" the one in the middle.

the sun is a thing and cannot exist WITHIN a sentence so you go from word to object keeping the quality in mind when you are at the object = #the sun# you check it for the shining quality and you say YES! twe sun shines...thats a Fact you add. "The sun shines" is a truth

More formally

1 the sun shines (to be tested)
2v the sun = #the sun# (a new type of sentence showing the relation between word and object)
3 #the sun# shines (here you check the sun for the quality of shining.)=(FACT)

The truth is dependent of the structure of the sentence and the structure of reality.
Wittgenstein says the elementary sentence" (=3) pictures" the reality...do you see?
And this is the first time in history anyone explains what Wittgenstein should have meant
by "elementary sentence" ...Enjoy!

I think truth may also be objective or else it would not hurt the person about whom the truth is applicable.some people may twist the truth and interpret in some other way but that happens when the teller of the truth belongs to a diiferent social group than the person about whom truth is being told. In short the subject of truth does not want to identify himself with the person who is telling the truth. It should be kept into mind that religions were rejected or spurned by some people because the high priests of that religion started practicing and preaching two different things. They used to dupe the innocent and people having blind faith. They even used to murder people who went against the doctrine knowing fully well that there is no greater sin than murder. Science on the other hand offered relief to some extent though not necessarily in moral matters. Science also is related to truth but it is not all encompassing truth. It is very difficult to know to what extent one will be ready to fight for truth. I think courage makes more things practicable. it is very few who are able to stand against the current difficult situation or go against social norms. Truth is indeed a rare value. As I have said earlier does anyone deserve to know the truth when 99 percent people maintain social relations on misunderstandings,half-truths and lies.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Creativity admits it isn't the truth, but is interesting anyway.
A lie claims to be the truth, but isn't.

Isnt interesting do you mean?

A lie claims to be the truth, but isn't the truth.

Hello Precious Thing!

Try not to dress your thoughts in an unappetizing way. The TRUTH needs all help it can get.
Learn from the propagandists HOW to present the truth so it REALLY HURTS THEM!

For instance: I did not change a word you wrote,,,but arent your posts nicer to read and look at
if you separate the statements a little? Making space for contemplation?

(BTW I couldnt resist underlining a very strong argument of yours.)

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I think truth may also be objective or else it would not hurt the person about whom the truth is applicable.

some people may twist the truth and interpret in some other way but that happens when the teller of the truth belongs to a diiferent social group than the person about whom truth is being told.

In short the subject of truth does not want to identify himself with the person who is telling the truth.

It should be kept into mind that religions were rejected or spurned by some people because the high priests of that religion started practicing and preaching two different things. They used to dupe the innocent and people having blind faith. They even used to murder people who went against the doctrine knowing fully well that there is no greater sin than murder.

Science on the other hand offered relief to some extent though not necessarily in moral matters. Science also is related to truth but it is not all encompassing truth.

It is very difficult to know to what extent one will be ready to fight for truth. I think courage makes more things practicable. it is very few who are able to stand against the current difficult situation or go against social norms.

Truth is indeed a rare value. As I have said earlier does anyone deserve to know the truth when 99 percent people maintain social relations on misunderstandings,half-truths and lies.

Well? What do U think? Look at my technique...I have been experimenting a while to get it effective.
Can you give me any hints on improving my style? Will you become a Guardian of Truth and Wisdom??


Forum
Social Sciences
Philosophy

The Science of Semantics?

Originally Posted by sigurdV
There was Logic before the "formalists" appeared on stage
making Logic unaccessible to laymen.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I would classify myself as a layman, as philosophy is not my profession. However, I much prefer the logic of the "formalists." What you call "logic" I find totally unaccessible, and strongly suspect it is simply nonsense.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Logic began when syllogisms were discovered.
A syllogism was the logical form of of an argument.
The most well known is probably this one:

1 all humans are mortal
2 socrates is a human
3 socrates is mortal

The greek philosophers and Ancient Logicians noted that if we replace the terms the argument is still valid:

1 all laymen are administrators
2 Harold14370 is a layman
3 Harold14370 is an administrator

By "valid" was meant that sentence 3 (called conclusion) is true if the two
earlier sentences(called premises) are true.

They went further and realised that the terms need not have any MEANING! at all.
The argument is still valid because it is a syllogism!
(Whatever is meant by that semantic concept. It will be returned to. All I do say now is that it seems "circular")

1 all gibrizes are umpsread
2 schlotslifp is a gibrize
3 schlotslifp is umpsread

Of course the latest syllogism is nonsensical in the STYLE
of Lewis Carroll but its logical form is not nonsensical!

The last step is to use variables instead of terms...
1 All x are Z
2 y is an x
3 y is a Z

Out if this discovery later your favorite type of logic: formalism, was invented:

I cant at the same time: use and define terms
and defend my arguments from unjust accusations.

Notice that
1 all moderators mob sigurdV
2 you are a moderator
3 you mob sigurdV

I think that YOU think that "sigurdV does not like formalism"!
You are wrong Sir! Its a tool among tools
What he objects to is selecting formalism for all purposes.

For the records...
Please verify that YOU really think this primitive logic of syllogisms,
that was the origin of what now is known as formalism, IS and WAS nonsense.
That sigurdV is not telling things as they are and nor were.
And that in your opinion life is simpler without Ancient logic and sigurdV.

logic exists and is taught to test and increase analytical ability. it improves deductive processes of our brain to some extent. yet propoganda is used to induce different thought processes in humans when facts may be diametrically opposite. one begins to believe in lies when they are repeated. it is interesting to note that some processes can also be induced in animals. i know this has been done a thousand times but i would still repeat it. LOGIC ESTABLISHES RELATIONS NOT FACTS NECESSARILY. I even consider psychiatry a pseudoscience being aware of the fact that workings of the brain are more myriad and random than can be imagined. I know well that certain thought processes may follow a pattern but their triggers are not necessarily pinpointed and accurate. I would consider the shrinks useful to some extents in tracing the criminals.
Arithmetic works just fine when applied to inanimate objects but fails in case of humans. so if you tell me that one man can do a work in 20 days then four men will take five days then i would not necessarily agree with you. thinking in a different way I think logic may be applicable to economics especially formal logic. for example if
all apples are mangoes and all mangoes are oranges then all apples are oranges considering that all fruits are equally necessary. i think i am poor in logic yet verbose.
yet i hold logic in awe as it simplifies things.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

LOGIC ESTABLISHES RELATIONS NOT FACTS NECESSARILY. I even consider psychiatry a pseudoscience being aware of the fact that workings of the brain are more myriad and random than can be imagined. I know well that certain thought processes may follow a pattern but their triggers are not necessarily pinpointed and accurate. I would consider the shrinks useful to some extents in tracing the criminals.
Arithmetic works just fine when applied to inanimate objects but fails in case of humans. so if you tell me that one man can do a work in 20 days then four men will take five days then i would not necessarily agree with you. thinking in a different way I think logic may be applicable to economics especially formal logic. for example if
all apples are mangoes and all mangoes are oranges then all apples are oranges considering that all fruits are equally necessary. i think i am poor in logic yet verbose.
yet i hold logic in awe as it simplifies things.

Logic is great but fallible just like any other system, take logical contradictions and paradoxes for instance. When such arise logic doesn't work as the scope of information doesn't exist to explain it, in other words the relevant information needed to describe the paradox isn't present. Therefore any kind of concoction can be created that logically makes sense to what you already understand, ancient civilizations for instance that thought the sun was a fire chariot rising over the heavens. After all it was bright like fire, warm like fire and certainly a powerful being could wield such a power with ease so it makes sense to what they understand.

Logic is flawed when the relevant information is not present; this is manifested eminently in logical contradictions and paradoxes and the easiest explanation comes up as the truest; Science tests this and gives answers. Faith does not.

PS. Psychiatry is not a pseudoscience at all why would you say such a thing? You don't follow scientology by any chance do you?

Originally Posted by parag29081973

logic exists and is taught to test and increase analytical ability. it improves deductive processes of our brain to some extent. yet propoganda is used to induce different thought processes in humans when facts may be diametrically opposite. one begins to believe in lies when they are repeated. it is interesting to note that some processes can also be induced in animals. i know this has been done a thousand times but i would still repeat it. LOGIC ESTABLISHES RELATIONS NOT FACTS NECESSARILY.

All Im saying is: This has been repeated Ad Nauseautum.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

I even consider psychiatry a pseudoscience being aware of the fact that workings of the brain are more myriad and random than can be imagined. I know well that certain thought processes may follow a pattern but their triggers are not necessarily pinpointed and accurate. I would consider the shrinks useful to some extents in tracing the criminals.
Arithmetic works just fine when applied to inanimate objects but fails in case of humans. so if you tell me that one man can do a work in 20 days then four men will take five days then i would not necessarily agree with you. thinking in a different way I think logic may be applicable to economics especially formal logic. for example if
all apples are mangoes and all mangoes are oranges then all apples are oranges considering that all fruits are equally necessary. i think i am poor in logic yet verbose.
yet i hold logic in awe as it simplifies things.

Not bad paraq! But I dont share your admiration of formality. It has a tendency to destroy natural logic. Somewhat reminding me of the way Christianity treated foreign culture.

Originally Posted by Quantime;381270[/QUOTE

Logic is great but fallible just like any other system, take logical contradictions and paradoxes for instance. When such arise logic doesn't work as the scope of information doesn't exist to explain it, in other words the relevant information needed to describe the paradox isn't present. Logic is flawed when the relevant information is not present; this is manifested eminently in logical contradictions and paradoxes and the easiest explanation comes up as the truest;

Lets look at a paradox then:

1 Sentence 1 is not true.
2 Sentence 1 = "Sentence 1 is not true."

I suppose you wont recognise this variation of the Liar Paradoxm, since it is of my own design.

Basically the anatomy of the Liar Paradox is a syllogism,
and all that is missing above is the Conclusion:Sentence 3 below.

May I remind the World that a conclusion is as valid as its premises?
Sentence 1 is an assumption, so its supposed to be true...
But here is a proof that sentence 2 is logically false!

Suppose sentence 2 is true: then (since its an identity.)

Sentence 1 is true if and only if "sentence 1 is not true" is true.


But the underlined sentence is a contradiction
With the logical form: "a if and only if not a"!
and therefore the supposition is logically false.

This means that the conlusion (Sentence 3)
leading to the formal paradox is not valid:

3 "Sentence 1 is not true" is not true.

If you want to ask questions do it in here:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/philo...-new-post.html

Truth is to religion as facts are to science.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Truth is to religion as facts are to science.

Its more than a good analogy John!
Truth is nothing but the form of communicated fact.
I suspect our problems lies in faulty transmissions
and unfounded trust in authority.

The trouble is Sigurd is that when you create a paradox yourself you detract from nature unless you are describing a natural (seemingly) paradox. I can add any paradox that I choose that doesn't occur in nature just as you said. When you have real paradoxes it is a paradox of understanding, there seems to be a misunderstanding here about types of paradox I am referring to the natural paradoxes. Here are a few, some answered and some not:


It is impossible for protons to come close enough together for nuclear fusion to occur due to their incredibly strong repulsive forces, why then does nuclear fusion occur?

If information enters a black hole and disappears why then does this allow other quantum states to become the same state?

If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, surely I cannot exist?

Some obvious paradoxes there but there comes a difference when you force a paradox, but the beauty is is that because of the finite solutions of the Schrodinger equation this means that there are only going to be a finite possibility of quantum states, therefore quantum states can violate the laws of physics seemingly paradoxically. Take for instance action at a distance, an electron can suddenly for no reason appear on the 'other side of the universe' from here simply because there is a probability that it might be there, however small yet still very possible, violating the laws of relativity paradoxically. This all relates because paradoxes seem to be intertwined with nature.

Alas, if you were to give it enough time though any paradox that you mention could manifest itself, natural or made up. The teapot orbiting the sun for instance, there is a probability that the teapot can manifest from the earth and into orbit around the sun. It is VERY improbable but none the less a possibility.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The trouble is Sigurd is that when you create a paradox yourself you detract from nature unless you are describing a natural (seemingly) paradox. I can add any paradox that I choose that doesn't occur in nature just as you said..

(Youre funny...I dont remember doing that.)

Originally Posted by Quantime

When you have real paradoxes it is a paradox of understanding, there seems to be a misunderstanding here about types of paradox I am referring to the natural paradoxes. Here are a few, some answered and some not:


It is impossible for protons to come close enough together for nuclear fusion to occur due to their incredibly strong repulsive forces, why then does nuclear fusion occur?.

(Because its possible after all?)

Originally Posted by Quantime

If information enters a black hole and disappears why then does this allow other quantum states to become the same state?.

(It does?)

Originally Posted by Quantime

If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, surely I cannot exist?.

(You killed a copy)

Originally Posted by Quantime

Some obvious paradoxes there but there comes a difference when you force a paradox,

Never heard of "forcing" paradoxes before.

Originally Posted by Quantime

but the beauty is is that because of the finite solutions of the Schrodinger equation this means that there are only going to be a finite possibility of quantum states, therefore quantum states can violate the laws of physics seemingly paradoxically.

I dont get this...

Originally Posted by Quantime

Take for instance action at a distance, an electron can suddenly for no reason appear on the 'other side of the universe' from here simply because there is a probability that it might be there, however small yet still very possible, violating the laws of relativity paradoxically. This all relates because paradoxes seem to be intertwined with nature.

Sorry...I dont believe that. Somebody gotta go there and verify before I believe it can happen. (No insult intended)

Originally Posted by Quantime

Alas, if you were to give it enough time though any paradox that you mention could manifest itself, natural or made up.

Suppose there isnt time enough...theres entrophy Ive heard.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The teapot orbiting the sun for instance, there is a probability that the teapot can manifest from the earth and into orbit around the sun. It is VERY improbable but none the less a possibility.

No Princple comes to mind as impossibly wrong... but Im not sure its equivalent to say there is a possibility of its being wrong. Also I think "antinomies" is used for this class yours...I was thinking of the more traditional now no longer existing class of paradoxes. Containing Burale Fortes, Russells paradox,Currys et consortes. No prob Rather cool questions. Thank you

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Originally Posted by Quantime

The trouble is Sigurd is that when you create a paradox yourself you detract from nature unless you are describing a natural (seemingly) paradox. I can add any paradox that I choose that doesn't occur in nature just as you said..

(You're funny...I don't remember doing that.)

I suppose you wont recognize this variation of the Liar Paradoxm, since it is of my own design.

Originally Posted by Quantime

When you have real paradoxes it is a paradox of understanding, there seems to be a misunderstanding here about types of paradox I am referring to the natural paradoxes. Here are a few, some answered and some not:


It is impossible for protons to come close enough together for nuclear fusion to occur due to their incredibly strong repulsive forces, why then does nuclear fusion occur?.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(Because its possible after all?)

This is one of the answered ones that we know. The protons under intense pressure and energy come a lot closer to one another than they would do in less pressured and temperature environments, but still not close enough to touch thus not initiating nuclear fusion. It seems paradoxical right then for nuclear fusion to be actually taking place? Well it turns out that because of Quantum Tunneling that there is a probability that the protons are right next to each other. Seeing as there is the probability it turns out that they are next to each other, and they do then fuse because of this and nuclear fusion takes place across the cosmos. Remarkable right? The paradox is resolved when more information is brought into the equation.

Originally Posted by Quantime

If information enters a black hole and disappears why then does this allow other quantum states to become the same state?.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(It does?)

Yes.

Originally Posted by Quantime

If I go back in time and kill my grandfather, surely I cannot exist?.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(You killed a copy)

A copy? Well no, the fact that I am in the past and I do not recall being in the past myself means that we have entered a different universe where the cause and effect due to Quantum Fluctuations are different, therefore no violation of causality.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Some obvious paradoxes there but there comes a difference when you force a paradox,

Originally Posted by sigurdV

(Never heard of "forcing" paradoxes before.

There is no such thing as a paradox, therefore to state one exists is creating one; forcing a paradox into existence. Remember paradoxes only seem to be true due to lack of information about which the paradox is seemingly concerning.

Originally Posted by Quantime

but the beauty is is that because of the finite solutions of the Schrodinger equation this means that there are only going to be a finite possibility of quantum states, therefore quantum states can violate the laws of physics seemingly paradoxically.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

I dont get this...

Quantum States are the arrangement of momentum and position; the quanta of a system. Arrangement of these states can create different objects, and can also be responsible for their position. In other words, a human is a collection of quantum states around the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 70, there is a probability that those states could then occupy a place in space somewhere. In fact, given enough volume of space in a universe bigger than that power you would eventually see a reptition of your existence because there are still a finitie (set maximum number) of arrangments of those quantum states. This relates to paradoxes because as there is a probability that an electron can be here and 50 light years away at the same time, eventually it will be, and will interact with other particles 50 light years away instantaenosuly, paradoxically violating special relativity (nothing can go faster than the speed of light).

Originally Posted by Quantime

Take for instance action at a distance, an electron can suddenly for no reason appear on the 'other side of the universe' from here simply because there is a probability that it might be there, however small yet still very possible, violating the laws of relativity paradoxically. This all relates because paradoxes seem to be intertwined with nature.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Sorry...I dont believe that. Somebody gotta go there and verify before I believe it can happen.

Specifically this phenomena is present in action at a distance and Quantum Entanglement:

Action at a distance (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Quantime

Alas, if you were to give it enough time though any paradox that you mention could manifest itself, natural or made up.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

Suppose there isnt time enough...theres entrophy Ive heard.

If there isn't time enough for it to occur it won't, however if it does then it is the manifestation of a higher dimension. The grandfather paradox for instance is resolved when explaining a 5th dimension.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The teapot orbiting the sun for instance, there is a probability that the teapot can manifest from the earth and into orbit around the sun. It is VERY improbable but none the less a possibility.

Originally Posted by sigurdV

No Princple comes to mind as impossibly wrong... but Im not sure its equivalent to say there is a possibility of its being wrong.

Indeed, the odds of that occuring are so infinitesimally small as close to being zero. No doubt that will never happen in this universe, the odds are too slim and not enough space or time for it to occur.

Also I think "antinomies" is used for this class yours...

Anti-whats?

I was thinking of the more traditional now no longer existing class of paradoxes. Containing Burale Fortes, Russells paradox,Currys et consortes. No prob Rather cool questions. Thank you

No problem, I hope I helped indulged some of the thoughts you had

Originally Posted by sigurdV
Also I think "antinomies" is used for this class of yours...

Originally Posted by Quantime
Anti-whats?

It Was Kant, the philosopher,
coining the term for paradoxes more amusing than serious:

Whats behind the end of everything?

Theres a classification of paradoxes...Into semantic, logical .mathemathical ...whatever...
I see the classification itself as having no scientific value!
Its rather an attempt to hide the fact that they are as yet not solved: only hidden under the rug... so to say.

The following thread is supposed to show how to solve paradoxes
but the class is so unruly and ignorant
so the teacher is relaxing, discussing the philosophy of females instead

http://www.thescienceforum.com/philosophy/32533-science-semantics-new-post.html

(Russells paradox : A barber (who is a man) only shaves those who do not shave themselves. So does the barber shave himself?)
The Russells paradox assumes that there is no other barber among the men who do not shave themselves