(March 13, 2015 at 10:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I've often talked about truth only being contextual. For example, in the context of everyday life, Aunt Ethel is definitely very real. In the context of QM mechanics, you'd be hard-pressed to find her anywhere. In the context of QM, things are intrinsically unpredictable. In the context of mundane reality, billiard balls bounce the right way every time no matter what.


But here's my question. Should something that we take as real in context, like love or beauty, be called real? Or must reality be based on an ultimate truth, something which holds true in ALL contexts?

*shrug* I live in a mundane, large-scale framework, not a quantum one. When my wife walks up behind me, grabs me bum and whispers, 'Let's get sweaty', I don't waste time wondering whether the experience is real, or just some quantum impingement on a false reality.

Boru

Real or true? The OP seems to be conflating the two.

If the correspondence theory of truth is correct, what is true is what corresponds to some fact in the world. In that sense, context doesn't matter. For context to matter, I think you'd have to be talking about a different theory of truth. However, most people mean the correspondence theory when they talk about truth.

(March 14, 2015 at 12:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Real or true? The OP seems to be conflating the two.

I think these things will always come together often, because a common application of any idea about truth is determining in what way you believe things are real.

Quote:If the correspondence theory of truth is correct, what is true is what corresponds to some fact in the world. In that sense, context doesn't matter.

I'd say that in that sense, the context is given: the context of our experience of the world. In that context, I'd say it is true that there is a desk in front of me. But I'm not so sure I'd say it's "solid," because scientific ideas establish a new context in which to view that statement. I see it as solid, and it hurts if I smack my head against it, but I "know" it to be 99.99999% empty space.

(March 14, 2015 at 6:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 12:34 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Real or true? The OP seems to be conflating the two.

I think these things will always come together often, because a common application of any idea about truth is determining in what way you believe things are real.

When St. Augustine was supposedly led to confusion by equating the "real" with the "apparently real," I think it was a mistake of "true/real" and "incorrect understanding of true/real."

Just take your pick, but I think to live a normal life as a human being, would be hard in QM.

(March 14, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 6:50 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think these things will always come together often, because a common application of any idea about truth is determining in what way you believe things are real.

When St. Augustine was supposedly led to confusion by equating the "real" with the "apparently real," I think it was a mistake of "true/real" and "incorrect understanding of true/real."

elaborate?

(March 14, 2015 at 10:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 14, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Nestor Wrote: When St. Augustine was supposedly led to confusion by equating the "real" with the "apparently real," I think it was a mistake of "true/real" and "incorrect understanding of true/real."

elaborate?

I just meant that I agree with you that what is generally understood to be "true" is knowledge about what is "real," as opposed to believing that any interpretation we choose to give our experiences are equally correct or useful in illuminating our ignorance about what's both true and real.

Mostly empty space? No, the space is filled with forces, and it's the interplay of invisible forces which make up the solidity. Just because it isn't a particle doesn't mean it isn't a part of the real.

(March 15, 2015 at 11:03 am)rasetsu Wrote: Mostly empty space? No, the space is filled with forces, and it's the interplay of invisible forces which make up the solidity. Just because it isn't a particle doesn't mean it isn't a part of the real.

Where are forces, and what are they, beyond descriptions of the relationships among things? This empty space filled with particle-less forces is starting to sound a lot like eastern philosophy (one hand clapping), or like some of the Christian theosophical ideas. Does slapping a few formulae on them and dubbing them "science" rather than philosophical or divine principles really change what they are, and their inaccessability to direct knowledge?

(March 15, 2015 at 11:13 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 15, 2015 at 11:03 am)rasetsu Wrote: Mostly empty space? No, the space is filled with forces, and it's the interplay of invisible forces which make up the solidity. Just because it isn't a particle doesn't mean it isn't a part of the real.

Where are forces, and what are they, beyond descriptions of the relationships among things? This empty space filled with particle-less forces is starting to sound a lot like eastern philosophy (one hand clapping), or like some of the Christian theosophical ideas. Does slapping a few formulae on them and dubbing them "science" rather than philosophical or divine principles really change what they are, and their inaccessability to direct knowledge?

The formulae are how we describe reality. We describe particles the same way. Science is about models, in the language of mathematics. Unless you're going to abscond into idealism again, there is no difference, from our perspective, of the reality of forces as opposed to particles. (Oh, and you have direct knowledge; the forces are what give the desk its solidity.)