RE: A question about Truth
May 4, 2014 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2014 at 12:25 pm by Coffee Jesus.)
I don't agree with what BennyBoy wrote.
Our concepts of "solid" and "99.9999999% empty space" can be reconsiled, otherwise they couldn't both be true of the hammer.
We come to better understand things as we inquire into their composition, behavior, or origins. When you discover that the hammer is made of subatomic particles, the meaning of "hammer" changes so that "hammer" and "that mass subatomic particles" can still have the same referent. Changing the meanings of words is what inquiry is all about. If we couldn't do that, then discoveries such as "dolphins are actually mammals" or "birds are actually reptiles" would necessitate that we invent completely new words.
(April 30, 2014 at 2:28 am)bennyboy Wrote: Is the rock "really" there? Yes, as an experience. No, as I experience it. Maybe not, as an object with an existence independent of my experience of it.
Take a hammer. In the context of everyday life, a hammer is (sometimes dangerously) real. In the context of spacetime and quantum mechanics, the hammer as I experience it-- solid, flat, shiny-- doesn't really exist-- I'm really looking at 99.9999999% empty space, and the surface uniformity is an illusion.
Our concepts of "solid" and "99.9999999% empty space" can be reconsiled, otherwise they couldn't both be true of the hammer.
We come to better understand things as we inquire into their composition, behavior, or origins. When you discover that the hammer is made of subatomic particles, the meaning of "hammer" changes so that "hammer" and "that mass subatomic particles" can still have the same referent. Changing the meanings of words is what inquiry is all about. If we couldn't do that, then discoveries such as "dolphins are actually mammals" or "birds are actually reptiles" would necessitate that we invent completely new words.
