(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?
Shouldn't we look at Aunt Ethel as a statistically probable structure of events which we would expect to be able to model in QM if only we had capacity to handle the complexity of the math?
I keep my own definition of truth, to wit:
A proposition is true directly proportional to the degree that it will be shown to have accurately predicted the future.
As such, nothing can be said to be true in the present (neural processing time & light cones involved here). Billiard balls have been shown in the recent past to have been accurately predicted in the farther past as to how they would bounce in the middle past. The most we can say about truth in the present is that some classes of propositions, say about billiard balls, have always been shown to be true in the past.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
