10 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudge'Truth' is a very simple concept, understood perfectly well by three-year-olds, but often made unnecessarily complicated by adults.
A "True Belief" about "Reality" is a belief that accurately matches reality.
This is true regardless of what kind of reality actually exists.
[b] http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth
Truth http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Truth[/b]
Correspondence between map and territory.
Alfred Tarski define ...[text shortened]... of uncertainty about both of them.) ..........
Whoever wrote that and believes it is as naive as a three-year-old.
RJHinds
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you understand this sentence...
'Truth' is a very simple concept, understood perfectly well by three-year-olds, but often made unnecessarily complicated by adults.
[b]Whoever wrote that and believes it is as naive as a three-year-old.
RJHinds[/b]
"The sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." ?
Truth really is that simple.
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHow does it feel to have your mind owned by other people instead of thinking things through for yourself? You look at a volcano and say to yourself, yep, there is my god in action?
'Truth' is a very simple concept, understood perfectly well by three-year-olds, but often made unnecessarily complicated by adults.
[b]Whoever wrote that and believes it is as naive as a three-year-old.
RJHinds[/b]
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonhouseWhen did I say that? You seem to be playing the devil's advocate again. At least, make some sense next time.
How does it feel to have your mind owned by other people instead of thinking things through for yourself? You look at a volcano and say to yourself, yep, there is my god in action?
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe snow may appear naturally white if viewed in sunlight, but it could be viewed under different light conditions or someone may have added some coloring to the snow and the snow is purple. 😏
Do you understand this sentence...
[b]"The sentence 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white." ?
Truth really is that simple.[/b]
P.S. So how does one determine the true color of the snow? God created the heavens and the earth and the living creatures in six days, but to some it appears to have evolved magically over billions of years. How is one to judge what is the truth?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsApparently you don't understand the sentence...
The snow may appear naturally white if viewed in sunlight, but it could be viewed under different light conditions or someone may have added some coloring to the snow and the snow is purple. 😏
P.S. So how does one determine the true color of the snow? God created the heavens and the earth and the living creatures in six days, but to some it appears to have evolved magically over billions of years. How is one to judge what is the truth?
You must be thicker than I thought, and I didn't think that was possible.
Ok lets see if you can understand this one...
"The sentence "the snargle is oleg" is true if and only if the snargle is oleg"
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeNope, that is even more confusing. What is a snargle and what is oleg. How do I know such things exists? How can I understood it to be true when I have no idea what it is?
Apparently you don't understand the sentence...
You must be thicker than I thought, and I didn't think that was possible.
Ok lets see if you can understand this one...
"The sentence "the snargle is oleg" is true if and only if the snargle is oleg"
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell I am totally surprised. A man of your advanced years never hearing of a snargle.
Nope, that is even more confusing. What is a snargle and what is oleg. How do I know such things exists? How can I understood it to be true when I have no idea what it is?
I'm shocked.
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are easily surprised and shocked. You are apparently not shocked and surprised that I don't know oleg. Is that because, with your 70+ years, you have never heard of it either?
Well I am totally surprised. A man of your advanced years never hearing of a snargle.
I'm shocked.
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindssnargle n. An idiot, dolt, dullard or mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
You are easily surprised and shocked. You are apparently not shocked and surprised that I don't know oleg. Is that because, with your 70+ years, you have never heard of it either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/snargle
oleg adj. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oleg
The snargle is oleg.
Understand now RJ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah. You don't get it.
Nope, that is even more confusing. What is a snargle and what is oleg. How do I know such things exists? How can I understood it to be true when I have no idea what it is?
What a snargle and an oleg is irrelevant, It doesn't matter.
As long as the "snargle" IS "oleg", then the sentence "the snargle is oleg" is true.
Regardless of what "snargle" or "oleg" mean.
As long as snow IS white, then the sentence "the snow is white" is true.
It doesn't matter what "snow" is or what "white" means, as long as "snow", (whatever that is) IS "white",
(whatever that means).
Then the sentence "the snow is white" is true.
This is a tautology.
It's saying that "The sentence "Goliath was big" is true if and only if Goliath was big"
Now if you want to prove that Goliath was actually big then you would obviously need to know what Goliath
was and what big meant and you would then have to demonstrate that Goliath met the requirements of bigness.
You would need the evidence that demonstrated that Goliath was big.
Then you would know that the sentence "Goliath was big" WAS true.
However the point is not if these sentences are actually true, it's what they are saying about the essential nature of the
concept of truth.
The general form might go something like this.
The sentence "The Y is X" is true if and only if Y IS X.
As long as we agree that there is a reality of some kind.
Then TRUTH is the nature of that reality.
An idea is TRUE if and only if the concepts behind that idea map accurately onto reality.
Truth is really simple.
Finding it might not be.
Agreeing what it is might not be.
But the essential nature of truth is.
Do you get it now?
11 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, I get it now.
Yeah. You don't get it.
What a snargle and an oleg is irrelevant, It doesn't matter.
As long as the "snargle" [b]IS "oleg", then the sentence "the snargle is oleg" is true.
Regardless of what "snargle" or "oleg" mean.
As long as snow IS white, then the sentence "the snow is white" is true.
It doesn't matter what "snow" is or ...[text shortened]... t the essential nature of truth is.
Do you get it now?[/b]
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeTrue religion and true science are not the least bit opposed.
They are confused.
And also wrong.
People can and do believe mutually contradictory things.
The fact that religion and science are utterly incompatible and diametrically opposed
doesn't stop people mentally compartmentalising their minds and believing both.
What's more indicative is that scientists are vastly less likely to believe in gods ...[text shortened]... on claims to
tackle closest, are the ones least likely to believe in the claims of religion.
It is false relgion and true science that are incompatible.
False relgion has been fabricated from mundane mind and is full of falsity due to speculation
False relgion was fabricated and sprang up in the middle ages when people thought the world was flat.
True religion is eternal and existed before history even began.
True religion relies on facts and common sense.
Science relies on false theories and a lack of common sense.