Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 01:05 am

What is the problem, there is an infinite number of things that are truth. The problem is, the number of untrue things is infinity^2.

Using calculus, any solution can be given a functional expession to solve it, since it must be an integral of the original expression then the number of right answers is raised by a logrithmatic order each time you make the answer more accurate.

The failed solutions are ahead of the correct solutions by one order of magnitude and they are also infinitely repeating functions.
(The character set is not up to the integral expressions)
Therefore: infinity/(infinity^2)

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 01:14 am

"This is sounding very much like pure semantics -- twisting definitions and meanings to create the result you want."
I will accept that you are the authority on that...lol

Geoff332 · Oct 7, 2003, 01:15 am

Now I see what you mean, but that example doesn't quite work. It falls over on this line:

Quote:

0.33333(repeating)=1/3

That statement is false (according to the laws of mathematics). 0.33 (repeating) is the decimal approximation for 1/3, but the two are not exactly equal. They're close enough to one another that in most situations it doesn't matter, but they are not exactly the same.

<edit>
So, 0.33 (repeating) is approximately 1/3
0.33 (repeating) + 0.33 (repeating) + 0.33 (repeating) = 0.99 (repeating)
0.99 (repeating) is approximately 1

The first and the third statements are both either true or false, depending on the accuracy required by 'approximately'
</edit>

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 7, 2003, 01:34 am

Sorry, rounding is what makes it aproximate, otherwise derivitives would not be accepted as exact equations. Nor would infinately repeating functions such as 'e', sine, cosine... I take it you never made it past algebra?

I did not round, and the term is decimal equivalent not approximation.

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 01:25 am

I never realised that I was having a flashback to third grade math. Continuing, an untrue species cannot make a completely true science. The science must therefore inherently become untrue and unfalse.

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 01:40 am

So you're argument is:
1. Human beings are an untrue species.
2. Anything created by an untrue species is necessarily untrue.
3. Science is created by human beings.
4. Science is therefore untrue.

OK. So let's go through these one by one.

What do you mean by an 'untrue species'? I, for one, have no idea what you mean by that statement.

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 01:42 am

untrue species= A species which is not capable of stating anything 100% true henceforth making it untrue. They also could be characterized as an unfalse species, for the same reasons.

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 06:23 am

On what basis do you make that claim?

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 10:23 am

A) All humans distort sources of information from alreadly distorted sources.

B) Human's main way of finding "truth" is by using their sensory devices, which can also decieve them.

Down · Oct 9, 2003, 04:51 pm

Heres my input.

Is there absolute truth?
Yes.
Will we ever find it?
Maybe, not likely.
If we do find it, will we know it is the truth?
No.

Basically, in my opinion, it makes no difference if there is truth or not, since we will never know it to be the truth. Obviously, the same applies also to untruth.

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 07:52 pm

How much do you know about the philosophy of science and epistemology (study of knowledge)?

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 07:54 pm

Me, I know a little definently not an expert. I do know that nothing can be perfect or completely true. Down please tell me how do you know something is truth if you don't know what it is?

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 08:24 pm

There is nothing I'm aware of in epistemology or the philosophy of science that says that nothing can be completely true -- if you know of something specific, let me know. What it does say is that we can never be certain of any knowledge. It's not that nothing can be completely true; it's that we can't be absolutely certain that something is true. It may sound like a subtle difference, but it's quite an important one.

Science is a progressive metholodogy for acquiring and refining knowledge. It makes a bunch of assumptions (assuming material reality is one of the most important) that it cannot prove, but this doesn't make it partially false. Incomplete, maybe; but not partially false. The method of science is intended to overcome the fallabilities of both the men and women 'doing' science and the limits of logic and knowledge. It may not do this perfectly (some argue it does; I think they're wrong), but it does make significant efforts in that direction.

The most common model of science used is generally based on Popper. His articulation of logical positivism centres on falsification. We come up with a hypothesis (which should be loigcally derived), then look for information that will disprove the hypothesis. If we find no disproving evidence, then we (tentatively) support the hypothesis. If there is disproving evidence then we reject the hypothsis. There is no notion of positive evidence to prove a hypothesis -- largely a legacy of Hume's skepticism. It might be accurate to say that no scientific hypothesis can be guaranteed to be true, nowhere does it imply that the hypothesis can be 'partially' true. A hypothesis is true or false.

Now, some theories have such a huge body of evidence (non-falsified hypotheses) that it is generally considered that they are correct. This doesn't mean that we are 100% certain of it -- but that we think it is extremely unlikely that the theory is false (gravity, for example). This does not mean that gravity is partially true. It might mean that gravity is a partial or incomplete explanation of what is going on. But this doesn't make it 'half true'.

From what you've written, if you replaced the term 'untrue' with 'uncertain' then I'd probably come pretty close to agreeing with you. But I would still be left asking myself, "and so...?"

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 08:34 pm

Now I would like to discuss truth in relation to the belief in God.

Here's my stand: God (like science) was created by an untrue being. Considering the fact that if a human is untrue, than he would never no what true is.

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 08:59 pm

You have an argument here:
1. Man is an untrue being.
2. God was created by man.
3. Therefore God cannot be 'true'.

Now:
1. Is not really established. You have established that man cannot have certain knowledge, but, as I said, this is quite different from being 'untrue', as you define it.
2. That's one view -- but it is not supported.
3. Given that neither 1. nor 2. are strong premises, 3. is not demonstrated.

xm.bretton · Oct 9, 2003, 09:45 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Section 8@10-09-2003 01:25 AM
I never realised that I was having a flashback to third grade math. Continuing, an untrue species cannot make a completely true science. The science must therefore inherently become untrue and unfalse.

what about arbitrary truth?

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 09:46 pm

1. Being uncertain is the same as being true. If one is uncertain, than their theory can be improved upon in order to make it true. Henceforth uncertain is also untrue.

2. If the message of God was delivered by an uncertain or untrue species, than the belief in God would be uncertain or untrue. God is not even supported by the sensory outputs, an untrue and uncertain thing, instead it is supported by the "soul" an even more untrue and uncertain thing.

3. Judging upon the evidence that I have presented for points one and two, point three is demonstrated.

xm.bretton · Oct 9, 2003, 09:56 pm

because the species is uncertain with certain information that exceeds our knowledge, this does not mean we are incapible of deciphering truth and establishing facts. and it most definitely does not make the species itself uncertain.

for example: I am given a question, with two options, one wrong and one right (if example is needed I can think of plenty of questions you cannot dispute as factual). I answer the question incorrect; does this make me, as a person, incorrect? and by answering this question incorrectly would I not eventually come to the truth by process of elimination?

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 09:58 pm

Please provide an example of a true fact. Incorrect, is another name for untrue, unfalse, and uncertain.

Geoff332 · Oct 9, 2003, 10:00 pm

1. No, it isn't. I am uncertain if my theory is true or not. My theory is either true or false. It's not both. That is a very, very big difference.

2. Once again, you seem to have conflated knowledge of X with fact of X They are quite different things. I may know that my shirt is blue. If my shirt is in-fact blue, then that knowledge is 'true'. If my shirt is, in fact, red, then that knowledge is 'false'. If I cannot prove that my shirt is blue (or red), then I don't know if the knowledge is true or false. But it is one or the other, irrespective of whether I am aware of it.

3. No evidence has been presented: this is all argument.

Oct 7, 2003, 01:05 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	What is the problem, there is an infinite number of things that are truth. The problem is, the number of untrue things is infinity^2. Using calculus, any solution can be given a functional expession to solve it, since it must be an integral of the original expression then the number of right answers is raised by a logrithmatic order each time you make the answer more accurate. The failed solutions are ahead of the correct solutions by one order of magnitude and they are also infinitely repeating functions. (The character set is not up to the integral expressions) Therefore: infinity/(infinity^2) Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 7, 2003, 01:14 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	"This is sounding very much like pure semantics -- twisting definitions and meanings to create the result you want." I will accept that you are the authority on that...lol Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 7, 2003, 01:34 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Sorry, rounding is what makes it aproximate, otherwise derivitives would not be accepted as exact equations. Nor would infinately repeating functions such as 'e', sine, cosine... I take it you never made it past algebra? I did not round, and the term is decimal equivalent not approximation. Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 9, 2003, 04:51 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Down Molten Ash Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 30	Heres my input. Is there absolute truth? Yes. Will we ever find it? Maybe, not likely. If we do find it, will we know it is the truth? No. Basically, in my opinion, it makes no difference if there is truth or not, since we will never know it to be the truth. Obviously, the same applies also to untruth. http://www.sixtyten.com/images/siggy.gif <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:gray'>Man is afraid of that which he does not know.</span></span>

Oct 9, 2003, 09:56 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	because the species is uncertain with certain information that exceeds our knowledge, this does not mean we are incapible of deciphering truth and establishing facts. and it most definitely does not make the species itself uncertain. for example: I am given a question, with two options, one wrong and one right (if example is needed I can think of plenty of questions you cannot dispute as factual). I answer the question incorrect; does this make me, as a person, incorrect? and by answering this question incorrectly would I not eventually come to the truth by process of elimination? xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 9, 2003, 01:25 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I never realised that I was having a flashback to third grade math. Continuing, an untrue species cannot make a completely true science. The science must therefore inherently become untrue and unfalse.

Oct 9, 2003, 01:40 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	So you're argument is: 1. Human beings are an untrue species. 2. Anything created by an untrue species is necessarily untrue. 3. Science is created by human beings. 4. Science is therefore untrue. OK. So let's go through these one by one. What do you mean by an 'untrue species'? I, for one, have no idea what you mean by that statement.

Oct 9, 2003, 01:42 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	untrue species= A species which is not capable of stating anything 100% true henceforth making it untrue. They also could be characterized as an unfalse species, for the same reasons.

Oct 9, 2003, 06:23 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	On what basis do you make that claim?

Oct 9, 2003, 10:23 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	A) All humans distort sources of information from alreadly distorted sources. B) Human's main way of finding "truth" is by using their sensory devices, which can also decieve them.

Oct 9, 2003, 07:52 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	How much do you know about the philosophy of science and epistemology (study of knowledge)?

Oct 9, 2003, 07:54 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Me, I know a little definently not an expert. I do know that nothing can be perfect or completely true. Down please tell me how do you know something is truth if you don't know what it is?

Oct 9, 2003, 08:24 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	There is nothing I'm aware of in epistemology or the philosophy of science that says that nothing can be completely true -- if you know of something specific, let me know. What it does say is that we can never be certain of any knowledge. It's not that nothing can be completely true; it's that we can't be absolutely certain that something is true. It may sound like a subtle difference, but it's quite an important one. Science is a progressive metholodogy for acquiring and refining knowledge. It makes a bunch of assumptions (assuming material reality is one of the most important) that it cannot prove, but this doesn't make it partially false. Incomplete, maybe; but not partially false. The method of science is intended to overcome the fallabilities of both the men and women 'doing' science and the limits of logic and knowledge. It may not do this perfectly (some argue it does; I think they're wrong), but it does make significant efforts in that direction. The most common model of science used is generally based on Popper. His articulation of logical positivism centres on falsification. We come up with a hypothesis (which should be loigcally derived), then look for information that will disprove the hypothesis. If we find no disproving evidence, then we (tentatively) support the hypothesis. If there is disproving evidence then we reject the hypothsis. There is no notion of positive evidence to prove a hypothesis -- largely a legacy of Hume's skepticism. It might be accurate to say that no scientific hypothesis can be guaranteed to be true, nowhere does it imply that the hypothesis can be 'partially' true. A hypothesis is true or false. Now, some theories have such a huge body of evidence (non-falsified hypotheses) that it is generally considered that they are correct. This doesn't mean that we are 100% certain of it -- but that we think it is extremely unlikely that the theory is false (gravity, for example). This does not mean that gravity is partially true. It might mean that gravity is a partial or incomplete explanation of what is going on. But this doesn't make it 'half true'. From what you've written, if you replaced the term 'untrue' with 'uncertain' then I'd probably come pretty close to agreeing with you. But I would still be left asking myself, "and so...?"

Oct 9, 2003, 08:34 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Now I would like to discuss truth in relation to the belief in God. Here's my stand: God (like science) was created by an untrue being. Considering the fact that if a human is untrue, than he would never no what true is.

Oct 9, 2003, 08:59 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	You have an argument here: 1. Man is an untrue being. 2. God was created by man. 3. Therefore God cannot be 'true'. Now: 1. Is not really established. You have established that man cannot have certain knowledge, but, as I said, this is quite different from being 'untrue', as you define it. 2. That's one view -- but it is not supported. 3. Given that neither 1. nor 2. are strong premises, 3. is not demonstrated.

Oct 9, 2003, 09:46 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	1. Being uncertain is the same as being true. If one is uncertain, than their theory can be improved upon in order to make it true. Henceforth uncertain is also untrue. 2. If the message of God was delivered by an uncertain or untrue species, than the belief in God would be uncertain or untrue. God is not even supported by the sensory outputs, an untrue and uncertain thing, instead it is supported by the "soul" an even more untrue and uncertain thing. 3. Judging upon the evidence that I have presented for points one and two, point three is demonstrated.

Oct 9, 2003, 09:58 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Please provide an example of a true fact. Incorrect, is another name for untrue, unfalse, and uncertain.

Oct 9, 2003, 10:00 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	1. No, it isn't. I am uncertain if my theory is true or not. My theory is either true or false. It's not both. That is a very, very big difference. 2. Once again, you seem to have conflated knowledge of X with fact of X They are quite different things. I may know that my shirt is blue. If my shirt is in-fact blue, then that knowledge is 'true'. If my shirt is, in fact, red, then that knowledge is 'false'. If I cannot prove that my shirt is blue (or red), then I don't know if the knowledge is true or false. But it is one or the other, irrespective of whether I am aware of it. 3. No evidence has been presented: this is all argument.