Article #98
Subject: Linkedin discussions on Reality and Truth
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 1/18/2012 10:03:38 AM

These are notes from Luca's discussion group on reality and truth:

The notion of reality in science - what makes a scientific statement true and
what makes a scientific entity real.
What defines a scientific entity as "real"?
When is a scientific statement true? What are the truth conditions for a
scientific statement? What are its verification conditions?
How to escape from relativism and metaphysics?

What of the above questions would do good to scientific enterprise?

As we are debating tachyons, empty space, string theory, are we actually
investigating what it means to claim that a particular set of entities exist
or that x and y are the case?

What is the difference between stating "2+2 = 4", "the cat is on the
mat", "neutrinos travel faster than light" and "there are bosons"?

Let us use this as a springboard to understand what it is that scientists are
actually talking about.



Andrew Harrell • Here is one difference. A proposition statement in Science
is real when it is the realization or "instantiation" of a set of postulates,
facts, rules of thought. It can be "true" when it is only a tautological
consequence of previous assumptions (postulates) and rules of thought. The
French mathematician Henri Poincare wrote a series of good books of this at
the turn of the last century.
LUCA

Hallo everyone, thanks for all the comments. It seems to me that one thing we
have pretty much ascertained: a scientific truth needs is usually constrained
to a specific theoretical model, AND constrained to some methods of its
verification. Moreover, it should be possible to state it in a natural
language.
Now, this is where, in my view, problems start.
It is true that we do not have an ultimate description of reality, neither in
physics nor in everyday experience. Jacek is right when he maintains that
everything is pretty much a construct of our mind. However, many people have
good reasons to maintain that our perception has to be the perception of
something out there, other than our bodies and minds.

On the other hand, it is legitimate to postulate the existence of a world
underlying our own, producing it, and claim that such a world is not material
in any sense we may think of, it is entirely virtual, and that the feeling of
living inside a material world is a permanent illusion.

This could in principle be the case, however, as I have often repeated, it is
anti-economic with regard to our ontology, it would engender infinite
regress, plus encounter a host of unsolved logical problems.

it is not that idealism is unpopular because it is impossible; it is
unpopular because it is less immediate, less intuitive. a world of material
objects better fits our daily experience.

In science, to go back to Andrew's remarks on Poincare', a statement is true
both in virtue of experience AND in virtue of its meaning, in connection to
many other sets of statements linked to each other. No statement is true in
isolation. And Bill follows up on this topic very clearly.

The problems with phycics current developments is that it is harder and
harder to translate scientific findings into natural languages, without
resorting to a linguistic arsenal which is clearly inadequate. This is where
science borders into metaphysics, and dark matter and dark energy and Higgs'
bosons does not leave us better off than aristotle's flogiston, or the fifth
element.


Majda EllieUnfollow Follow Majda Ellie
Majda Ellie Jaroš Gilding Dip.Oec. • Hi Luca I am in complete agreement that
nothing is impossible ( as support: " Poeple want everything. And they want
it now." was a scientists comment). In my view every difficult premise or
statement can! be explain in terms such as will be understood by everybody (
simplifying downward doesn't mean taking away the scientific).

As an example of physical measurements: we are shorter when standing up than
when lying down!
This might not be much but it can't be ignored either. Thanks for the
discussion.


Andrew Harrell • Thanks for the mention Luca. The difference between
saying "2 + 2 = 4" and saying "tachyons travel faster than light." is that
the truth in one (the tautology) is completely logical and can be verified
subjectively and also is independent of the need for experiential validation.
The other (the experimental fact) is verified by conducting an experiment
which is be to be falsified objectively with physical measurements.
Idealistic truth can exist in the material world (as part of it) and also in
a private subjective world (as separate from our materialistic existence).
This is the beauty of believing in the possibility that there always is the
possibiliy of miraculous insight leading toward making human progress
through "intimations" (the hope of a "oneness" of scientific and philosophic
or religious) truth.

MAJDA
The ecperimental fact i refer to- Andrew- is from MIT lectures. I trust you
can comment on those, too.
Majda Ellie Jaroš Gilding Dip.Oec. • Good to know : how else could any
elementaryschool-child trust 2 + 2 = 4?

Madja and Luca, I have a problem with your belief that "nothing is
impossible" the German mathematician. Kronecker said, " God created the
integers and all else is the work of man". In order for God to create the
integers He had to say that the number one is the set of all sets which don't
have any members. My question to you is "How can He say this if the set which
doesn't have any members doesn't exist>
Hi Andrew, thanks for your comments. I am not sure I ever said that nothing
is impossible. Moreover, 2+2 is a mathematical truth but it is not a
tautology. A tautology is "a triangle has three angles", or "a=a"
I do not believe there is any god. Anyway, to answer your riffle, it is the
same story of the paradox of the liar, or the class which is not member of
itself, or the beard cutter in Alcala' who shaves only those who do not shave
by themselves.
The problem I have with tachyons is not that experiments cannot be conducted;
they can. The problem is that I do not see how the notion of tachyon enters
our conceptual schemes altogether. In other words, what does it mean to
postulate tachyons, muons, gluons, gravitons? what is the difference between
those and Aristotle's fifth element? that those sub particles enter more
refined theories than Aristotles? fair enough: still the question remains:
what is the ontological status of such subparticles? Are they convenient
theoretical devices meant to square theories with reality? Are those
particles observed the same way we observe a cat on the mat? These problems
are philosophical, however, scientist would do well not to ignore them.


LucaUnfollow Follow Luca
Luca De Ioanna • I meant: 2+2=4 :)


ANDREW

Luca,
What an interesting discussion we are having. Thanks for starting it and the
correction about what 2 + 2 is. Something I should know. And, Yes, whether
tachyons exist or not (whatever they are) shouldn’t be decided in philosophic
discussions. But, I don’t believe the argument I gave depends on all of this.
I will take some steps backward and restate what I was trying to say.
Hopefully, we don't have to assume God exists by bringing Him into the
discussion like I did (but I surely wouldn't advise anyone to count on it..
thats another discussion).

I see that your original questions were
1) “What is the difference between reality and truth?
2) ”What is the difference between stating
a) "2+2 = 4",
b)"the cat is on the mat",
c) "neutrinos travel faster than light" and
d) "there are bosons"?
With respect to 1) the question of what is the difference between reality and
truth?
Here is one difference. A proposition statement in Science is real when it is
the realization or "instantiation" of a set of postulates, facts, rules of
thought. It can be "true" when it is only a tautological consequence of
previous assumptions (postulates) and rules of thought.
The key to understanding this point is to know that there is a difference
between an instantiation of truth and truth, itself.
With respect to question 2) a).? May I reframe it as what is the difference
between a tautology and whether tachyons exist and travel faster than light?

If so, the difference between saying "all triangles have 3 sides" and
saying "tachyons travel faster than light." is that the truth in one (the
tautology) is completely logical and can be verified subjectively and also is
independent of the need for experiential validation. The other (the
experimental fact) is verified by conducting an experiment which is be to be
falsified objectively with physical measurements. Idealistic truth can exist
in the material world (as part of it) and also in a private subjective world
(as separate from our materialistic existence). This is the beauty of
believing in the possibility that there always is the possibiliy of
miraculous insight leading toward making human progress through "intimations"
(the hope of a "oneness" of scientific and philosophic or religious) truth.
Also, here is another related point. I believe there is a problem with any
belief (whoever has said it) that "nothing is impossible" In order for
mathematicians and logicians to create the integers We need to say that the
number one is the set of all sets which don't have any members. My question
to you (or anyone who claims that this is true) is, “How can we say this if
the set which doesn't have any members doesn’t exist in some sense.”
LUCA

Thanks Andrew, you are putting a lot of meat onto the grill, as we say in
Italy :) And I am willing to take part in this barbecue :)
I am not sure I understand the difference you drew above. A statement cannot
be real or unreal, but just true or false. A state of affairs can be real or
fictional.
We are being misled by a few semantic problems:

1) no one has got a conclusive notion as to what makes a statement true or
false. Including scientific statements. However, I agree with you that a
statement in science is deemed as true when checked both against 1) empirical
evidence (however it is achieved) and 2) a web of interconnected propositions
also deemed as true. This is Quine's view, and many others'.

2) The proposition that triangles have three angles (not three sides) is
guaranteed by the fact that the expression "triangle"already contains in
itself the fact that there are 3 angles.

3) The problem with the proposition "tachyons travel faster than light", is
that, if we translated into logical form, we have: there are some x, such
that x are called tachyons, are particles with such mass, energy, properties,
and x travel faster than light."

My point is: what makes the first part of the statement true: "There are some
x, which have properties a,b,c,d etc."?
What are the means of verification for such a statement? How much is this
statement true in virtue of accordance to experience and verification, and
how much is it true in virtue of its relation to a set of interconnected
scientific propositions? And is there any element which makes it true in
virtue of logic too?



MAJDA

You will know my inadequacies here but to comment on the above ( brain versus
mind and the analogy with hardware software) andLuca,: meaning versus
experience.

it does boil down to our physical bodies and parts and what shape they may be
in before they have certain ' experiences or sensations'. And that may not be
so stupid as it looks: because the brain may know ( but our mind doesn't) or
the brain may not know...One can subsist very much without the other but the
latter can not subsist without the former. Firing neurons may depend on
certain conditions ( and needless to say that humans in general feel better =
fire better? when certain weather conditions or seasons are in place...
leaving alone for a moment the SAD syndrome 9 seasonally affected syndrome) )
Poeple exist but display little if any activity of mind: yet we could never
in the darkest ages of prohibition envision the opposite is true.


But there is, as always has been, a great deal more to it.


ANDREW

Yes, i agree with most of what you said. Except I believe such a thing as
a "concept of a concept" is possible. What is it? The meaning of a meaningful
word, maybe? Does our friend the tachyon have to by one to come into
existence? Or, is he forever an illusion? I don't know Do you? But, I am not
alone on my side of the debate on this. Our eternal philosophic benefactor,
Plato also believed what I AM saying to you. Here is a quote from a paper in
1983 I wrote on this:

Concept of a Concept, Part I

Plato, stated this in his Socratic dialogue Charmides:

SOCRATES. And if a man know only, and has only knowledge of knowledge, and
no further knowledge of health and justice, the probability is that he will
only know that he knows something, and has a certain knowledge, whether
concerning himself or other men.
CRITIAS. True.
SOCRATES. Then, how will this knowledge or science teach him to know what he
knows? Say that he knows health; - not wisdom or temperance, but the art of
medicine has taught it to him; - and he has learned harmony from the art of
music, and building, from the art of building - neither, from wisdom or
temperance: and the same of other things.
CRITIAS. That is evident.

Well, we won't try to hide it: in contrast to these carefully worded
sentences, the rest of this section of this book will list instances in
which the study of thought processes has value to us - instance in which it
has a very real value.


All along it must be kept in mind that steps forward in knowledge proceed
awkwardly. The initial coneption of a new discovery always has many details
that are wrong. Socrates takes a critical position in those two quotations.
But, he later states that for his part the desire to know what is good (not
necessarily the actual knowledge itself) is the most important thing. The
sum of what we don't know is so vast -- we will never get anywhere without a
lot of pure desire to step beyond what we don't know with what we aren't
sure of. There is no way to obtain knowledge without making mistakes and
blunders. There is no roal road to any difficult art or skill.

WE SUMMARIZE: Our progress will depend on how important we conclude that it
is to try to do what we aren't sure of; what we don't seem capable of; what
we haven't been prepared for; and to what extent the theory that we do
construct being built on hard-learned experience, does not outdistance our
capability to produce results.


Let's have a friendly discussion on this, not a barbecue.

Andrew
III


AnatolyUnfollow Follow Anatoly
Anatoly Tchoussov • 1) to reality: I think, it's possible to define "reality"
after Ortega y Gasset as "something, which we cannot refuse/decline to"
(excuse me, it's a translation from Russian translation of Spanish);
so the point of question is: what means (which connect us to a world) we are
sure, fully confident, certain etc.;

2) to universe: I think, it's necessary to differ between "world"
and "universe" (there can be more distinctions);
by an early Kant, "world" (die Welt) is an "communication/interaction of
objects" (excuse me, it's a translation from German);
there are some other definitions of world... (Wittgenstein, Heidegger,
Luhman, ...);
universe has also logical connotations;

3) to a common question: let's demarcate logical, ontological and ontical
aspects (z.B. Heidegger, Losew, Hartman);
1 hour ago • Unlike • Like
• • Reply privately
• • Flag as inappropriate
• • Flag as promotion
0

Andrew Harrell • I like Stephen Hawkings definition of reality, "Something
that kicks back". That is, something that we can conduct experiments on. Its
opposite, an illusion...then has to be something that doesn't
respond..ever..to all our inquiries. This definition assumes we have the
ability to eventually investigate and look deeply enough into anything in
order to make this happen . To look deeply enough at anything until it
eventually has to respond. If we are to say there are several levels of
reality, something which I personally do not believe, then it would be much
harder to define things. Is what is now being proposed as a multiverse, an 11
to 10 dimensional compactification of a 28 dimensional Lie Group, such an
object. I would suppose so, since, if it can be mathematically represented I
believe it can be discovered and investigated

Anatoly Tchoussov • to Harrell: in Hawking's def there is a point of
something self-standing (I agree);
but semantic (and other logically-semiotic) "solutions" are concerned with a
possible ignorance (independence) of kick-backs;

I prefer actual solutions too (as I understand Yours position), but there are
a huge of "logically possible" answers;
so Ortega's def seams more common;

another question is: in what degree can we trust in mathematics? (and it's
ontologies);

I think, that's a question of reality in a significance equal of a question
of ontology;

Anatoly,
Yes, there are some mathematicians (also being logical positivists) who
say, "Mathematics is not about reality".
I am not one of these people. We can trust in mathematics because its worked
so far, and we don't know of any reason why it still shouldn't. There is no
reason not to be faithful
to Harrell: I think, math is a very complex object;
in my opinion, it's not a language, but a tool for modelling ontologies;
math works, I agree, but really in some bounded areas;
for ex., there is no exact solution for motion of three bodies;
for ex., all economical quantities are discrete;
an so on...

so the trust to math can have unseen external boundaries
To Tchoussov: Yes, math is a tool and has unseen external boundaries. But,
why is this a reason for not trusting it?
to Harrell: it's a reason to criticize a naiive acceptance of math models;

there is a question of correspondence of models to some reality (reality,
which is close to everyday's human being - a very deep question, in my mind);

Boetius (V-VI A.D.) said: "if we'll count perfectly, there will be a real
state of things, equal to result, but when we are perfectly logically
reasoning, the result is not guaranteed" (excuse me, pls, my translation from
Russian);
I think, he presupposed an implicit thesis on uniqueness of math models =
math models are picked among other models;
now we know of non-uniqueness of math constructions (geometries, numbers, set
theories etc.);

why do we not trying to research our tools?;
Mr. Tchoussov,

Yes, its a very deep question, the extent of correspondence of mathematics to
reality. I know enough only to discuss it, not to decide it. But, Yes, also,
we should all try very hard to research it and discuss it. Even more we
should try this since the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries and different
type of algebraic numbers, complex numbers. Usually, when these new
possibilities are discovered mathematically, complex numbers or Boolean
algebras for instance, it takes decades or centuries to find a useful


correspondence with reality. But, it can be quite important when it is
figured out. Have good dreams over there in Russia. If they are mathematical
ones, they could very well come true. I have heard it said that Russians
believe, "better is the enemy of good enough". But, I hope Russian
mathematicians do not say this?


Anatoly, Luca, Jose, Gentlemen, Friends, if you will allow me to call you
that,
Yes, the World exists independently from us. But, it is created out
of nothing (no substance, no form existing in space or time). We are created
out of something. What? or Who? "God", I say. "Maybe not", you say. I cannot
prove you wrong. But speaking of creating things out of nothing I now return
to my question of last week which I have answered already from my point of
view.. .. "How do you define the number One?".

W to Harrell: I can agree that in some usual way man want to seek some cause
for the world's being;
but there are some other ways of thinking, which are more complex;
(one of "Murphy laws": every complex problem has a simple false solution);

for example we can see the existence of world as every other entity (that's a
problem, how can we consider a world as an entity) in an actual way;
my def is close to a def through an action Plato's "Sophistes" (247d-e):
my def: something exists if it is reproduced;
in such position there is no a primal principal division, which becomes then
a point of inner difficulties (yes, there become some other difficulties, but
creation looses it's preferential status);

on the other side, appellation to a god doesn't solve real problems;
it's equal to a rough dogmatics: "smth is as a such because it is such (=
it's a will of god)";
scientific solutions are very different because of exploring mechanisms of
being;
so we can differ between concrete solutions;
in a case of god there are no such possibilities;
Posted by Anatolyell explained Anatoly.

First problem is this: the meaning of the word god is so vague that anyone
can use it as he wants.
Its reference is equally mysterious. This thing alone should settle the
matter, as it creates great problems both in science and in philosophy.

Logically speaking, either of these options are possible, tertium non datur
(a third one is not possible).

Either.

a) everything has a cause, or
b) it is false that everything has a cause

if a) is true, then the universe needs a cause; if this cause is god, god
also needs a cause, and so does its cause, and its cause's cause, etc.

if b) is true (and a) false), then the universe may well exist without a
cause and we are equally done with the idea of god.

From a logical point of view, the idea of god has no place as a prime cause.
Sorry Andrew.

Let's forget about god. Let's see what it means that a theory is valid (or
proven) and that itse statements are true:

1) Higg's bosons can be seen with the microscope and their properties
verified (only provoking)
2) Higg's bosons cannot be seen directly, but there is conclusive indirect
proof, via detection by means of other machines, that such particles exist
3) Their existence is a hypothesis, so far not proven, but it appears very
probable, given a certain set of effects which are directly verifiable.
4) Their existence is a hypothesis, derived uniquely from accordance with the
rest of the
Posted by Luca


Luca or Anatoly. In my experience appealing to God does solve problems, and
often in a purposeful, rational way and miraculous way that can also help us
as we go about our scientific pursuits.. What is needed on our part is
humbleness, good will to others, clear logical thinking, and good faith to
all.
But, i agree Science is somewhat different than theology in application.
Enjoy your discussions about Higgs bosons, (not God). I have enjoyed our
talks

Note to these notes: I established a new discussion group on the History and
Philosophy of Science Linkedin at this point.