Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Exploring Truth

Can we define Truth? What is Truth? Can we extract the meaning of “Truthiness” from what we experience every day? That is what I am going to explore today and if you are interested, come along for a ride.

We all know that certain things are true or false:

Earth is round – true

Men are mortal – true

Moon is made of cheese – false

1+1=10 – false

The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is constant irrespective of the diameter of the circle - true

On a bright sunny cloudless day, the sky is blue – true

When we look at this analysis, we see the common aspect is that all of them are declarative statements. These are all premises that we examine for truth or falsity. If we are looking for the Truth, it is immanent to the “true” statements and is absent from the “false” statements. So the Truth is not a substance or a material object per se, it is in our understanding of the substance or an event. Our knowledge of the reality dictates what is true or false. If it is close to reality then we say it is true, otherwise we say it is false.

Now let’s examine the statements one by one. If a cartographer looks at the first statement, he may balk at it saying that the earth is truly a spheroid, more like an oval than a round. He may mark it as false.

The second statement at first glance looks incontrovertible. However, if we locate the genes for mortality and youth, theoretically we can modify it to live as long as we wish to lead a healthy youthful life. It is also possible that we may achieve immortality by transferring ourselves into a more durable media such as silicon chips rather than the biological skin in which we reside. These are the stuff sci-fi is made of and nobody can say that it is not a possibility even though it is highly improbable.

The third statement “Moon is made of cheese” cannot be proved false by a primitive tribe. If a shaman says that it is made of cheese, the tribe will accept it so. It is the knowledge we have accumulated as human beings through the ages that rules out this statement being true. We have brought a moon rock back. It is a rock and not cheese.

The fourth statement ”1+1=10” is true if you are doing binary math for computer science. It is false for decimal system and is true for binary arithmetic where there is no number symbol greater than 1.

The fifth statement regarding the constancy (pi=3.141…) of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter for a circle is true for a flat Euclidean plane and can be shown to be false on a spherical topography. Let’s imagine that you are standing on top of the North Pole and try to draw a small circle with the string attached to the North Pole as a center. You will find the ratio to be pi. Now you gradually increase the diameter of the circle and larger the circle you make the smaller the ratio would become. In the extreme case when the circle is at the equator, you will find the ratio is closer to 2 and not pi.

Can we dispute that the sky is blue? Yes, if we are totally colorblind and what we see are only shades of gray, black and white. Since we cannot see the vivid color spectrum available for the average human being, we don’t see much of a difference in various colors. We would say the sky is gray. (Of course in space the sky is black as there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight)

What does this collection of statements prove? Essentially whether the Truth resides in a statement or not, is decided by the knowledge level, the location, the time, and the observer.

Truth then is the collective knowledge base of the society on the reality and a premise is true for that time and for the observer if it is within the knowledge base that exists at that date. Since the knowledge base of the society is derived from the senses and the collective logic, we are really talking about the shadow play in Plato’s darkened cave where the men are chained facing the wall and the outside reality can only be glimpsed through the shadows.

Looking at the problem in a modern perspective, we compared the Faith on which the world views are based to an operating system of a computer. What then is the Truth? The Truth is then a database program on the computer. If the premise falls within the database, it is true otherwise it is false.

If we have to choose between Faith and Truth what would you choose? Faith (operating system) of course, as it is the foundation on which Truth (database program) resides. You need to choose the Faith first which would automatically lead you to a set of Truth that are available for you to access the true premises.

Which faith and which truth then should we select? That is the topic of another post.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger BOSSY said...

You're one of those Examining-Every-Side-Of-The-Issue people, aren't you.

4:40 PM  
Blogger Moominmama said...

You are arguing that truth is relative in all things and is dependant upon the observer, but your support for this arguement does not hold water. All you've done is provide a series of statements which are too vague, despite first appearances, to be declared true or not, and are in need of further specification. A vague statement is not evidence that truth is inherently subjective. It would be as if I were to say to you "the train to Bath leaves at 10 o'clock. true or false?" Most people would ask for further specifics before replying, and would want details (knowing how vaiable train schedules are) such as which day of the week? 10 am or 10 pm? Or from what station? A very savvy respondant might even enquire if I am asking about the scheduled departure or actual departure (which are rarely the same). So while "the train to Bath leaves at 10 o'clock" might seem at a very cursory glance that is has an obvious truth or falsehood about it, most would realize after a bit of thought that more information is required. The list of statements you give is more complex than my example in that they require a deeper analysis and more obsure additional information to determine their truth value, but the situation is still precisely the same. Vague statements, no matter how solid they appear on the surface, do not mean that truth is subjective.

The only one of your statements I will comment on specifically is the moon/cheese one, because it is of a slightly different nature than the others. Rather than requiring further information to determine the truth value (such as the mathematical base being applied), this one is purely about perception. However, perception does NOT define reality. A primitive tribe may believe the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make it true! There is a fundamental difference between belief and reality which you must acknowledge. I might believe that there are invisible unicorns running around the streets of Bristol, but that does not make it true. This example you give is at aboslute odds with the point you are trying to make.

BTW, there is no such thing as a gene for mortality or a gene for youth. You might want to consider a brief study of genetics. I recommend "Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2nd edn." by Watson et. al. 1989. It's not the most recent (I believe they're up to a 4the edition now), but it's still an excellent text for the basics.

10:56 AM  
Blogger Random Thinker said...

CB:
Thanks for your comments - the modern science is outstripping 1989 thinking. Take a look at this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2709151.stm

That was essentially my point - what is certain and true at one place and epoch need not necessarily be true at another time and place.

11:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home