There is nothing tautologous about logic or math. I can sort of see where you're coming from, but there's more to it than that. Meaningful truths about nature can be arrived at within those frameworks as is proved every day by physicists.
There always exists the potential that one or more of the axioms is wrong, but that does not invalidate the internal consistency of the reasoning. One way I like to express this is with the thought experiment that our universe is actually an alien's dream.
Does that invalidate all scientific knowledge? I would say that it doesn't. Our observations about how the universe behaves remain true, it's only the context that has changed: They are now observations about how the alien's dream behaves, rather than behaviors of an actual universe.
Providing those behaviors remain consistent from one moment to the next, it is possible to begin describing them and building a model. That model is nothing but a reflection of what it describes. Even if we are mistaken about the true nature of it, the description of how it behaves remains accurate.
Meaningful truths about nature can be arrived at within those frameworks as is proved every day by physicists.
Ofcourse. Meaningful truths. Not absolute. Check the link about the video how one can demonstrate the earth being flat (using physics).
There always exists the potential that one or more of the axioms is wrong, but that does not invalidate the internal consistency of the reasoning. One way I like to express this is with the thought experiment that our universe is actually an alien's dream.
That's a different story but first you need to be able to falsify the premise about the alien's existence and whether or not they can dream.
Does that invalidate all scientific knowledge? I would say that it doesn't. Our observations about how the universe behaves remain true, it's only the context that has changed: They are now observations about how the alien's dream behaves, rather than behaviors of an actual universe.
Of course not. Science is the greatest tool we have. 'Perspective' is the key word here, not the validity of a premise.
Providing those behaviors remain consistent from one moment to the next, it is possible to begin describing them and building a model. That model is nothing but a reflection of what it describes. Even if we are mistaken about the true nature of it, the description of how it behaves remains accurate.
Indeed. Depends on the methodology upon the model has been build. A hammer will see everything as a nail. When it comes to humans, we are bound by a teleological hell that everything exists and revolves around us. The evidence though that we have is that everything always existed and rather recycles itself. This is of course a harsh truth to digest, hence the false premises about the nature of our position in the cosmos.
Check the link about the video how one can demonstrate the earth being flat (using physics).
That's neither logic nor math. The rest of the post seems to ignore this and go further and further from my original point. Within the framework of either logic or mathematics, operating from their axioms and according to their rules, absolute truths can be arrived at. They are the only fields where such a thing is possible.
Indeed. That's physics. Based on that kind of math you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that the earth is flat. Based on other kind of math, it is not. Hence, for the same object (earth) or observer (human or particle) the truth cannot be absolute.
I dispute your contention that physics is identical to math. I understand what you're getting at with the flat earth example but in this case feel you're forcing puzzle pieces to fit which actually don't.
The only point I hope to make here is that absolute truth is indeed possible in very narrow and contrived situations where all factors are specified by humans, such as logic and math. This is nothing to be threatened by. Even if you are committed to the view that no absolute truths exist anywhere, I advise you not to ignore these counterexamples just because they do not fit that view.
I dispute your contention that physics is identical to math. I understand what you're getting at with the flat earth example but in this case feel you're forcing puzzle pieces to fit which actually don't.
No need to force them. We can follow your 'axiom premise' and demonstrate two different truths about a single object (earth). Quantum gravity is suggested to work much the same way.
The only point I hope to make here is that absolute truth is indeed possible in very narrow and contrived situations where all factors are specified by humans, such as logic and math. This is nothing to be threatened by. Even if you are committed to the view that no absolute truths exist anywhere, I advise you not to ignore these counterexamples just because they do not fit that view.
I don't argue against the tool ("math" and/or "axioms"). I argue about the observation. You can use the same axioms for measuring particle activity and still get different results because you are observing them.
There is nothing tautologous about logic or math. I can sort of see where you're coming from, but there's more to it than that. Meaningful truths about nature can be arrived at within those frameworks as is proved every day by physicists.
There always exists the potential that one or more of the axioms is wrong, but that does not invalidate the internal consistency of the reasoning. One way I like to express this is with the thought experiment that our universe is actually an alien's dream.
Does that invalidate all scientific knowledge? I would say that it doesn't. Our observations about how the universe behaves remain true, it's only the context that has changed: They are now observations about how the alien's dream behaves, rather than behaviors of an actual universe.
Providing those behaviors remain consistent from one moment to the next, it is possible to begin describing them and building a model. That model is nothing but a reflection of what it describes. Even if we are mistaken about the true nature of it, the description of how it behaves remains accurate.
Does this make any sense?
Ofcourse. Meaningful truths. Not absolute. Check the link about the video how one can demonstrate the earth being flat (using physics).
That's a different story but first you need to be able to falsify the premise about the alien's existence and whether or not they can dream.
Of course not. Science is the greatest tool we have. 'Perspective' is the key word here, not the validity of a premise.
Indeed. Depends on the methodology upon the model has been build. A hammer will see everything as a nail. When it comes to humans, we are bound by a teleological hell that everything exists and revolves around us. The evidence though that we have is that everything always existed and rather recycles itself. This is of course a harsh truth to digest, hence the false premises about the nature of our position in the cosmos.
That's neither logic nor math. The rest of the post seems to ignore this and go further and further from my original point. Within the framework of either logic or mathematics, operating from their axioms and according to their rules, absolute truths can be arrived at. They are the only fields where such a thing is possible.
Indeed. That's physics. Based on that kind of math you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that the earth is flat. Based on other kind of math, it is not. Hence, for the same object (earth) or observer (human or particle) the truth cannot be absolute.
I dispute your contention that physics is identical to math. I understand what you're getting at with the flat earth example but in this case feel you're forcing puzzle pieces to fit which actually don't.
The only point I hope to make here is that absolute truth is indeed possible in very narrow and contrived situations where all factors are specified by humans, such as logic and math. This is nothing to be threatened by. Even if you are committed to the view that no absolute truths exist anywhere, I advise you not to ignore these counterexamples just because they do not fit that view.
No need to force them. We can follow your 'axiom premise' and demonstrate two different truths about a single object (earth). Quantum gravity is suggested to work much the same way.
I don't argue against the tool ("math" and/or "axioms"). I argue about the observation. You can use the same axioms for measuring particle activity and still get different results because you are observing them.