Does GOD play dice?? | Page 2 | Scientific Discoveries and Advancements | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Does GOD play dice??
December 31, 2010
8:15 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Does that mean truth is random?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

December 31, 2010
9:59 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Does that mean truth is random?

Truth is an invariance principle

December 31, 2010
10:12 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Invariant upon what type of transformation?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

December 31, 2010
1:36 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Invariant upon what type of transformation?

What indeed...

December 31, 2010
6:28 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Transformation of statements into all of their tautologically- equivalent statements or perhaps some form of consequence closure?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
6:00 am
Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9871
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Maybe there are different types of truths?
I mean, why not?
one's that depend on perception...one's that depend on the variable setr up at the time
and ultimate truths
Why does it have to be an either/or thing?
Westerners can get trapped into dualistic thinking.

Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams

January 1, 2011
6:19 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Transformation of statements into all of their tautologically- equivalent statements or perhaps some form of consequence closure?

Some people might argue that the Law of Identity is flawed:

X = X

because it it tries to make the statement that a thing is itself ...but in doing so, it generates an error because two different X's are required to be separated by the equals sign. The two X's are actually NOT the same thing as they both exist in different spatial and temporal coordinates.

[Image Can Not Be Found]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s ... ty_theorem

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1936, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic.

The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archive ... scernible/

The Identity of Indiscernibles

The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct substances exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as `Leibniz's Law' and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects.

We can summarize the argument simply by saying that two things are equivalent if and only if they both have the exact same properties.

Yes, the law of identity appears to be an assertion but not a self evident truth unless further clarification is used.

X is not equal to not-X

is more of a self evident truth

This would agree with a fractal basis of reality and a plausible isomorphism between abstract and concrete

January 1, 2011
8:51 am
Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9871
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

hmm..
that's true..and it supports the argument that everything is unique and special
"no two snowflakes"
and the like

I mean two..implies..well..two..equivalent..but still two..seperate

"One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so"

Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams

January 1, 2011
9:37 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"bionic" wrote: Maybe there are different types of truths?
I mean, why not?
one's that depend on perception...one's that depend on the variable setr up at the time
and ultimate truths
Why does it have to be an either/or thing?
Westerners can get trapped into dualistic thinking.

Usually, I just consider the ultimate truths to be what I'd call true. Tho one can say "I perceived X" and be ultimately true about that.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
9:42 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"khanster" wrote: Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1936, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic.

The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

I thought that truth was defined in order to prove that statement about truth. What "truth cannot be defined" means is that there is no first order formula that "generates" truth like 1+1=2.

Yes, the law of identity appears to be an assertion but not a self evident truth unless further clarification is used.

X is not equal to not-X

is more of a self evident truth

This would agree with a fractal basis of reality and a plausible isomorphism between abstract and concrete

touche

But what is more "self evident" just might be what's more apparently obvious. Some people would say that X=X is more apparently obvious.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 341
Currently Online: Alisah Wilson
Guest(s) 42
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10374
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25613
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9734
Posts: 126185
Newest Members:
Alisah Wilson, Tom, JaCol, FelicityG92, MillenniumFalcon, amee johnston, James, Angela Kiehn, Elam blue, SSSniperWolf
Administrators: John Greenewald: 689, blackvault: 1777