3 ms·

I always felt that the "there is no such thing as truth" argument was easily dispatched with the following logic: 1 - There is no such thing as truth 2 - If [

I always felt that the "there is no such thing as truth" argument was easily dispatched with the following logic: 1 - There is no such thing as truth 2 - If [1] is correct it follows that it is internally inconsistent. Something cannot be true if truth has no meaning. 3 - Therefore [1] is not correct.

md224 14y ago
"There is probably no such thing as truth." Problem solved!
fideloper 14y ago
No such thing because we experience reality differently (or only through our 5 senses) and cannot determine 'actual truth'? That's the most interesting part of the question for me - our own inescapable biases.
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  To me it seems inherently impossible to "see" a system objectively when you're part of it, as that would seem to create a paradox. I may be wrong but it sounds great IMHO. However, I do think there is a reality that is not dependant on interpretation or observation to exist; I just can't experience it without filter. But there is something there, and it's consistent, I can communicate about it with others etc... that's imperfect, it's often silly, but that's fine; I cannot dismiss my small, subjective truth just because it's not as good as some kind of objective knowledge of reality that doesn't even exist, and probably can't exist (I mean that knowledge of reality, not reality itself). Truth is the thing we must never cease reaching towards, even though we will never reach it, or even come closer to it. Just because it's there :)
baddox 14y ago
Do "correct" and "true" identical meanings?
- smsm42 14y ago
  I think that's what Yudkowsky is essentially claiming, if I got it right - that true map is the one that gives correct description of the territory - meaning, if we make a prediction using this map and then actually interact with the territory and the prediction turns out to be correct, then it's the supporting evidence for the map being true, and vice versa. I derive it from the links given here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4961488 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4961488
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  Good catch. I spent a long time thinking about this. I don't know who downvoted you, but you were on to something.
jessedhillon 14y ago
What you are stating is, crudely, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödels_incompleteness_theorems http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödels_incompleteness_theorem... Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. Essentially, any system of axioms will have an inconsistency of essentially the form you described. But this only says that all models will be incomplete. Eliezer is questioning -- or perhaps reminding his readers -- the relationship between models of reality and reality itself. In other words, the only thing you "know" is that you cannot model consistently a system where truth is non-existent. You don't know that, therefore, truth exists. And more precisely, you are only pointing out a flaw in logical truth, and logic is merely one model.
kryptiskt 14y ago
The ancient scepticists tackled that problem by simply not asserting that there are no truths that can be known, they suspended judgement in the matter (which they did with literally everything, they must have been infuriating to debate with).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

md224 14y ago

"There is probably no such thing as truth." Problem solved!

fideloper 14y ago

No such thing because we experience reality differently (or only through our 5 senses) and cannot determine 'actual truth'? That's the most interesting part of the question for me - our own inescapable biases.

neumann_alfred 14y ago
To me it seems inherently impossible to "see" a system objectively when you're part of it, as that would seem to create a paradox. I may be wrong but it sounds great IMHO. However, I do think there is a reality that is not dependant on interpretation or observation to exist; I just can't experience it without filter. But there is something there, and it's consistent, I can communicate about it with others etc... that's imperfect, it's often silly, but that's fine; I cannot dismiss my small, subjective truth just because it's not as good as some kind of objective knowledge of reality that doesn't even exist, and probably can't exist (I mean that knowledge of reality, not reality itself). Truth is the thing we must never cease reaching towards, even though we will never reach it, or even come closer to it. Just because it's there :)

baddox 14y ago

Do "correct" and "true" identical meanings?

smsm42 14y ago
I think that's what Yudkowsky is essentially claiming, if I got it right - that true map is the one that gives correct description of the territory - meaning, if we make a prediction using this map and then actually interact with the territory and the prediction turns out to be correct, then it's the supporting evidence for the map being true, and vice versa. I derive it from the links given here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4961488 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4961488
3pt14159 14y ago
Good catch. I spent a long time thinking about this. I don't know who downvoted you, but you were on to something.

jessedhillon 14y ago

What you are stating is, crudely, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödels_incompleteness_theorems http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödels_incompleteness_theorem... Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. Essentially, any system of axioms will have an inconsistency of essentially the form you described. But this only says that all models will be incomplete. Eliezer is questioning -- or perhaps reminding his readers -- the relationship between models of reality and reality itself. In other words, the only thing you "know" is that you cannot model consistently a system where truth is non-existent. You don't know that, therefore, truth exists. And more precisely, you are only pointing out a flaw in logical truth, and logic is merely one model.

kryptiskt 14y ago

The ancient scepticists tackled that problem by simply not asserting that there are no truths that can be known, they suspended judgement in the matter (which they did with literally everything, they must have been infuriating to debate with).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]