Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 20, 2011, 14:04 (4864 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I will have to say that knowledge depends on human agreement (see my definition), whereas truth exists independently of people and cannot be known. On this level, knowledge is the closest we as humans can come to truth, but it is not truth.
> 
> DAVID: In math there are truths. Einstein noted that math is extraordinary in the way it can describe reality (paraphrase). Here is a Christian's view of this 'truth', which he ascribed to the mind of God:
> 
> http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/writings/creation-and-mathematics/&... 
> My words have been taken out of context. The above quote follows on from an all-important distinction, which I will paraphrase with a mathematical example Einstein would have been proud of. If someone says "2 + 2 = 4 ... true or false?" I will say: "True!" On this common-sense level, truth and knowledge coincide. But on a philosophical level, God (or Big Brother, or Chief Abacus-Babacus) may tell us that he uses the symbol 5 for our 4, and he makes the rules. Therefore 2 + 2 = 5. There is no limit to philosophical speculation. The universe may be an illusion. (You and I might not think so, but are we privy to "the truth"?) Einstein may have claimed that maths describes reality, but can we be certain that in a thousand years' time those mathematical descriptions will still be regarded as valid? If we cannot be certain, we will have to say that on the philosophical level truth exists but is independent of people and cannot be known (unless God exists and tells us what it is).
> 
> As for the article, the author assumes the truth of mathematical equations, and also assumes the existence of God. On the common-sense level, I too accept the truth of mathematical equations that are accepted as being true by all those who are aware of them. However, this "truth" would exist even if God didn't.