The correspondence theory
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Gordon Swobe
Dec 18, 2024, 4:20:25 PM12/18/24
to The Important Questions
I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:
We live in a world of objective facts. We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.
Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth. Who are they?
Some are philosophical subjectivists and post-modernists and the like, people who accept something called the coherence theory of truth or one of its variants. They are banes on society in my opinion, but at least they have conscious awareness of how they define truth.
The rest are too unconscious even to know they reject the correspondence theory. Their world-views are shaped by subjectivist thought even if they are unaware of it. They make up their own truths without regard to objective facts. Today I see that many of them are in Congress.
-gts
Jason Resch
Dec 18, 2024, 6:58:28 PM12/18/24
to The Important Questions
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.
I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.
However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.
We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.
Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.
How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?
Such a reality might suggest something more akin to modal logic, since some facts would not be true "reality-wide" but would depend on which universe the observer is in. And the observer does not always have the requisite information to determine which universe he or she happens to be in. Truthfully the observer.wkuldnexist across a (possibly infinite) spectrum of indistinguishable worlds.
Who are they? Some are philosophical subjectivists and post-modernists and the like, people who accept something called the coherence theory of truth or one of its variants. They are banes on society in my opinion, but at least they have conscious awareness of how they define truth.
I disagree with attempts to define relative truth. I don't know what subjectivists are, but subjectivity does place limits on our access to truth. Some, such as Popper, define objectivity as "intersubjective agreement". We can't escape ourselves and so there will always be some subjective constraints on knowledge.
The rest are too unconscious even to know they reject the correspondence theory. Their world-views are shaped by subjectivist thought even if they are unaware of it. They make up their own truths without regard to objective facts. Today I see that many of them are in Congress.
Maybe the message got shadow banned for being too political. 😂
Jason
Gordon Swobe
Dec 19, 2024, 10:27:18 AM12/19/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?
It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.
Such a reality might suggest something more akin to modal logic, since some facts would not be true "reality-wide" but would depend on which universe the observer is in. And the observer does not always have the requisite information to determine which universe he or she happens to be in. Truthfully the observer.wkuldnexist across a (possibly infinite) spectrum of indistinguishable worlds.Who are they? Some are philosophical subjectivists and post-modernists and the like, people who accept something called the coherence theory of truth or one of its variants. They are banes on society in my opinion, but at least they have conscious awareness of how they define truth.I disagree with attempts to define relative truth. I don't know what subjectivists are, but subjectivity does place limits on our access to truth. Some, such as Popper, define objectivity as "intersubjective agreement". We can't escape ourselves and so there will always be some subjective constraints on knowledge.
The rest are too unconscious even to know they reject the correspondence theory. Their world-views are shaped by subjectivist thought even if they are unaware of it. They make up their own truths without regard to objective facts. Today I see that many of them are in Congress.Maybe the message got shadow banned for being too political. 😂
Facebook is a terrible forum for serious discussion. These days, I mostly only post jokes and photographs.
-gts
--Jason
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CA%2BBCJUhjCYJwVnouwvPk8_4B_4%2BXK6GiJ_0OZkirY_9QBzX0yg%40mail.gmail.com.
Jason Resch
Dec 19, 2024, 3:12:14 PM12/19/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.
But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?
In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?
Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.
Jason
--Such a reality might suggest something more akin to modal logic, since some facts would not be true "reality-wide" but would depend on which universe the observer is in. And the observer does not always have the requisite information to determine which universe he or she happens to be in. Truthfully the observer.wkuldnexist across a (possibly infinite) spectrum of indistinguishable worlds.Who are they? Some are philosophical subjectivists and post-modernists and the like, people who accept something called the coherence theory of truth or one of its variants. They are banes on society in my opinion, but at least they have conscious awareness of how they define truth.I disagree with attempts to define relative truth. I don't know what subjectivists are, but subjectivity does place limits on our access to truth. Some, such as Popper, define objectivity as "intersubjective agreement". We can't escape ourselves and so there will always be some subjective constraints on knowledge.The rest are too unconscious even to know they reject the correspondence theory. Their world-views are shaped by subjectivist thought even if they are unaware of it. They make up their own truths without regard to objective facts. Today I see that many of them are in Congress.Maybe the message got shadow banned for being too political. 😂Facebook is a terrible forum for serious discussion. These days, I mostly only post jokes and photographs.-gts--Jason
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CA%2BBCJUhjCYJwVnouwvPk8_4B_4%2BXK6GiJ_0OZkirY_9QBzX0yg%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
Gordon Swobe
Dec 23, 2024, 10:51:54 PM12/23/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.
I am not sure I understand the question, (it gives me a headache :-) but I think you are making things too complicated.
Many interpretations of QM exist. One of them is the fact of the matter, or perhaps none of them are factual. It seems to me that the truth value of any proposition would depend on whether it is consistent whatever is the actual fact of the matter.
-gts
--Jason--Such a reality might suggest something more akin to modal logic, since some facts would not be true "reality-wide" but would depend on which universe the observer is in. And the observer does not always have the requisite information to determine which universe he or she happens to be in. Truthfully the observer.wkuldnexist across a (possibly infinite) spectrum of indistinguishable worlds.Who are they? Some are philosophical subjectivists and post-modernists and the like, people who accept something called the coherence theory of truth or one of its variants. They are banes on society in my opinion, but at least they have conscious awareness of how they define truth.I disagree with attempts to define relative truth. I don't know what subjectivists are, but subjectivity does place limits on our access to truth. Some, such as Popper, define objectivity as "intersubjective agreement". We can't escape ourselves and so there will always be some subjective constraints on knowledge.The rest are too unconscious even to know they reject the correspondence theory. Their world-views are shaped by subjectivist thought even if they are unaware of it. They make up their own truths without regard to objective facts. Today I see that many of them are in Congress.Maybe the message got shadow banned for being too political. 😂Facebook is a terrible forum for serious discussion. These days, I mostly only post jokes and photographs.-gts--Jason
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CA%2BBCJUhjCYJwVnouwvPk8_4B_4%2BXK6GiJ_0OZkirY_9QBzX0yg%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CAJvaNPnmM5HqYaUUXepHmEf22cu3nM1JHHaiReJXXpG%3DxJ%3DLcQ%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-important-que...@googlegroups.com.
Gordon Swobe
Dec 24, 2024, 3:42:19 AM12/24/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
8
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 8:51 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.I am not sure I understand the question, (it gives me a headache :-) but I think you are making things too complicated.Many interpretations of QM exist. One of them is the fact of the matter, or perhaps none of them are factual. It seems to me that the truth value of any proposition would depend on whether it is consistent whatever is the actual fact of the matter.-gts
In other words, if, as in your (and Deutch’s) view, the single photon passes through both slits but in diffrerent universes, then a statement to effect is true.
If you and he are wrong about MWI, then, well, it is false.
I don't see that QM poses any real problem for the correspondence theory of truth. There is some objective fact of the matter. We just don't know what it is.
Jason Resch
Dec 24, 2024, 9:41:01 AM12/24/24
to The Important Questions
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024, 10:51 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.I am not sure I understand the question, (it gives me a headache :-) but I think you are making things too complicated.
See the diagram here with the same brain existing in four different universes:
If facts differ between the four universes, is there an objective fact of that matter for that brain? Is probability the best it can do?
Jason
Gordon Swobe
Dec 24, 2024, 11:57:58 AM12/24/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
Kid
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 7:41 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024, 10:51 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.I am not sure I understand the question, (it gives me a headache :-) but I think you are making things too complicated.See the diagram here with the same brain existing in four different universes:If facts differ between the four universes, is there an objective fact of that matter for that brain? Is probability the best it can do?
I don’t know why I should believe in such a thing as “the same brain existing in four different universes.” Wouldn’t that be four different brains?
-gts
Jason Resch
Dec 24, 2024, 12:32:02 PM12/24/24
to The Important Questions
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024, 11:57 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:
KidOn Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 7:41 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Mon, Dec 23, 2024, 10:51 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:27 AM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 4:58 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 4:20 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon...@gmail.com> wrote:I wrote this on Facebook five years ago today, not that anyone cared:We live in a world of objective facts.I agree there exists an objective reality and that truth is objective.However I also think that truth is something we can ever know when we have it. All physical and (even mathematical) theories rest, ultimately, on unprovable conjectures. We can gain evidence in support of them, but we can never reach certainty.We also make propositions, i.e., we say things about the world. Our propositions are true to the extent that they correspond with facts in the world. In epistemology, this is called the correspondence theory of truth.Believe it or not, many people reject this basic and one would think obvious theory of truth.How does the correspondence theory of truth apply in a vast reality of many universes (which could be so vast the same observer's mind state can be found to exist in distinct universes, where the truth of a particular fact can differ)?It would apply in each universe. Truthful statements here might not be true in the universe next door.But what if one is in a position where they could either exist in this universe or the universe next door (or worse: what if "you" -- that is, your mind-state, exists in *both* this universe *and* the universe next door)?In such a situation, what is the truth value for the proposition that the electron went through the left slit, vs. the right slit (before anyone in your universe(s) measured it)?Here, the truth of the matter is irreducibly tied to the mind-state of the observer, and what the distribution is for universes that contain that observer's mind-state. Consider Wigner's position after his friend has measured the state of the cat. The set of universes Wigner's friend is compatible with is no longer the same as that of Wigner, and so the truth (defined in terms of probability) for the state of the cat would also differ.I am not sure I understand the question, (it gives me a headache :-) but I think you are making things too complicated.See the diagram here with the same brain existing in four different universes:If facts differ between the four universes, is there an objective fact of that matter for that brain? Is probability the best it can do?I don’t know why I should believe in such a thing as “the same brain existing in four different universes.” Wouldn’t that be four different brains?
Not from the perspective of the identical brains.
Essentially each brain exists in a unique distinct set of universes. So what is true for the universes your mind state exists in will be slightly different for what is true for the universes my mind state exists in.
Jason
Gordon Swobe
Dec 24, 2024, 12:56:27 PM12/24/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
Not from the perspective of the identical brains... Essentially each brain exists in a unique distinct set of universes.
That strikes me as a logical contradiction. I cannot consider four brains in “unique distinct sets of universes” without considering four brains. And if there are four brains then it is not true that the same brain exists in four universes.
-gts
Jason Resch
Dec 24, 2024, 2:23:49 PM12/24/24
to The Important Questions
This is a type/token distinction.
You and I can have two different pennies in our pockets, but each have one cent.
You and I can have two different books on our shelf, but each have the same story: e.g., Moby dick.
Universe A and universe B can have two different brains, but each have Gordon's mind.
From the vantage point of that identical conscious state, it can't say which of the two universes it is in, because everything it knows is compatible with either hypothesis.
Jason
GPT-4o
Dec 24, 2024, 5:36:51 PM12/24/24
to The Important Questions
I’m not sure I can agree that it is possible that two universes can have two different brains that have the same mind, but never mind that quagmire. Getting back to the correspondence theory of truth..
facts differ between the four universes, is there an objective fact of that matter for that brain? Is probability the best it can do?
Perhaps it is an objective fact of reality that probability is the best it can do. That is the standard interpretation of QM, after all.
The correspondence theory competes mainly with the coherence theory in which a proposition is considered true provided only that it coheres with other propositions considered true. I find that unsatisfactory.
-gts
Gordon Swobe
Dec 24, 2024, 5:47:47 PM12/24/24
to the-importa...@googlegroups.com
Sorry, when I reply accidently from my phone via my protonmail app, it looks like GPT because I have it set up that way.
Speaking of GPT, I upgraded to an iPhone 16 Pro Max with Apple intelligence. GPT now works with Siri. Pretty cool, especially considering how stupid Siri used to be.
-gts
Jason Resch
Dec 25, 2024, 7:37:31 AM12/25/24
to The Important Questions
What gives you the inkling that it might not be possible?
but never mind that quagmire. Getting back to the correspondence theory of truth..facts differ between the four universes, is there an objective fact of that matter for that brain? Is probability the best it can do?Perhaps it is an objective fact of reality that probability is the best it can do. That is the standard interpretation of QM, after all.
Yes, but the more interesting implication is that what is true in reality (the realities a mind is part of), becomes mind-dependent.
For Wigner's mind, the cat and his friend's mind could still be in either state. Wigner's mind can only ascribe a probability. However, for Wigner's friend there is a definite result. The mind of Wigner's friend has measured the cat and is entangled with it.
So even referring only to objective truth and objective reality, subjectivity has a way of sneaking back in.
The correspondence theory competes mainly with the coherence theory in which a proposition is considered true provided only that it coheres with other propositions considered true. I find that unsatisfactory.
Sounds like the nominalism vs. platonism debate in the philosophy of mathematics.
Jason
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages