This I pasted from another messageboard but it really hit home for me. If you are patient and looking for answers, please read this stuff:
__________________________________________________ ___
What is required to understand this proposition is to abandon the classical binary logic assumption that for any proposition it is either true or false.
This seems intuitively accurate; however consider the case of the unproved theorem.
I have just written a new theorem x, it attempts to show the relationship between the orbit of the earth and the processes of the brain.
Now is proposition x, true or false? Well it is unproved, so we don’t yet know, so within this system of logic one is forced either to presume all unknown statements true until shown to be false or false until shown to be true.
But then what do we mean when we say that something is true? Supposing that theorem x is accepted we could regard it as ‘true’ yet information might be found at some point in time which renders it false. Thus the value of truth is a fluid one, things are true for the moment.
When we regard something as true what we are in fact suggesting is that is ‘fits’. That it compliments our other information. Consider that the vast majority of so-called ‘truths’ are completely subjective in that it is entirely dependent on the content of the other information we are seeking to complement . So it is true that the sun rises in the east if we are talking from the point of having a direction of east and west and having above and below and having these rise and fall. If we are aboard the international space station orbiting the earth however the statement, “The sun rises in the east” ceases to be true.
The class of truths that are self-evident, are tautologies, that is true by definition. “All bachelors are single”. For these truths the information that is being complemented is contained within the truth itself.
We may regard the surrounding information as the context. Propositions may be considered true or false by virtue of their context. When the context is insufficient (as is the case with Theorem x) the truth value of the proposition may be regarded as unknown.
Consider the statement,
This statement is neither true or false
It is true, but if it’s true then it’s false.
What does this prove? That the context of logical semantics helps little. (Sorry Ben!)
Some might be tempted to salvage the objective status of truth by suggesting that truth can be found by choosing the ‘right’ context. However rightness like truthness only exists in a context. So one could give a good argument why choosing the American context when viewing the ‘rightness’ of a war, however they would then to argue why the context for their argument for the context was right, ad infinitum.
So when thinking of the world in terms of true and false, right and wrong (something I think is natural to human beings) we are inescapably limited by whatever context we happen to be in. For that is the design of context, it is a limitation, it limits meaning.
Consider this passage:
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
--Act 5, Scene 5, Lines 19-28: Macbeth to himself
One of my favourite literary passages. How do we make sense of this passage? What do these strange symbols on the page mean? Well we need context, the first context we need is the context of the English language. If we attempt to view this piece from the context of the Japanese language we wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything.
So with this context we can understand what tomorrow means we can understand what day means. So we know what the words mean, but can we understand what the author means? No, we need another context, I can choose anyone that I want, I can make the candle mean a nuclear weapon, I can make mean the poor player a literally poor actor or I can make the whole passage as a metaphor for life.
Now most people would think that the first context is less correct (or true) than the second and certainly the third. But of course in getting trapped by our true/false dichotomy we are within a context. We could be thinking within the context of Shakespeare being from a certain period and being the greatest playwright who ever lived. Within this context we may think that he could not have possibly been talking about nuclear weapons and that being a great playwright it is probably a metaphor for life.
So what we realise is that we cannot make sense of anything without adding contexts to them and that none of these contexts are inherently true. There is just what fits for the moment and what doesn’t.
So, it must be simple then we simply need to get the context that fits the best and we’ll be fine. But that doesn’t seem to work, both Creationists and Evolutionists think their theories fit the best. That is because in deciding what fits you are in yup, you guessed it another context.
What you may now be aware of is that the human act of context making is a system that is developed in order to make sense of the world, it is a formal distinction system designed to simplify and (paradoxically) abstract existence so it can be conceptualized by the human brain.
To emphasise how deep seated this process is, we must consider some of the first contexts that are created in the first years of childhood development. We learn that the thing with horns and brown spots is a cow, and that a cow is different from a horse and different from a house. We learn that this shade is called black and this is white, we learn that this is a thing that is wood and it is different from cotton.
What we are learning is the context of reality. The fundamental system we have developed to interact with the world a formal distinction system. Over the centuries of human existence we have advanced our distinctions by continuing to distinguish this from that, this is ironic that is satire…
What are we actually learning as children? Yup, you guessed it, language. This is the human invention that allowed us to relate to reality in a way that we can make deductions, conclusions and rationalise. You can see that language is not just about words, it is the fundamental human context. It transcends words, it is comparable to the machine code programming of a computer. It is inescapable.
Go outside and look at the world, and try with all your might to do so without language, without the context of language and all the others added upon it. Look at a tree without thinking of it as a tree, without thinking of it as something which is different from that. This leads to the practice of Zen meditation, but I will return to that in another post.
If we attempt to remove all context, we find, nothing. Thus there is no truth but what we make for ourselves. It all exists within the contexts we design. Even this entire post is true only by virtue of the context I have given it and perhaps false to you dear reader by virtue of the context in which you are reading it.
Thus it follows not that there is no truth, but perhaps there is no truth. It is in fact unknowable because the absence of any context is insufficient to determine a truth value.
So what do I know? perhaps nothing.
What does it all mean? perhaps nothing. Perhaps it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
-Zen
|
|
Bookmarks