Reply: What is Real/True?

I found Emily's post interesting in the sense that she effectively grounded it with academic subjects we've all had at least minimal experience with--I think they're workable examples in terms of that discussion. As a precursor, I want to note that all of this, of course, comes from my own experience and intuition--I'm not claiming that any of it is necessarily true or without logistical flaw.

That said, I'm no mathematician, or even actually very good at mathematics, but I strongly feel that their interpretation and reception in mainstream society has come to be considerably skewed. As Emily noted, "Despite my skeptical nature, I never questioned math and science. I really believed (and I still do, so far) that math had always existed; it was simply discovered by humans- not created." This may in some form be true--the nature of the world almost entirely adheres to a uniform collection of Physics and Mathematical properties that we can easily quantify, measure, or sometimes, exploit. The laws of physics are absolute, never wavering from their linearity. They have existed long before our ability to perceive them, and probably always shall.

However, I believe that although these properties certainly defy and outlast human existence indefinitely, I also firmly take the stance that we as intelligent creatures impose our own essence upon them--we measure and manipulate an endless spectrum of variables into a simplified, comprehensible language. (That is colloquially known as 'Mathematics.') While many elements of this language are entirely sensible, I view others... simpler components, even--to be quite arbitrary. Why, for example, did early Mathematicians dictate that 1,2,3(etc.) were the intervals in which we were to measure? Why is 1.4883289 not its own (whole) number, maintaining its own equal and effectively highlighted significance as more common integers do? As it exists between two conceptual amounts, when taken to a real-world setting, does it even truly exist? It depends on the context.

My ability to articulate is likely hindered by my extremely limited Mathematical knowledge, but I suppose the core of my assertion suggests that Math is, as we know it, a language. It is a language that measures quantitative reasoning in the same sense that English is a language that dictates linguistics in the sounds of our speech. (I do not believe Math to actually be the physical/logistical laws we utilize, any more than English as the literal ability of human beings to communicate--that is essentially the reason there are hundreds of thousands of languages we can never begin to fathom.) Neither is more arbitrary than the other, they are simply separate concepts.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Albert Einstein

--Aaron

The truth about truth.

I'll be upfront in admitting that my immediate and intuitive reaction was to promptly dismiss the merits of the coherence theory altogether--that it seemed somehow illegitimate simply by its open-ended and largely theoretical nature. How could we, with any actual certainty, place faith in a seemingly contrived system of semantics... allowing a rather loosely-defined language of 'logic' to be our only assurance? To me this seemed like little more than a spectrum of agreeableness that had arisen among philosophers, serving its purpose as far as discourse was concerned, but lacking any practical or particularly meaningful application otherwise. I was pretty skeptical!

But, you know, with some contemplation, I think my standpoint shifted a little. It occurred to me that the Coherence Theory of Truth hadn't necessarily come about because the Correspondence Theory was flawed, but rather our inherently limited capacity to observe the world may have been. We are all creatures that strive toward truth--making observations, decisions, and judgments in relation to all of our individual experiences... convinced, perhaps, that the conclusions we discover are without error or fault. (They aren't!) Ultimately, in spite of whatever we know to be objective, we all perceive the world with bias, however slight or negligible we may train it to be.

With the above said, Coherence becomes all the more understandable to me--that if taken as a supplement to Correspondence, and not necessarily a rigid replacement, we may attempt to manipulate systems of logic to enhance and supplement all that we experience... more simply, to make sense of what we see. Although noticeably distinct in their measures, both theories are devices that seek the same end, and from what I understand, I strongly advocate their use in harmony with one-another. If 'ultimate truth' is to genuinely exist--it is likely that we may more effectively try finding it through the interplay of these theories.

"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."

Blaise Pascal

--Aaron