Truth? YES!!

Ian Goddard (
Tue, 19 May 1998 20:24:01 -0400

At 01:53 PM 5/19/98 CST, The SHO master c.c. wrote:
>Can we really put a definite definition to the word truth?

IAN: Physical reality. Concepts, ideas, and
claims that are true are those that map onto
the physical reality as a one-one function.
Beyond the physical reality, a true claim
is one that follows logically from a given
set of axioms and such claims are true only
to the extent they adhere to those axioms
and may not be true outside those axioms.

>1. truth is in the eye of the beholder

IAN: Physics equations can predict physical
outcomes with little or no room for doubt.
That Newton's law of gravity F = GmM/r^2
defines gravity and allows up to predict
its effects under various conditions is
a truth NOT "in the eye of the beholder."

> 2. bias truth
> a. hitler is viewed as evil by the majority for ordering the
>death of millions, yet Einstien is viewed as good when in actuality
>he killed millions more than hitler

IAN: I doubt that that maps onto the physical
reality since I don't think that the A-bombs
killed millions, or that Einstein can be said
to be fully responsible. Mutual assured de-
struction may have even saved millions.

If those claims about reality do not map onto
the physical reality, then they are not true.
They very fact that you cite them means that
your relying on some standard of truth to
argue that there is no standard of truth!

> b. Columbus discovered America, usually discovery is of the unknown
(America was already known, and inhabited) and he never saw

IAN: So it does not map onto the phsyical reality.

>3. my truth is not necessarily your truth, and yours not mine

IAN: You mean that you can override gravity?

>4. truth is only a test of you collected knowledge, there fore the
>more knowledge the more truth
>5. all truth has the option of being bias

IAN: No argument here invalidates the definition
of truth as the physical reality I just proposed.