What is truth?

lostmyway said:

my question is, how can we know that mathematics really describes reality and that reality may simply be a construct that human beings invent on order to stay alive?

I remember asking this question when I started my degree in Applied Physics and the answer is that any rules that we use in mathematics must be rigorously tested and proven using the basic laws of mathematics.

Physics however is all about observing and working out what rules apply to a system (eg gravity) and then testing these laws repeatedly and being open to updating them when new evidence comes to light through research.

Typically changes are a refinement of the rules that make it more comprehensive or allows for additional factors that the original rule did not incorporate, but this typically leads to a lot of peer reviewing and the scientific community really puting it through its paces to make sure it really is the right thing to use until a better model comes along.

Scientific Method is the backbone to all of this and it is as rigorous a system as we have been able to develop to avoid subjective views from taking hold. It is this that is the most effective shield against such foolishness as flat earth theory.

Of course some like to invoke claims like "god made it this way to test you" when it comes to things like the fossil record proving that dinosaurs existed but their claims cannot be proven by definition. Terribly convenient that.

So in essence any system worth its salt allows for revision and adaptation as new proof emerges and even then it is only valid until the next revision and the next etc.

lostmyway said:

my question is, how can we know that mathematics really describes reality and that reality may simply be a construct that human beings invent on order to stay alive?

I remember asking this question when I started my degree in Applied Physics and the answer is that any rules that we use in mathematics must be rigorously tested and proven using the basic laws of mathematics.

Physics however is all about observing and working out what rules apply to a system (eg gravity) and then testing these laws repeatedly and being open to updating them when new evidence comes to light through research.

Typically changes are a refinement of the rules that make it more comprehensive or allows for additional factors that the original rule did not incorporate, but this typically leads to a lot of peer reviewing and the scientific community really puting it through its paces to make sure it really is the right thing to use until a better model comes along.

Scientific Method is the backbone to all of this and it is as rigorous a system as we have been able to develop to avoid subjective views from taking hold. It is this that is the most effective shield against such foolishness as flat earth theory.

Of course some like to invoke claims like "god made it this way to test you" when it comes to things like the fossil record proving that dinosaurs existed but their claims cannot be proven by definition. Terribly convenient that.

So in essence any system worth its salt allows for revision and adaptation as new proof emerges and even then it is only valid until the next revision and the next etc.

I think what Godel showed is that there are always going to be truths out there that our current mathematical models don't cover so that the future is yet unwritten. For example, the inside of a black hole isn't described by maths since it simply breaks down and contradicts itself which, I think, is nature's way of telling us how dumb we are.