Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We might have difficulty with truth, but we can evaluate the falsity of a statement about the world. To the degree that statements cannot be falsified, they are arguably without meaning.


You can evaluate the falsity of a statement about our interpretation of the world.

But that is quite different than claiming that our way to interpret reality is the right now.


For sure, but I don't think you can go beyond truth as correspondence. In so far as our brains are physical, and changes are wired up through physical causality with our senses, you can't break through to some notional Platonic ideal, where Truths are Relations on Forms in a mathematical way, and still have those truths apply directly to the way things "really are".

Truths about e.g. mathematics, on the other hand, I would say are analytic in the Kantian sense. They are a different kind of truth, and in many ways are like self-contained games. Useful as formalisms for theories about the world, etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: