| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Our fundamental problem in discussing reality: is there a single truth?
When we discuss reality, we have an unsurmountable problem to handle. This problem is that we can only discuss reality in terms of representations, and that we can’t fuse representation with the represented (see Magritte’s painting: ”Ceci n’est pa une pipe”)
This problem is fundamental in conceptualization and does thereby turn up in many different contexts. Basically, however, the problem is that the relation between representation and the represented is orthogonal. For example, the relation between assumption and logical deduction is a case of this problem - assumption is one “thing” (ie, one specification, or one “object” in object oriented programming), whereas deduction instead is two “things” (ie, two specifications, or two “objects” in object oriented programming): one method (or function) and one specification. The problem is thus that conceptualization contains a fundamental orthogonality between representation and the represented that hinders us from reaching a both consistent and unambiguous model of reality, but instead means that every consistent model is ambiguous and that every unambiguous model is inconsistent. Our unsurmountable problem is thus that we can’t reach a both consistent and unambiguous model of reality (ie, a single truth), that is, that perfection is impossible.
We handle this problem differently: cladists claim that we indeed can find a both consistent and unambiguous model of reality (ie, “the tree of life”), particle physicists claim that they have found it (or at least that they “as laymen think they have got it”), and computer scientists ask whether NP=P, whereas I try to explain that this problem is unsurmountable, that is, that perfection is impossible (ie, that there isn’t any “true tree of life” or “Higgs particle”, and that NP does not equal P). The difference between them and me is that they search for this “void” (ie, perfection), whereas I understand that it is a void (ie, impossible to reach). (I’m not the first to understand this fact, however, already Plato understood it about 2,400 years ago, see his Theory of Forms).
The question in this issue is thus whether we shall (1) search for something that can’t be found or (2) develop optimized methods to deal with the fact that it can’t be found? Basically, this question translates into whether we shall (1) accept the fact that we can’t find “the truth” or (2) develop optimized methods to deal with the fact that we can’t find the truth? Contrary to cladists and particle physicists, I advocate the latter, and I also understand (and can prove) that NP does not equal P.
Source: http://menvall.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/our-fundamental-problem-in-discussing-reality-is-there-a-single-truth/
