Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 7:33 am
h_k_s wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 5:09 amPlato, Socrates, and Pontius Pilate were all aware that truth is hard to define or to discover let alone to prove.
I am totally subscribed to the saying, that truth is in the eye of the beholder, and so I agree.
Truth can neither be discovered (found, observed) nor be created (invented) by someone and then be discovered by someone else.
I wonder why you put an emphasis on "to prove" via the symbol "let alone"
Isn't all that we can discover (observe), and all that someone created (invented) which again we can discover (observe) a proof of it-self?
Anyways, truth cannot be proven, but I am surprised from/about the assertion that truth be hard to define.
My favorite definition is
"Wahrheit = Wahr-
GENOMMEN-heit = Beobachtet-heit" equivalent to
truth = true-ness (Wahr-heit) = true-
TAKEN-ness = observed-ness
which is accurately symbolized via "Reference" = "thought" or "awareness" in the Semiotic Triangle,
whereas all that is originally there to be discovered (observed) is called Referent and each and any assertion, created/invented FROM/ABOUT a Referent is called a symbol.
Sire KR Popper symbolizes all that is originally there by "world1" and all that is created/invented by "world3" = "material-IZATION of the human thought" and he symbolized, afaik unknowingly, truth through he's "world2" = "thought"
I assert (define) truth = thought and vice versa, thought = truth =
= subject-ization = abstract object = no-thing elcited, made up, fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing.
The entirety of the assertions above (definitions) is true = useful to me, they are assertions OF truth = OF trueness = OF usefulness.
A conspicuous example is the answer to the question, whether laws are discovered or invented.
Each and every law (of a game, of legislature, of logic, of morality, of physics) is -
per se, iow as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence -
a thought, an abstract object, no-thing, does not exist, cannot either be discovered nor created (invented)
All that was discovered (Referents, world1) is some-thing rather than no-thing, and all that was invented on this occasion (symbol, world3), it is, again some-thing: The law-text = the utteration = assertion = material-IZATION - OF a law, OF a thought that is.
The law (a truth) is imaginary, does not exist - does not cause any-thing that is.
Only the law-text, iow the assertion OF a law (OF a truth) is a causal agency - BUT! towards an object which can in a way or another react-, iow observe if not even obey- submit to the law text.
Now, I have read that some "laws" where defined as merely descriptive and predictive, while other laws were defined as "prescriptive if not even proscriptive".
I assert that only the law-text can be - be DEEMED that is - descriptive, predictive, prescriptive and proscriptive.
I assert that a book with law-texts of physics in it, rather than be DEEMED "merely descriptive and predictive" - can also be, very well, DEEMED pre- and pro-scriptive, namely towards any ingeneer, who will observe and readily submit to- and obey the law text. Bcz only then will the ingeneer create some-thing which can be deemed useful, functional that is. It does not even take the utteration of a threat (punishment such as incarceration) in the law text, in order to have the ingeneer submit to the law text. The ingeneer will otherwise be punished by a non functional invention.