straightUp Loc: California

I like your analogy... indeed, 2+2=4 seems pretty indisputable, but that's because equations are in fact part of a language - an agreed upon set of relationships between symbols that represent things. The challenge of t***h is in the fidelity of symbolic representation. For instance, let's say we are comparing giant chickens, each one weighing two tons. The consensus that IS mathematics states that both giant chickens together weigh four tons - because according to the t***h of the language, 2+2=4. But what if the second giant chicken is actually only one and 7/8 of a ton? If our representation is not precise enough (let's just say we only have integers, so we can't account for a fraction like 7/8) we round up and just call it a 2. But then the two giant chickens together don't REALLY weight 4 tons, do they?

I guess what I'm saying is that the t***h is designed into a language of symbols... 2+2=4 is in a sense, logically designed to be true. But what we determine to be true about the physical world is always an approximation based on the precision of our numbers, the resolution of our pixels, the frequency of our carrier waves and cross-references in our stories.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Yes, and when comparing beliefs, we are in the realm of the intangible. There is no way to measure what one person believes to be true, except by COMPARING that belief against all the other persons. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, what the majority believes to be true IS the t***h. That t***h will either stand the test of time or it won't, but until society changes it's collective mind, that t***h will stand. " we hold these t***hs to be self evident", from a Lincoln speech.

Neal

Your ahead of me in line, Searching. Sign up quick so I can too!

Searching Loc: Rural Southwest VA

:thumbup: Done!! Oh, I took the liberty of signing you up too. Hope you don't mind. :wink: