What is a "Fact"

[Steve James]

So the person jumping out of a plane could be considered as existing in a "probability wave" until he hits the ground, at which time his wave will collapse and he will be found dead or alive (the observation).

That's why much of modern philosophy is based on mathematics, and probability, such as game theory --and don't use terms like "fact" or "good" as technical terms.

Yeah, all "if" statements are conditional. However, the preposition "when" can be subsitituted --to affirm that the act was a "fait accompli." Affa's reference to epistemology is right on. It's not purely about how we perceive: it's about how we "know."

[qiphlow]

truth is entirely subjective. whether or not 78 gazillion people decide that they want to believe the same thing as truth does not make it any less subjective.

[Craig]

If we ask a question like, "If a person falls out of a plane from 30,000 feet, will he die?" Does that depend on whether I see him fall or not? Has everyone who has fallen without a parachute from a plane at that height died? Well, no. It happened at least once in WW2. So, is it a fact that you will die; or is it a fact that you won't?

Well I think that this could be clarified by stating the probability that a particular event would occur. That is, that 99.999999999% of the time a person will die when he jumps out of a plane at 30,000 feet. I think that many of the outcomes that we consider facts are simply high probability events. Others, however are not. So I think it's important to distinguish between the two.

Quantum mechanics has a lot of these type events. Electrons used to be thought of distinct objects orbiting the nucleus like planets rotating around our sun, but now they are seen as a probability wave that is "potentially" everywhere around the nucleus (more like a cloud) at any given time. Its position only manifests itself in one particular place when it is observed because the observation itself causes the electrons probability wave to collapse into an observable particle.

So the person jumping out of a plane could be considered as existing in a "probability wave" until he hits the ground, at which time his wave will collapse and he will be found dead or alive (the observation).

This sounds like the Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation), I'm pretty sure most people would have done that cool double slit experiment in highschool. its an interesting topic, i might come back here when i have a bit more time to write about it.

[affa]

I think to start to deconstruct language in the hopes of having actions supported is why these things arise.

Truth is. Truth cannot be broken by manipulation of words or changing of perceptions.

that's why tarski argued that languages can't contain their own truth predicates. you gotta bump it up to metalanguage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Semantic_theory_of_truth

but the same's true for the metalanguage (e.g. science). elephants all the way down..................................................................................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[qiphlow]

and speaking of language, i wonder how much our interpretation of what "truth"is is determined by our native tongue?
i would guess: a bunch.

[Michael]

Native tongue is part of culture, cultural values are integral to our identity, which we continually try and validate and confirm in an environment that provided the definitions for which we measure the truth.

[Teazer]

that's why tarski argued that languages can't contain their own truth predicates.

That's interesting. The wiki article says:

1.Tarski held that the semantic theory ('P' is true if and only if P) could not be applied to any natural language, such as English, because they contain their own truth predicates.
2.The reason for his restriction was that languages that contain their own truth predicate will contain paradoxical sentences like the Liar: "This sentence is not true".

So translating for us non-philosophers, doesn't that mean that a language can't include the concept of truth and remain entirely self consistent. i.e. that for 100% of the statements that are labeled 'true' to be true, and those labeled 'false' to be false.

As we do have a language containing the 'truth' concept, we end up with three outcomes of "true', 'false' and 'paradoxical and not particularly helpful' with regard to statements. So long as the 3rd category are identifiable, is that a problem?

[affa]

a language can't include the concept of truth and remain entirely self consistent.

correct. but it's not so much that the language COULDN"T contain a concept of truth. as you point out, the fact that we can talk about truth clearly shows that they can. it's just that this language internal truth SEEMS to have a hard time "grounding" the meanings of statements in that language (as per the liar's paradox). some external factor seems necessary to make a sentence's meaning either true or false. for "normal" cases, this necessary extra ingredient is easily found in the real world... e.g. the word DOG is either true or false (i.e. meaningful) because of that big black dog over there (or its absence). but what does "this sentence is false" refer to in the real world? what's that extra ingredient that makes it meaningful? for tarski it was the metalanguage.

'paradoxical and not particularly helpful'... So long as the 3rd category are identifiable, is that a problem?

according to kripke, not at all. he even went a little further and said there really weren't any paradoxes to start with. if world-based reference is primitive (say as grounded in the psychology of perception), then metalanguage can emerge when a purely world-referential language learns how to make reference to language itself (which is also, of course, a world-based entity)... e.g. the language goes from initially being able to say "that goat over there" to being able to say "that statement about that goat over there." this is good news for tarski, because unless you believe in perceptually unmediated access to transcendent platonic ideals (Truth with a capital T), your metalanguage has to come from somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Kripke.27s_theory_of_truth

but, as other's have pointed out... with all this quantum mess floating about... grounding your metalanguage in the TRUTH (i.e. presence or absence) of things of the world becomes a little tricky when those things turn out to be probability distributions.