1) I think part of the problem here is that some people are speaking of
ontological truth (what is REALLY out there), and some are speaking
of epistemilogical truth (what we can know of what's really out there),
and some are talking about some other type(s) of truths. I think it is
pretty well established in the philosophy of science that our
epistemilogical truth is quite limited relative to ontological truth.
The best one can do is come up with a system of concepts that maximizes
predictability, while maintaining as much simplification as possible
without losing any predictability, and that allows for an easy
assimilation of new information (ie., adaptability). That's as close to
ontological truth as you're going to get.
2) We cannot know much more about ontological truth because we are
subjective beings. Any perceptions we have about us.. are just that..
perceptions. Any perception you have can be brought about by many
different combinations of sense data -- perhaps an infinite number
of combinations for all I/we know. And logic... well, I respect logic
and rationality, but they ALWAYS have a precondition. That condition
is that we know all the variables. And that to me... is impossible,
unless you severely limit the defined bounds of the system you're
analyzing, or else ignore some variables as 'inconsequential'. The
latter is the most common methadology in science. (When you consider
Chaos Theory, and this methadology, though... makes you wonder how even
quantitatively true our scientific findings really are.)
3) I'll mention Chaos Theory/Mathematics once again as evidence that
there are severe limits on what we can know. Sodom asked me to give a
summary of Chaos Theory (CT). I was going to leave it until I could come
up with a comprehensive explanation, but o-well.
Chaos Theory:
------------
Okay.. here's the fancy definition of what CT is concerned with:
The qualitative study of unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic
nonlinear dynamical systems.
All those big words excite me.
Should I break it down?
Aperiodic = no variable describing the system falls into a repeating
pattern of values
Unstable = the system never falls into a pattern of behavior that
resists small disturbances. A stable system would be a marble rolling
around the rim of a bowl and settling into the middle. A small
disturbance in its path doesn't bother it much: it soon regains its
pattern and continues winding down to rest in the middle of the bowl's
bottom.
dynamical system = qualitatively speaking: a recipe for a mathematical
description of the system, and a rule for transforming the current state
of the system into another state of the system (as a function of time).
ie., a dynamical system is a model of the time-varying behavior of the
system.
non-linear = simply meaning.. the mathematical description isn't linear
:) ie., it uses algebra (5xy, sin(x), x^2, etc).
deterministic = only a few differential equations are involved (ie.,
fairly simple systems)
So.. in summary, chaos theorists study small, orderly systems that
demonstrate highly complex behavior, such that they are deemed almost
random.
Okay, well. So what? Right? :)
Examples of aperiodic & unstable systems, and chaotic systems:
-Human history is aperiodic and unstable. Broad patterns of the rise and
fall of civilizations can be sketched, but events never repeat exactly
(aperiodic). History books are full of examples of small events that led
to massive and long-lasting changes (unstable).
-almost any system involving huge conglomerations of units demonstrate
aperiodic/unstable behavior (from competing humans to gas molecules)
-a crowd is a good, simple example
-turbulance is another.. a small system, orderly, but predicting any
future state based on its current state is next to impossible, if not
impossible.
-a recent sentiment I've come across is the following: "the flapping of
a butterflies wings cause a tsunami on the other side of the planet".
This is the type of thing that happens in a chaotic system.
-Here's another: Say you're at a river bed. The waters are flowing
pretty good. Over rocks, swish swosh, and all that. Now you take two
toothpicks and you place them side by side, but not touching. (And for
the sake of the example you have to assume they don't interfere with
each other in anyway.) They are as close to being in the same position
as you can manage. Then you let them go precisely at the same moment.
Down to the milli-second. One ends up on the left-side of the bank, the
other on the right-side. The point of this is that.. in a chaotic
system.. the slightest difference makes a huge difference.
I'll leave it at that for now. There's much more to Chaos Theory than I
am relating here (for instance: the Strange Attractor). But I don't
really care to write a book or an essay on the subject at the moment.
Hope what I've detailed is helpful in some manner. At least in
generating questions if nothing else.
If anyone knows more than me about it, feel free to provide something
more comprehensive.
Actually... please do. :)