To What Extent Is Truth Different in Mathematics, the Arts and Ethics?
To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics?
We have always had problems with clearly defining what truth is. It resulted into relativism, which says that there is no absolute truth. However, it can be easily shown that this theory is wrong, because in contradicts itself. Does it mean that absolute truth must exist? From my point of view, this is satisfactory proof to believe so. Where should we search for absolute truth? The first area of knowledge that seem to provide us absolute truth is mathematics, because truth is not determined by a time or place, but generally valid. Mathematics tries to describe hidden patterns and structures in our world and creates new imaginary system for that purpose. Of course, it is based only on our observations, we select the best-fitting choice. Axioms are used to describe each part of this system. They always look evident and therefore are assumed to be true without controversy. We have no reason to not to believe them, because they determine that system which we wanted to create and it satisfies not only current situation, but also the long period of time before. I would say that they are absolute truth in our relatively true system. If we accept that these axioms are absolute truth, we are able to deduce many important structures by reasoning, which will give us better understanding of our system. We take axioms as premises and hence, also the conclusion must be absolute truth. Absolute truth in terms of the system, that describes our world best for the years. Now, when you have these conclusions, you do not need to work with axioms, but use them as premises. Or even combine the axiom with one of the conclusions, take them as premises and you can be still sure, that the conclusion will be absolute truth. This can be really useful tool, because you do not need to come back to the ground, but build on your knowledge. For me, it is really easier to take some lemmas as fact and do not worry about their
We have always had problems with clearly defining what truth is. It resulted into relativism, which says that there is no absolute truth. However, it can be easily shown that this theory is wrong, because in contradicts itself. Does it mean that absolute truth must exist? From my point of view, this is satisfactory proof to believe so. Where should we search for absolute truth? The first area of knowledge that seem to provide us absolute truth is mathematics, because truth is not determined by a time or place, but generally valid. Mathematics tries to describe hidden patterns and structures in our world and creates new imaginary system for that purpose. Of course, it is based only on our observations, we select the best-fitting choice. Axioms are used to describe each part of this system. They always look evident and therefore are assumed to be true without controversy. We have no reason to not to believe them, because they determine that system which we wanted to create and it satisfies not only current situation, but also the long period of time before. I would say that they are absolute truth in our relatively true system. If we accept that these axioms are absolute truth, we are able to deduce many important structures by reasoning, which will give us better understanding of our system. We take axioms as premises and hence, also the conclusion must be absolute truth. Absolute truth in terms of the system, that describes our world best for the years. Now, when you have these conclusions, you do not need to work with axioms, but use them as premises. Or even combine the axiom with one of the conclusions, take them as premises and you can be still sure, that the conclusion will be absolute truth. This can be really useful tool, because you do not need to come back to the ground, but build on your knowledge. For me, it is really easier to take some lemmas as fact and do not worry about their