I want to find out the fundamental truths in this world

[S.daniels009]

After having some quite philosophical debates about the nature of truth and the limits of what we can truly understand, I've been trying to find out what is 100% scientifically provable to be an absolute truth. I know that this is quite wishy-washy question but I'm hoping to find answers on here as i cannot accept that we can't really know anything.

 

[berkeman]

After having some quite philosophical debates about the nature of truth and the limits of what we can truly understand, I've been trying to find out what is 100% scientifically provable to be an absolute truth. I know that this is quite wishy-washy question but I'm hoping to find answers on here as i cannot accept that we can't really know anything.

Welcome to the PF.

You came to the right place to ask scientific questions! But keep in mind that the PF rules (see Info at the top of the page) do not permit philosophical discussions any more. We have just found them too hard to Moderate well.

 

[Borg]

Welcome to the PF.

You came to the right place to ask scientific questions! But keep in mind that the PF rules (see Info at the top of the page) do not permit philosophical discussions any more. We have just found them too hard to Moderate well.

Beat me to it.

To the OP, be sure to check out the Physics Forums Global Guidelines (Terms and Rules in the INFO tab).

 

[micromass]

After having some quite philosophical debates about the nature of truth and the limits of what we can truly understand, I've been trying to find out what is 100% scientifically provable to be an absolute truth. I know that this is quite wishy-washy question but I'm hoping to find answers on here as i cannot accept that we can't really know anything.

There is no 100% provable absolute truth in science. All scientific knowledge is conditional. One of the big requirements for a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Thus in theory, and scientific theory can be proven wrong. We are of course reasonably certain that stuff like the theory of gravity works, but we can never be 100% certain of this.
If you are looking for absolute truths, science is not the place to look.

 

[russ_watters]

Thus in theory, and scientific theory can be proven wrong.

I think there's a typo in there, but I'd still like to reword:

Thus, any scientific theory can only be proven wrong.

In other words, you can prove a theory wrong, but you can't prove it right - the best that can be said is a particular experiment or group of experiments agrees with the theory to within a certain error margin.

 

[dipole]

This is even true in the realm of mathematics - many truths may exist which you can never prove. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

If you don't like that or want to accept it, as Feynman might say then go live in some other Universe where the laws of nature and logic are more convenient for you.

 

[sunrah]

After having some quite philosophical debates about the nature of truth and the limits of what we can truly understand, I've been trying to find out what is 100% scientifically provable to be an absolute truth. I know that this is quite wishy-washy question but I'm hoping to find answers on here as i cannot accept that we can't really know anything.

Physics deals in principles not truths and those principles give birth to ideas that, the deeper you go, lead only to more questions ultimately. For me it's easier to believe that truth only exists in human psychology. On this Earth, a true story can be told in a thousand different ways depending on who's telling it. I don't know if the principles of physics are true, but they work until they don't.

 

[S.daniels009]

Many thanks for your responses, they have been very helpful. I suspected that i would get those sorts of answers.

Graciously,

Sam.

 

[William White]

There is no 100% provable absolute truth in science.

The Earth is more massive than the moon
The sun is more massive than the earth
Humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and that common anscestor shared a common ancestor with all apes.
And since I was in the John Snow last weekend - cholera was transmitted in water

 

[micromass]

The Earth is more massive than the moon
The sun is more massive than the earth
Humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and that common anscestor shared a common ancestor with all apes.
And since I was in the John Snow last weekend - cholera was transmitted in water

Sure, those are very likely. And I am certain of all them for 99.999%. But not absolutely certain.

 

[micromass]

As a defense for that position, I say that it is always possible that my brain is plugged into a machine which provides it with certain stimuli which makes my entire world appear the way it is. Very unlikely, but it would be dishonest of me to rule it out as completely and utterly impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

 

[William White]

This is why physicists need to get a grip on reality,,,

these things are as certain as your own existence ...now if you cannot be certain of your own existence, then you are certain of nothing...AND you are no longer talkng science.

I'm quite happy to say that the statement "gorillias and humans share a common ancestor" is a FACT. It is as factual a statement that it is possible to state.

Its as true as "Australia is bigger in area than the United Kingdom".

It is not dishonest to rule out the possibility that the United Kingdom is larger in area than Australia.

 

[micromass]

now if you cannot be certain of your own existence, then you are certain of nothing...

I am indeed absolutely certain of nothing.

AND you are no longer talkng science.

Science does not deal with absolute certainties and nobody every claimed it did.

 

[russ_watters]

As a defense for that position, I say that it is always possible that my brain is plugged into a machine which provides it with certain stimuli which makes my entire world appear the way it is. Very unlikely, but it would be dishonest of me to rule it out as completely and utterly impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

I think all of you are a computer simulation, created for my amusement.

 

[micromass]

I think all of you are a computer simulation, created for my amusement.

Twisted kind of amusement you have then.

 

[William White]

Science does not deal with absolute certainties and nobody every claimed it did.

so, if you measure the area of Australia, you are not absolutely certain that it is larger in area than Belgium?maybe its better to stop twisiting this into philosophical twaddle and just stick to the word FACTS (and not go into one redefining the word fact, when everybody knows what it means)

There are many things that we know to be FACTS.

 

[russ_watters]

these things are as certain as your own existence...

Agreed: Certainty of one's own existence is not possible in science.

now if you cannot be certain of your own existence, then you are certain of nothing...

Agreed.

AND you are no longer talkng science.

Disagree.

I'm quite happy to say that the statement "gorillias and humans share a common ancestor" is a FACT. It is as factual a statement that it is possible to frame.

The thing you are missing in all of this is that all facts have error bars. The probability of error might be vanishingly small for something like the mass of the Earth and moon and still pretty small for the origin of species, but it is not zero. Indeed, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it cannot be zero.

[edit] Perhaps then the only certain thing about knowledge is the lack of certainty!

 

[William White]

Agreed: Certainty of one's own existence is not possible in science.

Agreed.

Disagree.

The thing you are missing in all of this is that all facts have error bars. The probability of error might be vanishingly small for something like the mass of the Earth and moon and still pretty small for the origin of species, but it is not zero. Indeed, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it cannot be zero.

twaddle - using that wrong-headed logic you can say that there is a probability that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrong (and therefore there is no uncertainty - and go round in circles!).

I'd much rather lay my last tenner on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle being wrong than the theory of evolution (which IS a FACT) being wrong.

 

[micromass]

so, if you measure the area of Australia, you are not absolutely certain that it is larger in area than Belgium?

No, I am not absolutely certain of it, because I could be a brain-in-a-jar in which case Australia and Belgium don't exist at all in reality.

I'm happy to call "Australia bigger than Belgium" a fact. But then I would have to say that I cannot absolutely be certain of facts. I'm fine with that.

 

[russ_watters]

so, if you measure the area of Australia, you are not absolutely certain that it is larger in area than Belgium?

maybe its better to stop twisiting this into philosophical twaddle and just stick to the word FACTS (and not go into one redefining the word fact, when everybody knows what it means)

There are many things that we know to be FACTS.

The problem with your logic is that while you feel comfortable applying it to really really sure facts, you will have to define a line across which you cease to be 100% certain. Is it when the difference between the masses you are measuring is 10:1? 5:1? 2:1? Does it depend on the measurement method? Because the jump from "somewhat uncertain" to "absolutely certain" cannot have a clearly defined line, you cannot be absolutely certain of where that line is.

using that wrong-headed logic you can say that there is a probability that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrong (and therefore there is no uncertainty - and go round in circles!).

So I indeed added the bit about the HUP, but regardless, due to the problem I outlined above, the logical flaw lies with you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Certainty of one's own existence is not possible in science.

What about Descartes' "I think, therefore I am,"?

If there is thinking taking place, then something must exist to be doing the thinking. "Nothing" can't think.

We can extend it to perception, "I perceive, therefore I am." It's irrelevant to the issue of one's own existence if the perception is illusory or not. It is the fact of perception that scientifically proves the existence of a perceiving entity.

 

[S.daniels009]

Zoobyshoe, Thank you. You seem to have hit the nail on the head. Although the issue isn't really about if perception is illusory or not, but how i can be sure the perception is accurate or not.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobyshoe, Thank you. You seem to have hit the nail on the head. Although the issue isn't really about if perception is illusory or not, but how i can be sure the perception is accurate or not.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean here by "accurate."

 

[TheNerdConstant]

S.daniels009 accuracy is not a concern. In this matter we perceive and that alone stands to prove that we interact with reality and therefore exist. That logical reasoning stands to prove that the validity of the perception is not of concern because regardless that perception is still there and by extension our existence is certain.

 

[Hornbein]

I think all of you are a computer simulation, created for my amusement.

Right. Now we're going to stop, smarty pants.

 

[russ_watters]

What about Descartes' "I think, therefore I am,"?

If there is thinking taking place, then something must exist to be doing the thinking. "Nothing" can't think.

I probably needed another word or two in there: it's the nature of our existence we can't be sure of.

 

[Chronos]

A fact is merely truth beyond a reasonable doubt. In math this would be termed an axiom. Godel summed up the case for truth and axioms nicely a century ago.

 

[WWGD]

Agreed: Certainty of one's own existence is not possible in science.

<Snip>

The thing you are missing in all of this is that all facts have error bars. The probability of error might be vanishingly small for something like the mass of the Earth and moon and still pretty small for the origin of species, but it is not zero. Indeed, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it cannot be zero.

[edit] !

Doesnt HUP apply only at the micro scale? Or are you arguing that if we are uncertain at the micro level-- and AFAIK, under the accepted QT, things get much wilder at this level, in that standard laws, logic break down at this level -- we cannot be certain at any level, or is it just that we do not (yet?) have irrefutable methods of proof/disproof?

EDIT:
@S.daniels009 :
An idea for you to reach your goal, or at least to get you closer to it: research all known cognitive biases and train yourself to overcome them. Then train yourself to avoid all known fallacies. This should get you closer to what you want, if not there.

 

[russ_watters]

Doesnt HUP apply only at the micro scale?

No, it applies at all scales - the probability is just a function of the scale, so the relative error due to the HUP is smaller the larger the thing being measured.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Thus, any scientific theory can only be proven wrong.

In other words, you can prove a theory wrong, but you can't prove it right - the best that can be said is a particular experiment or group of experiments agrees with the theory to within a certain error margin.

Hi Russ:

This maybe a matter of definition, and I suppose it might be controversial, but from my late teen years many years ago I have always understood that mathematics is a field of science, although with somewhat different protocols. Math theorems are expected to be 100% proved to be mathematically true, although there are ocassionally from time to time erroneous proofs that survive for decades before someone, typically a graduate student, sees the flaw. (One example is the four color theorem as "proved" in te 19th century.)

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DaveC426913]

The Earth is more massive than the moon
The sun is more massive than the earth
Humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and that common anscestor shared a common ancestor with all apes.

When we say something is a fact, we mean it is so generally agreed upon that we can move ahead with study, without doubting it. Until and unless something comes along to cast doubt upon it. But that's a sloppy definition.

It is factual to us Earthlings that the Earth is more massive than the Moon.
It is not fact the humans and gorillas share a common ancestor. Although it is almost universally agreed upon by the scientific community, it depends on theories of genetics that are still in flux. And we can't state facts about things 2 million years ago.

I'm quite happy to say that the statement "gorillias and humans share a common ancestor" is a FACT. It is as factual a statement that it is possible to state.

No. 'Apples tend to fall down on Earth' is a fact. It is demonstrable by any third party who cares to test it.
That we share a common ancestor is not factual. There is, however, a darned good body of evidence to back it up.

Its as true as "Australia is bigger in area than the United Kingdom".

It is factual in that we can define what we mean by bigger, and then measure it.

It is not dishonest to rule out the possibility that the United Kingdom is larger in area than Australia.

Are you sure?
How big is the tectonic plate upon which each sit?
Or what if "bigger" means more mass, or more surface area? Australia is mostly flat desert. GB has lots of mountains.

You will have to respond by defining your meaning for "bigger", probably mentioning the land area above sea level.

...you can say that there is a probability that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrong (and therefore there is no uncertainty - and go round in circles!).

Correct.

the theory of evolution (which IS a FACT)

Scientifically, it isn't. (mutation is, we can demonstrate that) That doesn't have to stop you from proceeding with it as an accurate model.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean here by "accurate."

Remember Zeno's Cave? Those in the cave saw what they saw. But it was not an accurate model of objective reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hi Russ:

This maybe a matter of definition, and I suppose it might be controversial, but from my late teen years many years ago I have always understood that mathematics is a field of science, although with somewhat different protocols. Math theorems are expected to be 100% proved to be mathematically true, although there are ocassionally from time to time erroneous proofs that survive for decades before someone, typically a graduate student, sees the flaw. (One example is the four color theorem as "proved" in te 19th century.)

Regards,
Buzz

All mathematics is based on axioms. For example, that 1+1=2.
We approach mathematics with the implicit statement "presuming the following axioms are true..."

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Here is another wrinkle re math and science.

The original question includes the phrase: "truths in this world". Perhaps the OP could clarify what "in this world" means.

I think it is a reasonable point of view that math theorems are not about what is in this world. while most (all?) the rest of science is about "this world", or at least it is about "this universe", and "this world" might be a metaphor for "this universe". A good example of this point of view is geometry. Geometry is about abstract objects, e.g., circles, and only approximate "circles" exist in "the world".

 

[russ_watters]

This maybe a matter of definition, and I suppose it might be controversial, but from my late teen years many years ago I have always understood that mathematics is a field of science, although with somewhat different protocols. Math theorems are expected to be 100% proved to be mathematically true, although there are ocassionally from time to time erroneous proofs that survive for decades before someone, typically a graduate student, sees the flaw.

No, that's not controversial: you are correct. Mathematical proofs are basically all-or nothing. They are either 100% true or 100% false. But they are self-contained and don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

maybe its better to stop twisiting this into philosophical twaddle and just stick to the word FACTS

Hi William:

The concept of what is means for a proposition to be a FACT varies with the discipline, as well as with the individual. With respect to the individual, the concept is rooted in the individual's personal philosophy, even if a particular individual is not at all philosophical. In any case that is something which is not discussed here.

The discipline of science in general also has different criteria for deciding what is a fact depending on the sub-discipline. e.g., physics, psychology, mathematics. However, it might be useful in the context of this thread to list some criteria for deciding what is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, or what is a PHYSICAL FACT.

Regards,
Buzz