[ExI] The "Unreasonable" Effectiveness of Mathematics in theNatural Sciences

[Mike Dougherty]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> Tell me, Human, how can any system, functioning exactly according to
> its nature within its environment, be "wrong", other than with respect
> to a particular (necessarily subjective) context from which to make
> such an assessment?  Does it seem to you that "Truth" is somehow
> diminished, when it is accepted as "merely" the best truth presently
> known?

Perhaps you have a much larger point in mind, but I'll add this
response to the above;

Within a particular context, the best approximation of truth may be
verified as good enough.  If the same principle is applicable to a
different context, I believe that principle has a greater measure of
this property defined as truth.  If this principle can be used to
correctly predict the situation in new contexts, this further measures
the principle's approach to an ideal Truth.  Since it is arguably
impossible to have verified truth in absolutely every context, we must
accept that "best presently known truth" may only continue to approach
the absolute (until disproved?).  I attempt to minimize confusion by
treating "Truth" as an asymptotic limit to the maximum measurable
'truth'.  In that case, the absolute is not minimized because it is an
ideal that may never be reached.

It's a difficult topic because it's self-referential (either the
subject is referring to itself, or Truth is somehow reflective of its
it's own value)