Defining truth is hard.
From a definitional standpoint, reality is that which is real. Truth is our description of what is real. Since truth is a description, one could argue it’s a “model” of reality.
I have a model of an apple in my mind. I think its pretty good. I feel fairly confident that if one gives me an apple or a “non-apple” I can figure out which is which. It’s probably not perfect though. That is, a genetic scientist could probably give me a pear that is modified in some way so I think it’s an apple. So my model could probably be refined to be closer to reality. So I would say I understand the truth of an apple at a high level.
An apple is a relatively simple construct for my mind. A harder construct is gravity. Gravity is a description of reality in that objects are attracted to each other based on their size. So an apple falls to the Earth because of gravity. So what is gravity in a philosophical sense? Its a model of how the physical world works. This model was invented by Newton. So gravity, the model or mental construct that describes the world, was invented less than 500 years ago.
When we are judging if something is true, we are really judging if the model / mental construct / description is an accurate model of reality. The problem is that our models are heavily constrained by our senses, language, definitions, environment, culture, and values.
I heard Elon Musk discuss that memes are complicated constructs that help us align on a view of the world and reduces the bandwidth of communications.
“If there’s a single word that is able to convey something that would normally require, I don’t know, 10 simple words, then you’ve got maybe a 10X compression on your hands. And that’s really like with memes. Memes are like data compression. You’re simultaneously hit with a wide range of symbols that you can interpret, and you get it faster than if it were words, or a simple picture.”
This resonates when it comes to truth. That is, some memes are a shortcut to a deeper description of some phenoneme. A good example is the concept of “what is water” from David Foster Wallace. I can be in a conversation with someone and state this is a “what is water” phenomenon and they get the deeper context or they don’t know what I’m talking about. Either way, its a shortcut to a common understanding of a non-intuitive concept.
When we talk and debate with another person to find truth, we have an inner description for the words we are using. If I’m trying to get to the best true version of reality with another person then we have to be working off the same set of definitions. Otherwise, we are talking past each other.
I hear people say things like:
Climate change is real!
Or
Climate change is a hoax!
IF the two people step away from the argument and instead argue and align on the definition of “Climate change” and “real” and “hoax” you may find that both parties fully agree on the topic.
What does this all mean? For me, I want to model the world better. It almost certainly enables me to make better decisions and understand better.
- We each have mental models of reality. Some are better than others, none are perfect.
- When discussing truth with others, definitions, descriptions, even cultural context matter. You have to align on those to get at the differences in your truth models.
- Verification leads to refinement of the model. If the scientist gives me a “fake” apple and I guess wrong, my apple model needs to be updated.
Items that got me thinking about this:
This Is Water David Foster Wallace Commencement Speech
Elon Musk: Neuralink and the Future of Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #438
Semi-cohesive thoughts 
Leave a comment