[ 29/April/21 ]
I was hoping to see a full treatment of the notions of knowledge and opinion.
I was deeply disappointed to find that the entire thesis is based on the simplest of possible systems of truth values (the binary True/False).
Reality does not seem to be so constrained.
Quantum mechanics seems to only begin to make sense if one uses a trinary set of truth values (True/False/Undecided).
If Garret Lissi’s conjectures on the nature of the substructure if Quarks are pointing in a useful direction then it seems entirely possible that reality is capable of embodying an infinite set of possible truth values.
So the statement made on page 3 “the belief’s propositional content might be either true or false” can be true only in the simplest of possible systems of truth values; which does not seem to apply to the reality in which we exist when one looks in detail, and does seem to work as a reasonable approximation in many macroscopic contexts (which is very possibly a function of the evolutionary pressure to select for systems that give rapid responses to complexity – thence biasing the neural networks of our perceptual and conceptual systems to simplify the complexity present down to something we can processes in some fraction of a second).
It seems beyond any reasonable doubt that the notion of “Truth” is only really applicable to the simplest of possible truth value systems, and exists only in the abstract.
It seems that reality is far more complex, fundamentally uncertain, and in some aspects fundamentally unknowable. So while the notion of Truth might be a very useful simplifying heuristic that is usually reliable in most ordinary macroscopic contexts, it does not actually appear to be a property of the structure of the reality in which we exist; though the sort of complexity that we are requires that it be approximated at the scale that we are.