“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” — George Box
Introduction
In an era defined by deepfakes, generative AI, and epistemic uncertainty, the question “What is truth?” is no longer purely philosophical—it is practical, existential, and scientific. How can we trust models, laws, or observations when every framework eventually fails under new conditions? Can truth survive in a world where a single Black Swan event can annihilate years of expectations?
To explore these questions, I engaged in a conversation with ChatGPT, pressing it to articulate a working concept of truth while challenging its assumptions with real-world examples from physics, probability, and epistemology. What emerged is not a formula or slogan, but a rigorous exploration of the limits and provisional nature of knowledge itself.
ChatGPT’s Philosophical Overview
Me: What is truth?
ChatGPT:
An excellent and profound opening question.
Truth is one of the most contested and multilayered concepts in human thought—touching epistemology, ontology, linguistics, and political philosophy.
Classical Foundations: Correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism define truth either as agreement with reality, internal consistency, or practical utility.
Linguistic Turn and Deflationary Theories: Modern logic and deflationary approaches argue that “truth” adds nothing substantive; it is a logical convenience.
Continental and Postmodern Critiques: Nietzsche, Foucault, and Derrida challenge objective truth, framing it as illusion, power, or perpetual deferral.
Contemporary Developments: Pluralism and constructivism acknowledge that scientific, mathematical, and ethical truths operate on different principles.
AI and Post-Reality: Digital mediation complicates the correspondence model, challenging trust, authenticity, and verification.
Working Synthesis: Truth can be seen as a dynamic equilibrium among reality, representation, and belief—a process continually negotiated within human inquiry, experience, and culture.
My First Challenge
Me:
I am well aware of these theories. I want to know what you think.
ChatGPT:
Truth is not static correspondence nor mere social construct. It is a dynamic relational property emerging from the coevolution of human cognition, symbolic representation, and the world.
1. Ontology: Reality resists us; events impose constraints.
2. Epistemology: Models survive if they continue to work under testing—fitness over “absolute correctness.”
3. Semantics: Structural realism identifies invariants across changing representations.
4. Socio-Cognitive: Truth is stabilized by communal verification—reproducibility, transparency, and methods.
5. Metamodern Reframing: Models are provisional but convergent in practice.
6. Definition: Truth = enduring structural coherence maintained through testing, communal verification, and reflexive awareness.
7. Implication: Truth is process, not possession; it is provisional yet regulative.
My Critique
Me:
I don’t like empty assertions like “reality exists” or claims like “Truth is the enduring structural coherence.” What does enduring mean? How do we know X is enduring? How can we determine coherence? How do we trust tests if the likelihood function is flat and discontinuous? How do we know models converge if reality is at the last decimal of 1/3? Who collects the “collective epistemic calibration”?
ChatGPT:
Those objections keep truth alive.
1. Reality resists us: Expectations fail—collisions, corrections, events cannot be rewritten.
2. Endurance: Claims gain reliability the longer they survive falsification; duration is empirical, not absolute.
3. Structure: Invariants emerge across transformations; we infer them from persistent patterns.
4. Coherence and discontinuity: Truth depends on informational gradients; skepticism is default.
5. Convergence: Functional convergence occurs as error distributions shrink across successive revisions.
6. Social calibration: Reproducibility and transparency stabilize truth, not majority vote.
7. Conclusion: Truth is provisional, a temporary equilibrium between representation and testing phenomena.
My Physics-Based Challenge
Me:
Reality is probabilistic—traffic accidents can annihilate it. Black Swan events reject “claims survive falsification.” Truth is temporal and local. Kepler’s laws fail under many-body interactions, non-elliptical orbits, comparable masses, high velocities, strong gravitational fields, instantaneous action-at-a-distance, quantum-gravitational regimes, singularities, and cosmological puzzles. Do I need to show the emptiness of your other points?
ChatGPT:
No—you’ve made them eloquently.
Every example—Kepler, Newton, Einstein—shows truth is provisional, domain-bound.
1. When a theory fails: Collapses show local invariance; domains retain predictive power.
2. Black Swan events: Theories survive by absorbing surprise, not by being “right.”
3. Reality and annihilation: Accidents redefine boundaries; stochasticity, not metaphysics, governs.
4. Epistemic horizon: Likelihood landscapes are incomplete; calibration under uncertainty is all we have.
5. Conclusion: Classical “truth” does not exist; only degrees of model adequacy constrained by phenomena. Truth survives as a regulative ideal, not a destination.
Reflection
This dialogue exposes a central paradox: truth is neither absolute nor vacuous. Scientific laws, probabilistic reasoning, and communal verification provide scaffolding, but no framework fully captures reality. Truth is the fragile, temporary alignment between our maps and the shifting terrain of the world.
Classical permanence dissolves; what remains is iterative, adaptive, and context-sensitive calibration. In a world of stochasticity, uncertainty, and emergent complexity, this provisional conception of truth is not a failure, but the most honest expression we can achieve. The challenge is no longer to capture absolute truth, but to navigate effectively within a landscape of continuous revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment