> 
> bbella: I would have to agree with Bohr here and add to his list - the "truth" of experience. For the experiencer, no proof by an outsider (scientist, witness, etc) of the experience is needed to make it "truth" and to know what they experienced was/is true. And if it was true, in that it actually did happen to them, whether in mind or body, would it then not be considered "truth?" Or, consider the possibility something can be true for one and not "truth" for all? 
> 
> >Whatever "truth" may be, we should not assume that science has a monopoly on it.
> 
> Agreed.-As I've stated before, we don't unerstand the quantum level of our existence,and so cannot go deeper than where we are. Our full truth is not known and may never be.

DAVID [re Niels Bohr]: A history of a founding father:
> 
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/351277/description/When_the_atom_went_quantu... 
> QUOTE: "The primary payoff of his engagement with quantum physics for his wider philosophy was the discovery that multiple truths come ... in complementary pairs," Heilbron said.
> 
> Bohr's thoughts on truth have recently been illuminated by newly available correspondence with his fiancée, Margrethe Nørlund, during his work on the atom model. Heilbron cited one letter in which Bohr discusses the different sorts of truths expressed in sermons, great works of literature, and science. The truths of one's personal sympathies, the universal human truths of literature and scientific truths all differ in kind, but are all important, Bohr wrote. "It's something I feel very strongly about, I can almost call it my religion, that I think that everything that is of value is true.""
> -I would have to agree with Bohr here and add to his list - the "truth" of experience. For the experiencer, no proof by an outsider (scientist, witness, etc) of the experience is needed to make it "truth" and to know what they experienced was/is true. And if it was true, in that it actually did happen to them, whether in mind or body, would it then not be considered "truth?" Or, consider the possibility something can be true for one and not "truth" for all? ->Whatever "truth" may be, we should not assume that science has a monopoly on it.-Agreed.


> dhw: I'm not sure whether all the above withstands philosophical scrutiny without clear definitions of "truth", "value" and "importance", but it seems to me to tie in with what I have just posted to 3DJ under "Huxley". Whatever "truth" may be, we should not assume that science has a monopoly on it.-As Bohr showed, as long as quantum theory has such an indeterminate undestanding of the quantum world, the underlying 'truth' of our reality will always be hidden, leaving us with only a partial understanding, and no chance of any proof of the character of first cause.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47944

New advance. Possibly a blockbuster:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

The question remains... if its real, how do we verify its exitence?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

Accepted but not proven:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-found-for-unifying-quantum&W...

It appears to be a reasonable unification. Note the comment comparing how differently mathematicians and physicists view math proofs.

My old joke does a better job than that article for displaying THAT difference...

thought you'd enjoy.

Accepted but not proven:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-found-for-unifying-quantum&W...

It appears to be a reasonable unification. Note the comment comparing how differently mathematicians and physicists view math proofs.

Actually, in the article, I don't see a strong difference made in dealing with mathematical vs. theoretical physics proofs... could you cue me in on the line?

Accepted but not proven:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-found-for-unifying-quantum&W...

It appears to be a reasonable unification. Note the comment comparing how differently mathematicians and physicists view math proofs.

My old joke does a better job than that article for displaying THAT difference...

Physicists try to say what's possible with the data.

Mathematicians are concerned with what's possible at all.

Case in point: ""If it isn't, it's still a general idea that holds most of the time."

In mathematics there is NO "Most of the time." (Because strictly speaking, ANY SOLUTION AT ALL is preferred to quaint, observational techniques.)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proof-found-for-unifying-quantum&W...

It appears to be a reasonable unification. Note the comment comparing how differently mathematicians and physicists view math proofs.