My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth

[imported_luckyme]

I've never bought into the "Your Truth/My Truth" view of the Reality. I say, "Play the surveillance camera tape."
There is an external reality, I'm trying to sneak up to it as close as I can. There isn't a separate one that you can sneak up on.
"Close" is as good as it gets.

[Brom]

The truth>my truth>your truth.
Doesn't really add much, but im sure that's how most people feel, maybe a few deluded ones would rank them my>the>your.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth>my truth>your truth.
Doesn't really add much, but im sure that's how most people feel, maybe a few deluded ones would rank them my>the>your.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure, my sample size is too small. There seems a decent chunk of people that defend a Your or My or His and don't seem to acknowledge 'THE'. I sometimes describe it to them as what's left if everybody on earth drank the Jonestown koolaid.

[Double Down]

I believe quantum mechanics shows that nothing exists until it is observed. Therefore, even if everyone drank the koolaid, other things with a consciousness would observe the world and it would exist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe quantum mechanics shows that nothing exists until it is observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

I think when people use this expression they're generally talking about motivations/beliefs/interpretions of events. It's only truly mentally ill people that are using it in a literal sense (eg. their 'truth' is that they've met the Pope when they haven't).

That expression irritates me too though. It's obviously valid to say event A leads to action A in one person and action B in another, due to different and subjective interpretations of previous events. But my experience is that on the most part, people who come up with that line are using it as a fluffy rationalisation for things they know don't make sense and/or they shouldn't be doing, and aren't particularly interested in leaving that comfort bubble.

And string theory does almost, sorta, maybe, show that - but two big things to bear in mind:

a. Those externals things do then exist externally, which is very different from an hallucination of some kind.
b. String theory though interesting is poorly understood and so far mostly unproven.

[RJT]

Since today marks 25 years since John Lennon was killed, I thought the following seemed appropriate (what can I say, I am a fan):


Give Me Some Truth
- John Lennon

I’m sick and tired of hearing
Things
From uptight-short sighted-
Narrow minded hypocritics

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I’ve had enough of reading
Things
By nuerotic-pyschotic-
Pig headed politicians

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

No short haired-yellow bellied
Son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard
Soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

I’m sick to death of seeing
Things
From tight lipped-
Condescending -mommies little
Chauvinists

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

I’ve had enough of watching
Scenes
Of schizophrenic - ego - centric
- paranoic - prima - donnas

All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think when people use this expression they're generally talking about motivations/beliefs/interpretions of events.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
a. Those externals things do then exist externally, which is very different from an hallucination of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.
For example, Evolution can be viewed in one sense as a testing ground for how well a species representation of that external reality actually correlates to it. Not a congruency, naturally, but if your species is poor at correlating critical events and entities with the underlying truth of them then you'll be eating coal and burning rabbits too often for your own good.
It's not the 'truth' of the representation that matters it's the dependabiity of it correlation.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe quantum mechanics shows that nothing exists until it is observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another agreement with you Boro (and I'm a fan of your avatar).
To Double Down. Does it matter what observes it? Did the universe exist before we existed?

[Double Down]

"Did the universe exist before we existed?"

What do you mean by we? Humans? All life on earth? What?

[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

I don't believe in a "the truth" of any kind. So I guess we disagree.

[Darryl_P]

Do you really think humans are evolving towards more rationality and higher IQs?

There is currently a marked negative correlation between someone's IQ and the number of children he has.

Are you sure your theory applies to modern-day humans?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in a "the truth" of any kind. So I guess we disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe what you just wrote is the truth?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe quantum mechanics shows that nothing exists until it is observed. Therefore, even if everyone drank the koolaid, other things with a consciousness would observe the world and it would exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say what??

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe what you just wrote is the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is more true than the alternative, but I don't think it's "the truth," no. The implication of there being no "the truth" is that there must sort of be a "the truth." At the same time.

It's not really contradictory, it's just semantic. The english language doesn't work well with indefinite concepts. The verb "to be" implies existence, so anytime I say "is" I'm actually making a statement that is somewhat inconsistent with my actual beliefs. This includes the statement that there is no "the truth."

It helps if you think of each proposition as having some percentage of truth. This isn't really true, because it implies that there exists some ACTUAL percentage, but it gives a decent logical handle to the concept. For example, I might say that it's 90% true there is no "the truth" and 10% true that there is in fact a "the truth."

[peritonlogon]

I think the only good way to respond to this question is to ask "What is truth?" and then walk away.

[wtfsvi]

I think I disagree with you in the statement that it's impossible to come closer to the truth than close. I'm not saying it will ever happen or that it necessarily is possible, but I believe Kant shows us how it can be possible. It does make a little sense if you look into it.

You know absolutely nothing about any external reality, but the truth about perception of "it", might very well be "the truth".

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I say, "Play the surveillance camera tape."

[/ QUOTE ]

The picture’s crap, all you see is the same corridor, and it might all be a fake.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never bought into the "Your Truth/My Truth" view of the Reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

My ‘truth’ is all that matters; other’s ‘truth’ is their own problem. The unattainable has no relevance.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to sneak up to it as close as I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you can get directly under something, does not make you any closer.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that we aren't saying much the same thing with just a bit different focus. I'm imagining a observerless universe, just doing it's thing whatever it is. In that sense, I'm equating "the reality" with "the truth". Add an observer(s) and they can only have a perception of what's happening in the universe. The first delusion is to consider that perception as a 'truth', it's always just a perception.

There will be, however, perceptions that are better aligned with 'the reality' than others. "Better aligned" in the sense that we'd consider Relativity better aligned to the underlying reality than Newtons version.

The other trap is thinking the better aligned representations are any necessarily 'truer' than poorer aligned representations. To slip into a scientific vien ( which is not what I am writing about) - thinking of light as a strange blend of wave and particle may be in better alignment ( make better predictions, etc) than treating light like jiggling jelly ( predictions awful etc) BUT the jelly representation may be 'truer' to the nature of light, just presently or always unworkable to get anything out of.

I touched on how evolution acts as a "representation" tester, but wanted to propose that better, more successful representation doesn't automatically mean 'truer'. Portions of an earthworms representation of reality may be 'truer' than ours.
Comments very welcome, luckyme

The only way the concept 'the truth' can be plausibly denied is by rejecting the idea of an external reality. For sure, there are a number of ways of questioning the idea of a world outside of consciousness - but nobody actually believes an external reality doesn't exist for any kind of practical purpose. From the working assumption that this reality exists, it's a very simple leap in logic to say that 'the truth' exists and that individual perceptions partake of that truth to varying extents. It's about as clean-cut and direct as any epistemic argument can be - that these Platonic type forms of truth exist and that through our perceptions/interpretations we partake of that truth to varying extents. Your crazy aunt in a retirement home who thinks she's living on a cruise ship, probably partakes less than you.

wtfsvi: I'm not sure that Kant did prove that, but his failing to prove it gets at the root of all this. His positions on a priori knowledge are internally consistent, but unverifiable because he's made the assumption that these forms of knowledge exist. Which is the same thing, we have to make some sort of assumption to exercise logic, and if that assumption is going to be that a world external to us exists - that seems like a fairly sensible and intuitive assumption to me. I don't believe the universe being relativistic makes much difference here either, it's still external.

The only way, IMO, that the concept of meaningful truth can be challenged is to regurgitate the whole Cartesian doubt process as it applies to epistemology. Which is probably bottomless dealing as it does with axioms, but more to the point, is useless since the same rules would apply within that self contained frame even if we somehow discovered that all is consciousness.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in a "the truth" of any kind. So I guess we disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statement "a" a:"I don't believe in "the truth" of any kind."

Question: Do you believe in the truth of statement "a" as spoken by yourself?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Eistein himself who pointed out the reverse is true and that the theory of relativity could have been better named the theory of nonrelativity. Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe what you just wrote is the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is more true than the alternative, but I don't think it's "the truth," no. The implication of there being no "the truth" is that there must sort of be a "the truth." At the same time.

It's not really contradictory, it's just semantic. The english language doesn't work well with indefinite concepts. The verb "to be" implies existence, so anytime I say "is" I'm actually making a statement that is somewhat inconsistent with my actual beliefs. This includes the statement that there is no "the truth."

It helps if you think of each proposition as having some percentage of truth. This isn't really true, because it implies that there exists some ACTUAL percentage, but it gives a decent logical handle to the concept. For example, I might say that it's 90% true there is no "the truth" and 10% true that there is in fact a "the truth."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but I can't make much sense out of what you wrote. Can you clarify it in simpler terms?

Let's just start with this: "I believe it is more true than the alternative, but I don't think it's "the truth," no. The implication of there being no "the truth" is that there must sort of be a "the truth." At the same time."

What does that mean?

The fact that I work within the framework of a presupposed external reality doesn't mean I believe in that reality. I function according to that reality because I know the consequences of acting otherwise can be painful. Occasionally I do something crazy to "test the boundaries," but the patterns of "my reality" remain consistent and so I continue to act accordingly.

Whether it's useless to think this way is arguable, but irrelevant. I don't think usefulness has any bearing on truth.

You might be interested in Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By, which, inter alia, argues against both objectivist and radical subjectivist views of truth. Instead, they view truths as true relative to a conceptual system. The fact that there are some things that everybody accepts as objectively true comes from the fact that all humans are embodied in essentially the same way and have innate ways of thinking about the world.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Eistein himself who pointed out the reverse is true and that the theory of relativity could have been better named the theory of nonrelativity. Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide some resources for this? Just for example, there is no such thing as synchronicity: two events happening "at the same time" from different reference points. This is because there is no absolute time. Time is relative, and thus each observer can be right about his time, while not having the same time as someone else.

The statement "there is no actual truth" contradicts itself, because it is a statement of actual truth. That's all I'm getting at.

A common, almost overriding idea in modern society is that any essential proposition is either true or untrue. The idea that a proposition can be a little bit true and a little bit false is anathema to the western conception of reason. Therefore my belief that there exists no "the truth" violates one of the fundamental axioms of our culture.

If we do away with the law of the excluded middle, the entire structure of logic changes. Therefore it is hard to discuss the idea within a context of traditional logic. The implication, according to a conventional approach, is that everything is true and everything is false. Paradox and contradiction become acceptable, and everything whirls out of control.

I don't believe this conclusion is necessary, but most people are so used to looking for and then eliminating contradictions that thinking in any other way seems impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Eistein himself who pointed out the reverse is true and that the theory of relativity could have been better named the theory of nonrelativity. Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide some resources for this? Just for example, there is no such thing as synchronicity: two events happening "at the same time" from different reference points. This is because there is no absolute time. Time is relative, and thus each observer can be right about his time, while not having the same time as someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... one more thing... from what I've read, Einstein didn't like some of the implications of his theory... so it's quite possible that he said some things that didn't jive with his own theory. However, I'm pretty sure that his theory, and subsequent understanding and testing of it, show exactly what I said: often there is no "the truth", due to the relative nature of the universe.

Any subsequent detailed discussion of this, if you disagree, will definitely require one or both of us to define "the truth". I've had long drawn out conversations with you before, so I'd like to avoid a misunderstanding due to a difference in defintions or implied definitions if at all possible. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Eistein himself who pointed out the reverse is true and that the theory of relativity could have been better named the theory of nonrelativity. Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide some resources for this? Just for example, there is no such thing as synchronicity: two events happening "at the same time" from different reference points. This is because there is no absolute time. Time is relative, and thus each observer can be right about his time, while not having the same time as someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh... one more thing... from what I've read, Einstein didn't like some of the implications of his theory... so it's quite possible that he said some things that didn't jive with his own theory. However, I'm pretty sure that his theory, and subsequent understanding and testing of it, show exactly what I said: often there is no "the truth", due to the relative nature of the universe.

Any subsequent detailed discussion of this, if you disagree, will definitely require one or both of us to define "the truth". I've had long drawn out conversations with you before, so I'd like to avoid a misunderstanding due to a difference in defintions or implied definitions if at all possible. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm aware the only problem Einstein had with the implication of relativity was the bizarre idea that the universe was expanding, this led to his 'biggest mistake' the cosmological constant. He did have problems with QM which he did so much to discover but that's seperate.

To try to avoid misunderstandings here's an Einstein quote to work on:

"Relativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the same reality."

If by different truths you mean different descriptions of the same thing then fine but these descriptions are consistent with each other and hence are not different truths.

Are we on the same page?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My statement is very basic, koolaid aside. There is one external, relativistic reality. Our individual reaction to it and representation of it is not a version of the truth, it remains a mere representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was Eistein himself who pointed out the reverse is true and that the theory of relativity could have been better named the theory of nonrelativity. Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide some resources for this? Just for example, there is no such thing as synchronicity: two events happening "at the same time" from different reference points. This is because there is no absolute time. Time is relative, and thus each observer can be right about his time, while not having the same time as someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Found a refernce to what I was talking about. here (http://digitalcosmology.com/Articles/Relativity/relativity.html)
Summary:
Einstein formulated a theory of invariances. Max Planck called it relativity.

Minkowski suggested 'theory of absolutes', Einstein agreed but said it was too late.

chez

[baumer]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The following is from The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.

"Imagine that George, who is wearing a spacesuit with a small, red flashing light is floating in the absolute darkness of completely space, far away from planets, stars or galaxies. From George's perspective, he is completely stationary, engulfed in the uniform, still blackness of the cosmos. Off in the distance, George catches sight of a tiny, green flashing light that appears to be coming closer and closer. Finally, it gets close enough to see that the light is attached to another space-dweller, Gracie, who is slowly floating by. She waves as she passes, as does George, and she recedes into the distance. This story can be told with equal validity from Gracie's perspective."

So Gracie sees George floating by, and he appears to approach and then recede into the distant cosmos, while she remains "stationary".

More from The Elegant Universe:

"The two stories describe one and the same situation from two distinct but equally valid points of view. Each observer feels stationary and perceives the other as moving. Each perspective is understandable and justifiable. As there is symmetry between the two space-dwellers, there is, on quite fundamental grounds, no way of saying one perspective is "right" and the other "wrong". Each perspective has an equal claim on truth."

So as you can see, there are two conflicting, truthful ways to describe this event.

I want to know how "applying relativity" to this scenario will "get the same answers about the world" and show that "there is only one truth of the matter."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever its called, the theory is showing that despite the appearance of different truths to different observers if they apply relativity they will get the same answers about the world and so there is only one truth of the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The following is from The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.

"Imagine that George, who is wearing a spacesuit with a small, red flashing light is floating in the absolute darkness of completely space, far away from planets, stars or galaxies. From George's perspective, he is completely stationary, engulfed in the uniform, still blackness of the cosmos. Off in the distance, George catches sight of a tiny, green flashing light that appears to be coming closer and closer. Finally, it gets close enough to see that the light is attached to another space-dweller, Gracie, who is slowly floating by. She waves as she passes, as does George, and she recedes into the distance. This story can be told with equal validity from Gracie's perspective."

So Gracie sees George floating by, and he appears to approach and then recede into the distant cosmos, while she remains "stationary".

More from The Elegant Universe:

"The two stories describe one and the same situation from two distinct but equally valid points of view. Each observer feels stationary and perceives the other as moving. Each perspective is understandable and justifiable. As there is symmetry between the two space-dwellers, there is, on quite fundamental grounds, no way of saying one perspective is "right" and the other "wrong". Each perspective has an equal claim on truth."

So as you can see, there are two conflicting, truthful ways to describe this event.

I want to know how "applying relativity" to this scenario will "get the same answers about the world" and show that "there is only one truth of the matter."

[/ QUOTE ]
In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict? Sure, if you knew nothing of relativity you might mistakenly conclude that the views conflict but if both apply relativity you will see they both conclude the same facts about the matter - one unconflicting truth.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know how "applying relativity" to this scenario will "get the same answers about the world" and show that "there is only one truth of the matter."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting this. You and I are on the same page. There is no "the truth" as to who is moving & who is stationary. I wait to see chez's response to this.

Another scenario (well known relativity example):

Al travels from earth to a star 4.3 light years away in a ship travelling at .99c (99% the speed of light) and returns to earth. His twin brother Bob has been timing Al's trip, as has Al. Al shows that the trip took him about 14.8 months, but Bob shows that the trip took Al about 8.5 years. Which one is "the true" time that it took Al to make the trip?

[ QUOTE ]
In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict? Sure, if you knew nothing of relativity you might mistakenly conclude that the views conflict but if both apply relativity you will see they both conclude the same facts about the matter - one unconflicting truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I'll do us all the favor...

By "The Truth", I mean there is ONE TRUE description regarding reality. 'Truth' is a description of reality. "The Truth" means that there is only one description that is true. If something is "relative", then that means "the truth" is different for a different observer.

What does "the truth" mean to you?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want to know how "applying relativity" to this scenario will "get the same answers about the world" and show that "there is only one truth of the matter."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting this. You and I are on the same page. There is no "the truth" as to who is moving & who is stationary. I wait to see chez's response to this.

Another scenario (well known relativity example):

Al travels from earth to a star 4.3 light years away in a ship travelling at .99c (99% the speed of light) and returns to earth. His twin brother Bob has been timing Al's trip, as has Al. Al shows that the trip took him about 14.8 months, but Bob shows that the trip took Al about 8.5 years. Which one is "the true" time that it took Al to make the trip?

[/ QUOTE ]
I already responded but I'll try again. Suppose the two G's are talking to each other and want to describe the world. If they don't 'apply' relativity' they will both claim the world is different, how could they decide who is telling the truth or should they conclude there is no truth of the matter?

In comes relativity, if they both understand relativity and 'apply' it to their situations and then describe the world to each other they will find they agree. So in which way do they have different truths?

chez

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
wtfsvi: I'm not sure that Kant did prove that, but his failing to prove it gets at the root of all this. His positions on a priori knowledge are internally consistent, but unverifiable because he's made the assumption that these forms of knowledge exist. Which is the same thing, we have to make some sort of assumption to exercise logic, and if that assumption is going to be that a world external to us exists - that seems like a fairly sensible and intuitive assumption to me. I don't believe the universe being relativistic makes much difference here either, it's still external.

[/ QUOTE ] He didn't prove that such knowledge existed, but he showed how it could be possible that it did. And as you said, that is by disregarding external reality. The external reality, as in the reality that can never be observed/percepted, is something we can't say anything about. It doesn't even make sense to think about "it". And potential truth, or any other concept we can think of, loses all meaning in relation to "it". Absolute truth (as in a truth that applies to all observers, the only way the word makes any sense) might be impossible to attain for humans, or for anyone else existing, but it might also not be.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In comes relativity, if they both understand relativity and 'apply' it to their situations and then describe the world to each other they will find they agree. So in which way do they have different truths?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, my point was directed at operating in our local environment, where relativity or quantum effects could effectively be ignored. My relativity reference was just to cover all bases and was from chezlaws way of looking at it - There is a 'observerless' reality ( or we can reduce it to those terms) which is separate from Kips correct point that we can never experience it as such.

At the same time, my full point if confined to scientific terms ( which I wasn't) would be that there will be times that newtonian views may work better if 'wronger' ( and not that relativity is right). There are times that considering electrons as little balls works better than working from a quantum perspective.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think humans are evolving towards more rationality and higher IQs?
There is currently a marked negative correlation between someone's IQ and the number of children he has.
Are you sure your theory applies to modern-day humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is no reason to think that our species is becoming more rational or have higher IQs. Intelligence is not an automatic advantage to reproductive success of any species. There is at least one species that dissolves it's 'brain' when it's done with it. Hmmm..humans may be the only species that do that just when they need it most (crack, etc).

Sure it applies. It's just a specialized restatement of how natural selection operates. If you live in the Bronx, thinking of your environment in relativistic or quantum terms would not advance your cause, even though that would likely be a 'truer' representation.

[ QUOTE ]
So in which way do they have different truths?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you answer my time question? What is the true time it took for Al to make the trip?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in which way do they have different truths?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you answer my time question? What is the true time it took for Al to make the trip?

[/ QUOTE ]
The question only makes sense if you dont 'apply' relativity. Asssuming relativity is correct then expecting one answer to that question is like expecting one answer to the question 'what colour are our pants?', the fact that mine are blue and your are red does not mean there are two conflicting truths about the colour of our pants.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict? Sure, if you knew nothing of relativity you might mistakenly conclude that the views conflict but if both apply relativity you will see they both conclude the same facts about the matter - one unconflicting truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I'll do us all the favor...

By "The Truth", I mean there is ONE TRUE description regarding reality. 'Truth' is a description of reality. "The Truth" means that there is only one description that is true. If something is "relative", then that means "the truth" is different for a different observer.

What does "the truth" mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there are only two different truths if they are inconsistent i.e. The truth to observer A is incompatible with the truth to observer B. It is because Einstein had a conviction that reality cannot be this way that led him to the theory of relativity which describes one single truth.

The problem seems to be that the descriptions you are talking about are non-relativistic descriptions. In newtonian terms there would be two truths. However, make the descriptions relativistic and they are the same.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you answer my time question? What is the true time it took for Al to make the trip?

[/ QUOTE ]

In relativity terms, there is no 'true time', I think that's one of it's main underlying themes. From a layman's view of it, "THE truth" would be along these lines.
"The trip will look to george as 5 hours and to gracie as 3 hours"
"Neither george or gracie have any claim that their perspective is true".

Is every declarative statement partly true and partly false? Are some of them entirely true or entirely false? Can you give an example of one that is partly true and partly false?

I believe every statement is partly true and partly false, yes. Examples range from "I am real" to "the earth has a diameter of ~8000 miles" to "2+2=4." Every statement is a valid example.

"This statement is false."

It's essentially the ontological concepts from Taoism or Buddhism with the religious elements removed. Most good examples (including the one above) are really just semantic posturing. When you ask for an example it seems as though you are looking for a way to create a conceptual representation of the idea. But the idea itself is that our conceptual framework is limited. There may or may not be a way to encompass the idea of the limitations of our context of understanding within that context itself, but even if there is it would not be an easy thing to accomplish.

I don't believe the universe works purely according to logical rules. However, I believe human understanding is contingent upon logical principles. No matter what a human believes, that belief cannot be "true" because there is an extralogical component to it that the human is incapable of apprehending.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what a human believes, that belief cannot be "true" because there is an extralogical component to it that the human is incapable of apprehending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that true? hmmmm...

Einstien didn't like the concept of black holes which is a natural extrapolation of his view on gravity (or to be more precise his view on the way that matter warps space time).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in which way do they have different truths?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you answer my time question? What is the true time it took for Al to make the trip?

[/ QUOTE ]
The question only makes sense if you dont 'apply' relativity. Asssuming relativity is correct then expecting one answer to that question is like expecting one answer to the question 'what colour are our pants?', the fact that mine are blue and your are red does not mean there are two conflicting truths about the colour of our pants.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
As you probably are unfamiliar with the theory of pants (chezlaw, Marksnspenski 1982), how about the doppler effect as a non-relativistic example.

Mr A has a lamp emiting light at wavelength w1, MR B is moving away at constant velocity v.

Mr A's truth - light has wavelength w1
Mr B's truth - light has wavelength w1 + d

These appear to be different truths but once you 'apply' the doppler effect to the descriptions them both Mr A and MR B will describe the single underlying truth (light emited at w and increased to w+d by them moving apart at velocity v). They will both agree that there is no single observed wavelength for both of them.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I believe every statement is partly true and partly false, yes. Examples range from "I am real" to "the earth has a diameter of ~8000 miles" to "2+2=4." Every statement is a valid example.

"This statement is false."

It's essentially the ontological concepts from Taoism or Buddhism with the religious elements removed. Most good examples (including the one above) are really just semantic posturing. When you ask for an example it seems as though you are looking for a way to create a conceptual representation of the idea. But the idea itself is that our conceptual framework is limited. There may or may not be a way to encompass the idea of the limitations of our context of understanding within that context itself, but even if there is it would not be an easy thing to accomplish.

I don't believe the universe works purely according to logical rules. However, I believe human understanding is contingent upon logical principles. No matter what a human believes, that belief cannot be "true" because there is an extralogical component to it that the human is incapable of apprehending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is "I am real" only partly true? Or "2+2=4"?

What does the semantic paradox "this statement is false" have to do with it?

If the idea you are trying to communicate cannot be adequately represented conceptually, how am I supposed to understand what you are saying?

Who said the universe works according to logical rules? The universe works according to natural laws, not logical rules, right?

If this extralogical component is always there which makes it impossible for us to apprehend a belief, then how are you able to apprehend what you are trying to say?

The doppler effect mimics relativity but it's an inaccurate paralell.

The doppler effect is how individuals moving towards a wave (or a wave moving towards individuals) adds to it's frequency, individuals moving away from it detract from it. There is still an initial wave that these operations operate on.

With relativity this is not so. For example, two spaceships in a universe without anything but two spaceships pass eachother in the night. From space ship A it appears that it is at rest and the other spaceship is moving. Glancing at a clock on spaceship B the people on spaceship A notice that it's time is moving HALF as quickly as their own.

People on spaceship B looking at spaceship A notice the same thing.

Which clock is actually slowing down? Which ship is at rest and which is in motion? You can't tell. You don't know. It doesn't matter.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The doppler effect mimics relativity but it's an inaccurate paralell.

The doppler effect is how individuals moving towards a wave (or a wave moving towards individuals) adds to it's frequency, individuals moving away from it detract from it. There is still an initial wave that these operations operate on.

With relativity this is not so. For example, two spaceships in a universe without anything but two spaceships pass eachother in the night. From space ship A it appears that it is at rest and the other spaceship is moving. Glancing at a clock on spaceship B the people on spaceship A notice that it's time is moving HALF as quickly as their own.

People on spaceship B looking at spaceship A notice the same thing.

Which clock is actually slowing down? Which ship is at rest and which is in motion? You can't tell. You don't know. It doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was an analogy that two apparantly different descriptions become the same once a theory is 'applied'.

The same with relativity, if both 'apply' it to their descriptions then their apparantly different descriptions become the same.

chez

But the point (in my example) is that they don't become the same.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But the point (in my example) is that they don't become the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
and my point is that they do /images/graemlins/smile.gif get both of them to describe what's going on to a third person. Will that third person have to decide which one is telling the truth? (all of them assuming relativity is true and applying it correctly)

chez

In my example there can be no third person as it is a universe of just two spaceships. Regardless...

you take a cat and put it in a box. This box is sealed from everything in the universe. In that box is a poison that is set off by the decay of an atom in the box. If the atom decays the poison kills the cat.

Since we cannot observe whether or not the atom decays the cat is both alive and dead.

Which is the real truth? Is the cat alive or dead? We can't know. He isn't.



Another example...
Does spacetime really curve? Or do the straight rulers we measure it with curve? The answer... it doesn't matter. Whatever is more USEFUL as a scientific tool is what we choose.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In my example there can be no third person as it is a universe of just two spaceships. Regardless...

[/ QUOTE ] Assume a mythical 3rd person - the descriptions will be the same.

[ QUOTE ]
you take a cat and put it in a box. This box is sealed from everything in the universe. In that box is a poison that is set off by the decay of an atom in the box. If the atom decays the poison kills the cat.

Since we cannot observe whether or not the atom decays the cat is both alive and dead.

Which is the real truth? Is the cat alive or dead? We can't know. He isn't.

[/ QUOTE ] Under relativity (plus classical physics) the cat is alive or dead (assuming we cold tell if we looked at the cat), we just don't know which. Introducing QM will just confuse this bit of the conversation.

[ QUOTE ]
Another example...
Does spacetime really curve? Or do the straight rulers we measure it with curve? The answer... it doesn't matter. Whatever is more USEFUL as a scientific tool is what we choose.


[/ QUOTE ] hmmm, another time

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Does spacetime really curve? Or do the straight rulers we measure it with curve? The answer... it doesn't matter. Whatever is more USEFUL as a scientific tool is what we choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be using "useful" interchangeably with 'true'. There are theories that would be considered essentially 'true' in a scientific sense and models that are considered 'useful'. Treating electrons as marbles may be useful in certain situations, that model doesn't suddenly become elevated beyond quantum mechanics because of the specific usefulness.

"it doesn't matter" depends on the goal, it's not a universal statement.

[baumer]

[ QUOTE ]
In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict?

[/ QUOTE ]
To George, he was stationary and Gracie was moving.
To Gracie, she was stationary and George was moving.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, if you knew nothing of relativity you might mistakenly conclude that the views conflict but if both apply relativity you will see they both conclude the same facts about the matter - one unconflicting truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain to me what "applying relativity" means.

What is the ONE ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFUL conclusion George and Gracie reach about the event?

Is is that they disagree? That "both are true", therefore that in itself is a single truth, even though the sub-truths are conflicting?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To George, he was stationary and Gracie was moving.
To Gracie, she was stationary and George was moving.


[/ QUOTE ]
They are not relativistic descriptions which is why they conflict. Relativistically both of them they are moving relative to each other and will describe the same thing.

chez

Science is not concerned with truth. All that matters is whether or not a system, model or theory is useful.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is "I am real" only partly true? Or "2+2=4"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
What does the semantic paradox "this statement is false" have to do with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. But no other example is any better. I suppose if you want something that is more practical and less abstract, assume that a race exists that can only think in terms of whole numbers for some reason. The idea of fractions is just beyond them. Because they cannot imagine any number between 3 and 4, they believe that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is exactly 3. In a way, that's true - in another way, it's false. Perhaps it's "actually" false, but the closest this race can come to understanding the truth is this belief that pi=3.

I believe that human beings are similar in a way to the race described above. I believe our understanding is sketchy and clumsy and full of holes. If there is a "true reality" I don't think we can possibly understand it on any basic level. But I believe our notion of "truth" is itself similar to the notion of pi I suggested earlier. It's hopelessly inaccurate and we can't understand why.

[ QUOTE ]
If the idea you are trying to communicate cannot be adequately represented conceptually, how am I supposed to understand what you are saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea I'm trying to communicate is that we can't understand reality, and that our notions of truth are clumsy and inaccurate. What cannot be represented conceptually is the "actual reality," which I believe is far more complex than any "true vs untrue" dichotomies.

[ QUOTE ]
Who said the universe works according to logical rules? The universe works according to natural laws, not logical rules, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And I think it's possible that physics is actually starting to validate what I'm saying, but I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. However, the typical assumption is that natural law has an order to it, or follows certain patterns. In other words, that it is logical.

[ QUOTE ]
If this extralogical component is always there which makes it impossible for us to apprehend a belief, then how are you able to apprehend what you are trying to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just understand that I'm not capable of really understanding anything. I don't really "understand" the idea that there is no "the truth," but I believe it. I'm not sure I even believe it so much as I "accept" it, but it follows from my philosophy.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is not concerned with truth. All that matters is whether or not a system, model or theory is useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody somewhere disagrees- (from Wiki)
"Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) is a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism aimed at finding out the truth."

I'm not using Wiki as an authority, just that the view you express is one way of approaching the theories and models science uses. If in one
situation the jello model of light gave more useful results than the quantum model, most scientists would still consider the quantum model "truer".

Well, I as well am certainly no expert on the matter, but I've been reading a few books on it lately and they said roughly the viewpoint I expressed. I could definitely be wrong.

[baumer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To George, he was stationary and Gracie was moving.
To Gracie, she was stationary and George was moving.


[/ QUOTE ]
They are not relativistic descriptions which is why they conflict. Relativistically both of them they are moving relative to each other and will describe the same thing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I think I understand what you were trying to say this whole time, and it makes sense.

I'm still having trouble equating this single "relative" truth to the absolute space or absolute time of Newton.

I can't seem to understand this event from the "truthful observer's" perspective.

I have a question, out of curiosity; do you think that the limitations on our being able to understand the universe are simply cognitive and contingent, or that it's actually in principle impossible for us to understand the universe?

"Yes. And I think it's possible that physics is actually starting to validate what I'm saying, but I don't pretend to understand quantum mechanics. However, the typical assumption is that natural law has an order to it, or follows certain patterns. In other words, that it is logical."

That's a colloquial sense of 'logical'--not a formal sense. In that sense, aren't physical phenomena logical since there are clear patterns and we can make very accurate predictions? How could that be the case if nature wasn't logical, in the loose sense?

"The idea I'm trying to communicate is that we can't understand reality, and that our notions of truth are clumsy and inaccurate. What cannot be represented conceptually is the "actual reality," which I believe is far more complex than any "true vs untrue" dichotomies."

I understand the belief, but tell me *why* you believe it. What are your grounds for believing it--what kind of reasons can you give me for why I should believe it?

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question, out of curiosity; do you think that the limitations on our being able to understand the universe are simply cognitive and contingent, or that it's actually in principle impossible for us to understand the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine it's possible, but I don't really know.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a colloquial sense of 'logical'--not a formal sense. In that sense, aren't physical phenomena logical since there are clear patterns and we can make very accurate predictions? How could that be the case if nature wasn't logical, in the loose sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

The colloquial sense is probably best here, yes. I believe that "physical phenomena" as we perceive them are actually conceptual constructs based on inference, while you seem to believe they have an external existence. That changes the flavor of the question somewhat. But really that's beside the point.

Consider my previous example of a race that can't understand fractions. Their understanding would still allow them to achieve a formidable level of technology relative to most species. They might have language and weapons and agriculture without being able to conceive of a "number between numbers." They might infer based on the power their understanding grants them (relative to other species) that it must be "true" or valid. And in a way they are right. Pi=3 is closer to the truth than pi=2, after all.

How would we expect them to recognize that their view of the world is incomplete? Mainly through the fact that their calculations would show some margin of error. If they were to investigate this margin of error, they would find apparent randomness. 1.5 would be either 1 or 2 depending on the circumstances. They might come up with a strange theory that there is a number that is "both 1 and 2," but remain unable to actually conceive of such a number in any useful way. Eventually they might even come up with some technological means to implement fractional mechanics - but their inability to grasp the concept would still fundamentally limit their understanding.

Our predictions are accurate, but all of our physical predictions have some margin of error. The actual margins of error are irrelevant; if we understood the "true" mechanics of the universe there would be no margin of error at all. In trying to identify the source of these margins of error we have (from what I understand) stumbled onto apparent randomness. Exactly what we would expect if there is a basic gap in our understanding. This is what I mean when I say that "physics is actually starting to validate what I'm saying."

[ QUOTE ]
"The idea I'm trying to communicate is that we can't understand reality, and that our notions of truth are clumsy and inaccurate. What cannot be represented conceptually is the "actual reality," which I believe is far more complex than any "true vs untrue" dichotomies."

I understand the belief, but tell me *why* you believe it. What are your grounds for believing it--what kind of reasons can you give me for why I should believe it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few reasons.

Implausibility is one. It strikes me as highly unlikely that our understanding is as supreme as we make it out to be. To me the human race, for all its achievements, is just the highest order of primates currently alive on Earth. In comparison to the other species on the planet, we are really something. But take a look at them - it would be absurd to suggest that any other species is capable of understanding the universe on any fundamental level. Why do we believe it of ourselves? Considering that we are the product of a relatively simple reproductive mechanic, I do not think it is realistic to assume that nothing is beyond our understanding.

Then there are the limits of my own understanding. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine any effect without a cause. Therefore, any theory that involves "something from nothing" is beyond me. The "big bang" or any other universe-creation concept, including theories of randomness, qualify here. I can "understand" these theories from a structural standpoint, but I can't actually grasp them. While I can understand the implications of true randomness, the concept itself is alien and baffling to me. It seems to me that there "must" be some underlying order, and I just can't let go of that idea.

The next bit isn't easy to explain on a message board. Due to my philosophy I take a sort of "dialectical" approach to theory, imagining greater and greater synthesis of apparently disparate elements of reality. By extrapolating this "chain of truths," I arrive at a point where "everything is both true and false." The mechanics of this are a bit involved and idealistic so I won't go into them.

Finally, some elements of my direct personal experience are very hard to integrate into my world view. This is objectively the weakest support, but it has a lot of visceral strength for me. (I'm talking about altered states of consciousness mainly)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In which way do Gracie's amd George's views conflict?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To George, he was stationary and Gracie was moving.
To Gracie, she was stationary and George was moving.


[/ QUOTE ]
They are not relativistic descriptions which is why they conflict. Relativistically both of them they are moving relative to each other and will describe the same thing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I think I understand what you were trying to say this whole time, and it makes sense.

I'm still having trouble equating this single "relative" truth to the absolute space or absolute time of Newton.

I can't seem to understand this event from the "truthful observer's" perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its tough to abandon absolute space/time but that's part of 'applying' relativity. The truthful observers can both describe how it appears to them (by appears we mean objective evidence, clocks and rulers etc) and not only realise that these seemingly different truths are coherent but also know how it will appear to the other without asking them.

So its better than the pants, not only can we both truthfully claim that our pants are different colours but, if the analogy were stronger, I could tell you what colour your pants are.

chez

[baumer]

Reading you loud and clear now.

You have changed my point of view.

[Dan Mezick]

There may be one reality.

But each individual/sentient being/consciousness that is viewing/experiencing/observing/participating in the "reality" event has a set of subjective and unique perceptual filters through which the "reality" percolates, on it's way to "full" perception. These filters are based on your available bodily senses, and your beliefs.

For example if you believe time does not exist (that the past is a memory and the future does not exist) that there is simply "the present", then in that case your perceptions of "reality" will be very different from another who strongly believes in linear space-time.

There is also strong evidence that everything influences everything else, meaning that if you are present you are influencing the "reality" that others perceive.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm

"I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it."

--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927

From the web page:

"Heisenberg also drew profound implications for the concept of causality, or the determinacy of future events. Schrödinger had earlier attempted to offer an interpretation of his formalism in which the electron waves represent the density of charge of the electron in the orbit around the nucleus. Max Born, however, showed that the "wave function" of Schrödinger's equation does not represent the density of charge or matter. It describes only the probability of finding the electron at a certain point. In other words, quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results."

Imagine that.