Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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".

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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...

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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).

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]
and my point is that they do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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".

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

"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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

"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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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)

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

Reading you loud and clear now.

You have changed my point of view.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.