My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

"Did the universe exist before we existed?"

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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".

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, 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??

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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."

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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".

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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
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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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."

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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.

Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth
 

[ 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?