My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth

[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.