My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth

[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 [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

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.