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".

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