Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-11-2005, 01:02 AM
imported_luckyme imported_luckyme is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Default 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".
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-11-2005, 01:10 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-11-2005, 06:52 AM
baumer baumer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 44
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-12-2005, 03:59 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-12-2005, 04:05 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-12-2005, 04:05 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-12-2005, 04:45 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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)
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-12-2005, 08:17 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-13-2005, 06:27 AM
baumer baumer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 44
Default Re: My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth

Reading you loud and clear now.

You have changed my point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-13-2005, 02:24 PM
Dan Mezick Dan Mezick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Foxwoods area
Posts: 297
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.