My Truth, Your Truth, The Truth

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[baumer]

[ 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."

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[ 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 ]
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?

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[wtfsvi]

[ 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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[ 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?