What is the Difference Between Objective and Subjective Truth?

[Coldcall]

I don't think there is an ultimate truth, other than the truth we think is the truth which stems from us being products of this Earth and universe.

The fact our mathematics is only an interpretation of how we imperfectly perceive the universe suggests the idea of a single universal truth is probably flawed.

However as humans living on Earth and being social animals, we need that idea of truth at least locally, otherwise societal chaos would ensue. The idea of absolute "truth" is behind all man-made laws and represents our concept of justice.

 

[gabrielh]

There is only one truth. The truth that is reality. The way to find truth is to understand reality.

 

[baywax]

There is only one truth. The truth that is reality. The way to find truth is to understand reality.

I tend to agree however many rightly point to the fact that reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance: you may find a particular human beautiful (and that is your reality) because of their tan or their body type, fitness level, eating habits and intellect.

The reality of all these features that attract you is that there is musculature, veins, skeletal structure, gooey organs and undigested food traveling along 23 miles of intestine... just under the "beautiful" human's tanned skin. So, the reality of their beauty, in your eyes, is really just a few millimeters away from becoming a whole other realty of functional structures that would take you another life time of conditioning to find attractive.

However, the little we know about reality and its "structure" is equal to the amount of truth we have been able to ascertain. Through experience we've learned that investigation is the key to the path toward the truth. If investigations into the nature of reality are stopped, the truth becomes much less attainable.

Can you hide the truth? Or does it just keep popping up like a cold case file every so many years?

 

[gabrielh]

I tend to agree however many rightly point to the fact that reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance: you may find a particular human beautiful (and that is your reality) because of their tan or their body type, fitness level, eating habits and intellect.

The reality of all these features that attract you is that there is musculature, veins, skeletal structure, gooey organs and undigested food traveling along 23 miles of intestine... just under the "beautiful" human's tanned skin. So, the reality of their beauty, in your eyes, is really just a few millimeters away from becoming a whole other realty of functional structures that would take you another life time of conditioning to find attractive.

However, the little we know about reality and its "structure" is equal to the amount of truth we have been able to ascertain. Through experience we've learned that investigation is the key to the path toward the truth. If investigations into the nature of reality are stopped, the truth becomes much less attainable.

Can you hide the truth? Or does it just keep popping up like a cold case file every so many years?

Excellent ideas. I do, however, tend to think that his subjective reality that we all have is merely temporary, until we understand the full picture of true reality, perhaps by the theory of everything or something like it. Just a thought though.

 

[WaveJumper]

And how does one describe 'ultimate truth'?
Because you've just moved from the empirically describable, into the realm of metaphysics, religion and idealism.

We aren't sure that science can describe reality. It's been our dream since the dawn of mankind, it's been our road to Truth. But we aren't sure if the human mind will be capable of achieving this. Modern physics is already faced with notions that would have been considered metaphysical 1 century ago. Nobody expected that our long-held perceptual concepts of space and time would be challenged in such a radical way by the experimentally verified GR and QM.

LOL. Degrade science? Did I not show the proper reverence? Should I repent?

You comment that scientists in the likes of Max Tegmark, John Wheeler, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman... were out of their depths was pretty radical for a physics forum. What else can you suggest in place of science, scientific theories and theoretical physics? Jesus Christ, Mohammad and Buddha?

And actually, I quoted you, have another look, you said this:Every theory involves intuition. That's where new hypotheses come from. We have a pattern seeking brain.

Where role does intuition play when a single electron passes through two slits at the same time? Or in the situation when the electron wavelength is precisely known, and the electron is located everywhere in the universe(good question would be - what is the universe?)? What level of intuition is involved in the understanding that the universe exists and does not exist at the same time, as described by the frame of reference of a photon vs our own frame? Or in the correct answer to the question - "What momentum does the electron have?" -- "The electron has all the possible momenta at the same time"? Or in the Delayed Choice Experiment and its retrocausality that almost makes a laughing stock of the idea that we understand what time really is? Is human intuition helping you understand how a whole galaxy(e.g the Milky Way) can be swallowed by a giant black hole and reduced to zero(or very very close to zero)?

"I stand by my comments. Degrade science? Pfffft. Whatever.

It's very doubtful if scientists are out of their depths. Unless you can build new, better physics from scratch, i'd think you were joking.

 

[Huckleberry]

I think truth is what happens when one attempts to apply purpose to fact. It implies a subjective nature to an objective reality.

 

[WaveJumper]

However, the little we know about reality and its "structure" is equal to the amount of truth we have been able to ascertain. Through experience we've learned that investigation is the key to the path toward the truth. If investigations into the nature of reality are stopped, the truth becomes much less attainable.

Well said.

 

[JoeDawg]

We aren't sure that science can describe reality.

And yet it describes reality quite well. But describing reality is not Truth. Science relies on observation, inductive reasoning, and probability. When Einstein described gravity as curvature in space, he was using geometry to help explain why gravity works the way it does. This is a huge leap, which is not to say that it hasn't proved a very useful one, but it relies on an intuitive understanding of the underlying nature of gravity. Explanation is an area, where science is on much shakier ground, compared to observation and prediction.

You comment that scientists in the likes of ... were out of their depths was pretty radical for a physics forum.

If science can't describe the 'Truth' of reality, then they are out of their depths. Defining the limits of science is important, both because it let's us know what science can't tell us, but also what it can.

Where role does intuition play...

Intuition comes in when you see connections before you have experimental data, or when you are trying to fill in an unknown part of an equation. Einstein did this. And other scientists have spent years testing the predictions of his theory, even beyond his understanding of it. Intuition was what caused Einstein to formulate his cosmological constant, and then reject it. Intuition is why he rejected QM. Its why any scientist pursues a theory either to prove or disprove it.

Is human intuition helping you understand how...

Yes.

It's very doubtful if scientists are out of their depths. Unless you can build new, better physics from scratch, i'd think you were joking.

That's like saying unless I know how to fly, I shouldn't say that other people probably can't.

 

[WaveJumper]

We aren't sure that science can describe reality.

And yet it describes reality quite well.

This time I am going to be rather honest here -- you don't have even a hint of clue what you are talking about. You need to get off your high horse and get your facts straight before you make such bold statements, unless all you've heard in your lifetime was classical physics which would at least somewhat justify the above Nonsense. While i encourage everyone to participate in the discussion, it'd be extremely helpful if everyone is familiar with at least the major concepts and theories of modern physics.

Do you know why physicists such as Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Eddington and others turned to mysticism?

It's not because the new physics validated or implied some metaphysical description of reality, but because contemporary physics showed us that the true nature of reality was beyond the reach of physics. Quantum mechanics allows some weak objectivity because it predicts probabilities of observable phenomena in a rather precise and indisputable way. But the inherent uncertainty of quantum measurements means that it is impossible to infer an unambiguous description of "reality" as it really is. Reality is essentially fuzzy and refuses to be pinned down. Whether mysticism provides a direct and valid experience of the true nature of reality is another question, but it's for sure that physics doesn't. If you are itching to know what reality is, other approaches might yield better results. Next time you hear of prominent physicists talking about a veiled reality, you'll remember this conversation. What the veiled underlying reality might be is anybody's guess - a software program, a higher level of existence, some incomprehensible process or God himself. While i am definitely not religious in the traditional sense, i'd say that the 20th and 21st centuries are not the best time to be a hardcore atheist.

But describing reality is not Truth.

Says who? Is this a premonition, a hunch or what?

Science relies on observation, inductive reasoning, and probability. When Einstein described gravity as curvature in space, he was using geometry to help explain why gravity works the way it does. This is a huge leap, which is not to say that it hasn't proved a very useful one, but it relies on an intuitive understanding of the underlying nature of gravity. Explanation is an area, where science is on much shakier ground, compared to observation and prediction.

What should this prove?

 

[JoeDawg]

Next time you hear of prominent physicists talking about a veiled reality, you'll remember this conversation.

LOL. Not likely. You keep going around in circles. Whether you have a grasp on physics or not, you don't seem to understand the philosophy behind science.

What should this prove?

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is about observation and prediction.
Proof is a mathematical concept. People often get that confused. So don't feel bad.

 

[WaveJumper]

LOL. Not likely. You keep going around in circles. Whether you have a grasp on physics or not, you don't seem to understand the philosophy behind science.

Science doesn't prove anything. Science is about observation and prediction.
Proof is a mathematical concept. People often get that confused. So don't feel bad.

Whatever. There is just one point you need to see - scientists have adopted a more humble stance on the idea of a full picture of reality(or a theory of absolutely everything). Physics doesn't(formally) pretend to have anything substantial to say about the intrinsic true nature of the physical world. We hope we can build a full theory of everything that would describe reality, but that's a just hope, if not a dream given the constraints and limitations we are faced with in quantum physics. The same limitations that make QM a statistical field of physics.

 

[JoeDawg]

Whatever. There is just one point you need to see - scientists have adopted a more humble stance on the idea of a full picture of reality(or a theory of absolutely everything). Physics doesn't(formally) pretend to have anything substantial to say about the intrinsic true nature of the physical world. We hope we can build a full theory of everything that would describe reality, but that's a just hope, if not a dream given the constraints and limitations we are faced with in physics.

Uhm, thanks, but I'm well aware of the limits of science.
Science models reality, it is not reality.
I've been saying that sort of thing pretty consistently on this forum.
You were the one talking about TRUTH, not me.

 

[WaveJumper]

Uhm, thanks, but I'm well aware of the limits of science.
Science models reality, it is not reality.
I've been saying that sort of thing pretty consistently on this forum.
You were the one talking about TRUTH, not me.

That's because I believe the Truth is there. Even if science cannot reach it.

Below the indeterminacy of the quantum world, there must be a background underlying reality that would account for the enormous complexity, logic and beauty found in our classical realm of existence. I don't want to quote Einstein for this, but through the cage some of us can "see"(infer) that QM is not the final thing that can be said about reality. Or at least we hope so.

 

[JoeDawg]

Below the indeterminacy of the quantum world, there must be a background underlying reality that would account for...

Welcome to the wonderful world of human intuition.

 

[baywax]

Excellent ideas. I do, however, tend to think that his subjective reality that we all have is merely temporary, until we understand the full picture of true reality, perhaps by the theory of everything or something like it. Just a thought though.

When we understand the nature of true reality won't there just be another level of reality that has not been predicted? The history of science is full of discovery after discovery and each one either builds on or completely obliterates the truths and theories of the last.

 

[baywax]

I think truth is what happens when one attempts to apply purpose to fact. It implies a subjective nature to an objective reality.

Subjectivity is an end-result of objective truths (such as neuro-nets etc)... these true phenomena have produced our awareness and opinions and these may or may not reflect the objective truth of physical existence. Applying a purpose to fact is a fallacy born of the survival instinct. Its a necessary view point in terms of the survival of our species. Purpose is highly subjective whereas truth is the objective actuality of a phenomenon. Sometimes truth can be very "inconvenient", sometimes very helpful.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Feels to me like Truth is just like God, or the meaning of life, or any other concepts that humans can just, and only just theorize about, never completely describing the experience of It all.

My truth is that Truth is simultaneously the only thing and all that exists, beyond however I can define it, however I can experience it but nevertheless available.

Another thought I might have regarding Truth is that it requires my presence to be able to reveal itself… if none of us are here to experience Truth, then it has no purpose and just Is, manifesting itself as an absolute equal to Everything and Unity.


Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Hello to all,

Feels to me like Truth is just like God, or the meaning of life, or any other concepts that humans can just, and only just theorize about, never completely describing the experience of It all.

My truth is that Truth is simultaneously the only thing and all that exists, beyond however I can define it, however I can experience it but nevertheless available.

Another thought I might have regarding Truth is that it requires my presence to be able to reveal itself… if none of us are here to experience Truth, then it has no purpose and just Is, manifesting itself as an absolute equal to Everything and Unity.


Regards,

VE

As far as I see it, truth needs no verification nor justification from biological units such as ourselves. We are simply lucky enough to have a glimpse of it... as we are lucky enough to breathe fresh air or drink clean water.

Strapping a purpose to nature is simply anthropocentric and bio-centric sentimentality. Purpose is the kind of concept that has continued our species as a component of nature, yet only applies as a naturally selected trait of a will to survive.

 

[TSfelix]

First, let me apologize for having not read all of the comments, although I did read through a lot of them. But I would like to write a few things (my take on it, if you will).

First, the word 'truth' does not have the same meaning in all contexts. In the most general sense, the 'truth' might connote the way the world is -- irrespective of what anyone might believe about the world. That is the most general sense, but (other than perhaps stating that one does believe there is 'a way the world is') it's fairly vacuous, as there is no 'way the world is not', independent of our beliefs. In that sense of truth, the problem is less about the world being some way, and more about the issue of how we can know the way the world 'really' is.

But to get to a more specific notion of truth, 'truth' can be a property of declarative statements (whether exclusively or not, is debatable...for example, whether a 'theory' is really a good candidate for 'truth). In the realm of statements, what it means for an empirical statement to be true, for example, is different from what it means for a mathematical statement to be true, or an ethical statement or an aesthetic statement (if they can in fact be true). These are very hotly debated topics in philosophy.

Given that this is a physics forum, let's take a basic 'observation reporting' claim for an example:

'That (object) is red'

Now, according to the traditional correspondence theory of truth, that statement is true if in fact the object is red. But, we are immediately vexed with the issue that there might not be 'red' objects in the world independent of observers -- which means that the statement, said all in good faith and in the presence of what appears to be a red object, does not accord with our notion that truth is the way the world really is, independent of our beliefs -- furthermore, if there is no red out in the world independent of observation, then there is literally nothing for the term 'red' to correspond to. This simple notion of correspondence is much too flimsy.

A preferred model, one that I am currently thinking a good bit about, is that what makes these kinds of statements true (statements actually uttered in the seeming presence of objects that the statements are about) is not that necessarily they (although sometimes they might) correspond to some 'thing' out in the world, but that the very meaning of the statement is a product of being in a particular sensory state (having a certain kind of experience...in this case having the experience of red). So, what the term 'red' means, just is having a certain kind of experience. Statements using that term are true when those statements are uttered while undergoing a particular experience.

In terms of corresponding to a world, the following is about as far as I would go. When one makes a statement like 'That (object) is red', something is going on in the world...a 'state of affairs', such that when one is having an experience of red, one is also a component of a particular state of affairs of which some aspects are directly relevant to actualizing the having of such an experience -- when one utters the statement while being a component in this state of affairs (which surely not only includes whatever is going on 'out there' but one's eyes and brain and everything else), then one's statement is true...and we can say that it 'corresponds' to the world.

That is a model, and a plausible one I think, for what it means for very basic observation type statements to be true. But it is also an oversimplified model. It doesn't take into account that even the most basic observation statement presupposes a complex conceptual apparatus available to the speaker...much of that conceptual apparatus not derived from the immediate observation being reported upon...

 

[ValenceE]

Dear Baywax,

Agreed that Truth needs none of my sentimentality to Be, so please don’t assume as to where I’m coming from. If you take a moment to re-read, I only wrote that Truth, without me or you or anyone would just Be... not revealing itself.

Would you have preferred I wrote ‘our presence’ instead of ‘my presence’? , please let me add;

This truth, which I’m sentimentally talking about, is the same one that gave you birth through your parents, and of course being of the human species, you need to breathe air and drink water in order to survive. Being fresh or clean is indeed how Truth has it planned, but unfortunately our world reality, through our detachment and selfishness, is unfolding differently.

Now, I do believe that the impulse given by this life, our lives, is in tune with Truth and in this sense the human purpose, as you mention, is given from Truth’s own purposeful energy.

Hopefully we’ll be able to make ourselves available to a deeper part of Truth which will enable us to become more apt to enact it in our daily lives, making this a better world.


Regards,

VE

 

[baywax]

Being fresh or clean is indeed how Truth has it planned,

I don't think the truth really has the ability to make plans.

Truth’s own purposeful energy.

As I mentioned, "purpose" is a anthropocentric and bio-centric sentiment.

Truth is, quite simply, "the way things really are" as opposed to "the way we think things really are" .

 

[Huckleberry]

Subjectivity is an end-result of objective truths (such as neuro-nets etc)... these true phenomena have produced our awareness and opinions and these may or may not reflect the objective truth of physical existence. Applying a purpose to fact is a fallacy born of the survival instinct. Its a necessary view point in terms of the survival of our species. Purpose is highly subjective whereas truth is the objective actuality of a phenomenon. Sometimes truth can be very "inconvenient", sometimes very helpful.

I think I understand what you mean here, but I disagree with your definition of truth. You describe truth as the objective actuality of a phenomenon. I would call that an undiscovered fact or an unknown variable. This kind of truth is within the realm of science, though I'm not sure why we would need a word other than fact to describe it.

I consider truth to be inseperable from consciousness. Truth gives meaning to facts. It is necessary in the process of drawing any conclusion from our senses. Because of this contradiction we may never be certain of what objective reality is. Truth is the understanding of an objective reality though subjective perception.

Here's an allegorical example. A friend of mine was tripping when he said, "I see a gremlin sitting on your shoulder." I looked at my shoulder and said, "I don't see anything there." Both of these are subjectively true statements, but we both knew that, in fact, there was no gremlin sitting on my shoulder. We both believed it was not objectively true that gremlins exist. I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science. It is the hopeless (or hopeful, depending on the observer) pursuit of philosophy.

Truth is to fact as understanding is to knowledge.

 

[ValenceE]

baywax, you wrote;

I don't think the truth really has the ability to make plans

Through you it does...


VE

edit: sorry baywax, just realized the b in your name isn't in caps...

 

[ValenceE]

Huckleberry, you wrote;

I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science.

No wonder we have a hard time meshing the quantic realm with the cosmos...


VE

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not sure what a quantum realm has to do with truth at all. I can't say that I understand either.

 

[skeptic2]

Reality as we experience it is merely perception.

True but I don't think we'd be willing to accept as reality the perception of a single person. It's only when the perception of a sufficient number of people agree that we are willing to accept them as reality. Unfortunately this definition would probably also have to accept religious beliefs as reality.

 

[baywax]

I think I understand what you mean here, but I disagree with your definition of truth. You describe truth as the objective actuality of a phenomenon. I would call that an undiscovered fact or an unknown variable. This kind of truth is within the realm of science, though I'm not sure why we would need a word other than fact to describe it.

I consider truth to be inseperable from consciousness. Truth gives meaning to facts. It is necessary in the process of drawing any conclusion from our senses. Because of this contradiction we may never be certain of what objective reality is. Truth is the understanding of an objective reality though subjective perception.

Here's an allegorical example. A friend of mine was tripping when he said, "I see a gremlin sitting on your shoulder." I looked at my shoulder and said, "I don't see anything there." Both of these are subjectively true statements, but we both knew that, in fact, there was no gremlin sitting on my shoulder. We both believed it was not objectively true that gremlins exist. I suspect that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science. It is the hopeless (or hopeful, depending on the observer) pursuit of philosophy.

Truth is to fact as understanding is to knowledge.

Perhaps... what I'm trying to rule out is the often incorrect or corrupt interpretation of fact, because this act obviously obscures the truth. Discovery and consciousness are human dependent. Truth, in a perfect sense, stands alone.

 

[baywax]

If the truth was in the forest... and no one "discovered" it, would the truth be there anyway?

My answer is "yes". What's yours?

 

[Huckleberry]

Perhaps... what I'm trying to rule out is the often incorrect or corrupt interpretation of fact, because this act obviously obscures the truth. Discovery and consciousness are human dependent. Truth, in a perfect sense, stands alone.

For certain, people's perceptions and prejudices sometimes obscure the truth, even in the most well meaning person. I feel that I would like to agree with you that a perfect truth stands alone. I'm just not sure. I would be more comfortable if the concept of a perfect truth were defined, if that is possible.

How is perfect (objective) truth distinct from a fact that has yet to be revealed? If they are synonymous then I don't see the need for this mysterious word called truth except to describe subjective perception. If there is a difference then how can we perceive it except by it's absence (knowledge that our knowledge is incomplete).

 

[WaveJumper]

If the truth was in the forest... and no one "discovered" it, would the truth be there anyway?

My answer is "yes". What's yours?

Intuitively i'd rush to say 'yes', i already made a similar statement earlier in the thread. However, a deeper insight would require a full definition of the place 'forest' and we cannot achieve this at present.

What does it mean that a forest exists and if it exists, where does it exist?

Physics cannot answer that, as we appear to live in both a local and a non-local universe at the same time. One or the other model is manifested in different circumstances and we have to swallow the extremely weird conclusion that the distance between Paris and New York is both 6000 kilometers and zero at the same time. Relativity paints a similar picture, time and space are not absolute but relative and even show an ability to disappear in certain frames of reference. So the only thing we can really say about the place "forest" is what we perceive with our senses, but we've already seen that the universe is not like that. We have to concede that the quote "the universe is not stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine" is currently the most we could say about it and the last part of your question - "...and no one discovered it, would the truth be there anyway?" cannot be answered unambiguously, as we lack a basic understanding of what space and location really are(if these are comprehensible at all). The whole concept of Truth becomes as fuzzy, undefined and mysterious as the concept "reality".Back to the old 19 century Newtonian classical physics, the answer to the question would unambiguously be - YES, the truth exists in the forest(the place and location "forest" being precisely defined), even if nobody discovered it.