What is the Difference Between Objective and Subjective Truth?

[baywax]

Truth[/I] is something that has yet to be proven false. A truth is only an absolute truth when we take the limit of truth as time approaches positive and negative infinity and discover that it is still true.

At first I agree then I think about it and realize that positive and negative infinity are as much imaginary ideals as absolute truth since there is no way to verify that "infinity" exists beyond mathematical models of it.

 

[buffordboy23]

Do I understand your position to be similar to Einstein's in the EPR paradox in that you believe there is an underlying reality independent of whether we can detect or test it?

I am vaguely familiar with the EPR paradox. I would say no. Reality should be testable. My definition initially assumes that all things are true, and it is only later that we find them to be false.

 

[buffordboy23]

At first I agree then I think about it and realize that positive and negative infinity are as much imaginary ideals as absolute truth since there is no way to verify that "infinity" exists beyond mathematical models of it.

Yes, I agree they are imaginary ideals. I used them in my definition b/c our knowledge and thinking is too simplistic to confidently define the bounds of time for our reality, in regard to both the future and the past as measured from this exact moment. Therefore, the definition inherently covers all bounds of time.

 

[skeptic2]

Personally my take on what truth is... is two fold.

• One there are absolutes when it comes to truth...

• two... there is a truth for every moment in time and for every person experiencing it.

So, objectively, truth must be an absolute. While subjectively, truth is continuously changing for the person experiencing life.

Thank you!

* What makes you believe there is an absolute truth?
* How would we know truth if we discovered it?
* How could we ever be sure that what we accept as truth will never be contradicted by some other discovery?
* Why does everyone seem to have a different version of the truth.
* If our perceptions are the only way we can know our environment and if our perceptions can be easily fooled, as the psychologists say, how can we ever be sure our perceptions accurately represent truth or reality?

I remember thinking when I was about 12 how the more intelligent a person was the more easily he should be able to see through all the illogical beliefs of most people, so as you go up the intelligence scale, one should see their philosophical beliefs converge on the truth. Boy was I ever wrong. The diversity of beliefs among the intelligent is just as great if not greater than among the general population.

 

[baywax]

Yes, I agree they are imaginary ideals. I used them in my definition b/c our knowledge and thinking is too simplistic to confidently define the bounds of time for our reality, in regard to both the future and the past as measured from this exact moment. Therefore, the definition inherently covers all bounds of time.

There is some question as to whether time, succession and sequence are errantly based on a biological perspective of quantum time.

Abstract

In quantum mechanics, time plays a role unlike any other observable. We find that measuring whether an event happened, and measuring when an event happened are fundamentally different - the two measurements do not correspond to compatible observables and interfere with each other. We also propose a basic limitation on measurements of the arrival time of a free particle given by where is the particle's kinetic energy. The temporal order of events is also an ambiguous concept in quantum mechanics. It is not always possible to determine whether one event lies in the future or past of another event. One cannot measure whether one particle arrives to a particular location before or after another particle if they arrive within a time of of each other, where is the total kinetic energy of the two particles. These new inaccuracy limitations are dynamical in nature, and fundamentally different from the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. They refer to individual measurements of a single quantity. It is hoped that by understanding the role of time in quantum mechanics, we may gain new insight into the role of time in a quantum theory of gravity.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/thesis.html

People like the ones who wrote this paper are studying the microcosm of quantum mechanics and finding that time is not as cut and dried as it appears to the average person on the street.

So, I would propose that Truth not be determined by "how long" its been true but determined by simply if it is true or not... as in... "is it happening?", "is the observer interacting with the phenomenon in the present?"... and this has to be verified by the observer and the phenomenon "experiencing" one another simultaneously. This would apply to experiencing a "thought" and could apply to experiencing a "tree" or "wave ".

This is not to say that our perception of time is untrue, since it too is a phenomenon we utilize and endure ... I'm only saying that our perception of time may not sufficiently act as a phenomenon that can be used to verify a truth.

 

[wittgenstein]

The common sense view is that truth is the correspondence of a concept to reality. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. However, since the correspondence theory of truth is a concept, in order for it to be true it must correspond to reality. What could that reality be? Another correspondence of truth? Clearly, truth is hard to define.

 

[baywax]

Clearly, truth is hard to define.

It is hard to define. Perhaps there are two categories such as:

Relative Truth... ie: what I perceive is my truth (this can include mistaken identities like the mound of brown dirt being mistaken as a bear. The result is the same as if a bear were truly there... heart rate rises, adrenaline is released etc... but the truth formulated from my perception is incorrect)

Actual Truth... ie: the mound of brown dirt is a mound of brown dirt not a bear. Many truths compile to create this actual truth. How the mound of dirt got there, what is it's composition(?), how I got there, how the light made it look like a bear... and so on...

 

[buffordboy23]

So, I would propose that Truth not be determined by "how long" its been true but determined by simply if it is true or not... as in... "is it happening?", "is the observer interacting with the phenomenon in the present?"... and this has to be verified by the observer and the phenomenon "experiencing" one another simultaneously. This would apply to experiencing a "thought" and could apply to experiencing a "tree" or "wave "

Let me modify my old definitions in light of this info.

Let T be the set that contains every instant of time in reality, t; V be the set of two elements, "true" and "false"; and X(t) the function that maps T for some observable (e.g. I exist) onto the set V. Then,
1. the function X(t) is a truth, if there exists some t, X(t) = true.
2. the function X(t) is an absolute truth if and only if for every t, X(t) = true.

 

[baywax]

Let me modify my old definitions in light of this info.

Let T be the set that contains every instant of time in reality, t; V be the set of two elements, "true" and "false"; and X(t) the function that maps T for some observable (e.g. I exist) onto the set V. Then,
1. the function X(t) is a truth, if there exists some t, X(t) = true.
2. the function X(t) is an absolute truth if and only if for every t, X(t) = true.

There you go, less time dependent.

What is it when you have all these truths intersecting to create one more?
What's that called. Synergy...?... as in a synergy of truths?

 

[buffordboy23]

What is it when you have all these truths intersecting to create one more? What's that called. Synergy...?... as in a synergy of truths?

Hmmm...interesting idea. I never thought about it but I would agree with you. I'm trying to picture what a graph of it would like for the current evolution of our universe as we know it.

 

[baywax]

Hmmm...interesting idea. I never thought about it but I would agree with you. I'm trying to picture what a graph of it would like for the current evolution of our universe as we know it.

It would look like a genealogical chart. Much like the passing along of mutations... using those to trace the origin of the species. Although here the "mutation" would be a "truth". All of this would begin with one, simple, basic and profound truth (or "phenomenon").

However, the number of truths that create a new one is not limited to a pair of truths interacting... it can be a large number interacting. Unlike the conventional diploidy required to create an offspring in life. Because of this, today we are subjected to what seems like an infinite number of truths. But all of these are the "offspring" of one rather monsterous event or truth... at least.. according to this scenario. The shear number and gradients of truths today makes it difficult to discern which is basic and which is secondary... what is half truth and what is hidden truth.

Can truth be hidden?

 

[baywax]

One more sub-topic.

Truth vs Belief...

what are the percentages of commonality here?

Do I have to start a poll in a new thread?

 

[baywax]

The truth I'm trying to describe or discover is the kind of truth that
would be true to an anteater as well as to the human animal. It would
be such a purely true truth that it transcends specie's awareness and
remains "true" to itself. Does this make sense?

 

[baywax]

In the thread "Do I need to know the truth?" I came up with these two definitions for "truth" and "absolute truth".

Truth: is the accurate and objective description of an event or events

Absolute Truth: is the event or events

Any comments?