What is the Difference Between Objective and Subjective Truth?

[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.

 

[Huckleberry]

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?

I really don't know, but because I usually enjoy thinking I'll assume that it is.

 

[TSfelix]

Wavejumper:

The whole concept of Truth becomes as fuzzy, undefined and mysterious as the concept "reality".

Only meaningful declarative statements can be true or false. In non-bivalent logic systems one may also allow values of indeterminate. Notice here that the idea of a 'perfect' truth is really no longer applicable. Given a statement, it is either true, false, or indeterminate, maybe some fuzzy degree thereof, (or if it is a sort of statement that does not have truth-value, then it is neither).

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) provided the following model for thinking about the world. The world is the totality of facts. Facts consist of states of affairs.

A fact (perhaps not as scientists use the term) is simply whatever is the case - however the world is. Note, this is a statement about the world, not a statement about our knowledge or capacity for knowledge about the world. Facts hold whether there is actual 'vagueness' in the world or not. This is a presupposition, but does not require an argument because otherwise, there is no world (even if there is no 'mind independent' world, the presupposition is still admissible).

The most basic (non-inferential) statement that one can make about the world is an observation report - a statement that has as its semantic content one's immediate sensory experience (in an earlier post I have provided a model for thinking about how these statements can be true or false).

Such statements cannot be truly asserted independent of the experience that prompts them and they are never epistemically 'certain' - in the sense that such a statement could not possibly be false. They are always probable and prone to error. So we require justification. Justification for empirical claims never logically entail the truth of such claims (otherwise they would be necessary truths, which would mean such claims are certain, which they are not -- notice this is a claim about knowledge acquisition, not what might be the case for states of affairs). The strength of a justifier is: if the justifier is true, the more likely the claim being justified is true. The relationship is only probable, and probability is determined by 'relevant alternatives', i.e. for an empirical claim, empirical alternatives are more relevant than logical alternatives, similar empirical alternatives are more relevant than non-similar empirical alternatives, and so forth. This doesn't always hold, but for exceptions some account must be offered. This does assume that states of affairs (at least as experienced, which is the denotation of observation reports) are 'law-like' (which is an admissible assumption 1. experience would be incomprehensible otherwise, and experience is comprehensible, 2. it makes no assumption to what the world might be like independent of experience (my model of how observation statements are true or false allows for the possibility that such statements can be be true and the world (in itself) be very different or even incomprehensible for us).

Subjectivity and objectivity are (I suggest) not best thought of as 'mental' and 'non-mental' (this distinction, as connoting a real distinction, is under fire. Many philosophers (at least the ones concerned with what is going on in empirical science) already consider such concepts to be outdated, and relegated to our 'folk' ways of speaking about ourselves. Subjective / objective distinction is relevant in thinking about statements - it is an epistemic distinction. A subjective statement is one that either intrinsically depends on some person for its truth-value, or is a statement that cannot be true or false, i.e. 'I like apples', 'Picasso is the best painter ever'. An objective statement is one that is not contingent on some particular person or persons for its truth-value, i.e. 'There is a tree in my front yard'. This may be true, it may be false, but whichever it is, it doesn't depend on my mere belief about it that it is so. Notice that objective claims have this quality even if one believes that trees are not there when we are not observing them -- objectivity is a quality of statements...not of 'objects'. If I say, 'Trees only exist when we are observing them' (whatever that is supposed to mean)...while trees may depend on our observation, the truth of the statement does not depend on our observation.

Objective claims are only probable, their justification requires inter-subjectivity...this should all be pretty familiar for you scientific minded thinkers.

 

[ValenceE]

Huckleberry,

in post#55 you wrote;

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

I wasn’t directly referring to truth, nor Truth, but to its positioning in the word ‘outside’ in your suspicion that a purely objective truth is outside the realm of science

So, truth about objective reality being outside the realm of science makes it pretty hard to come up with something like a TOE since, imo, the link between that truth and how we can express and explain it depends entirely on the observer’s subjectivity and human nature.

However, the good thing about this is that, again imo, the observer is in contact with that very truth and thus can have meaningful insights about the reality he is trying to understand, making descriptive proposals in the form of hypotheses, theories, laws and the like.

regards,
VE

 

[WaveJumper]

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello WaveJumper,

you wrote;

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

Imo, everything outside of our experience is nameless and, just as it is inside our experience, unified... indeed making our life exist at once.

I agree that a lot of us would find it pretty unsettling to discover Truth about different aspects of the ‘blended’ (part truth part fabrication and belief) truth we experience in our everyday lives, thinking it to be how things really are.

As far as naivety goes, not sure any Truth could dislodge it from our human nature.

This human nature, unfortunately inadequate in a lot of instances, makes it that, on one hand, we’re ok with an untold truth about something that would hurt us, but, being unknown now, doesn’t. We could then continue on living our illusion, as you say.

On the other hand, we would rather prefer this truth be told, knowing it might affect us but at the same time enabling us to better orient ourselves for the decisions ahead.

All of this of course, requires that Truth be there in the first place...

Regards,

VE

 

[WaveJumper]

All of this of course, requires that Truth be there in the first place...

I don't know what exactly it is(Truth), but i feel that music has the uncanny ability to oscillate in unison with whatever it might be. Einstein also felt in a similar way, as a keen and talented violinist, music was one of his life-long passions: “If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician. I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music.”This quote by Michio Kaku is very telling of the role of music that some of the brilliant physicists attribute to the true nature of reality:

”The Universe is a symphony of strings and the mind of God is cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace“

 

[ValenceE]

agreed...

I also believe that Arts as a whole, through inspiration, brings the artist in direct relationship with this Truth.

 

[baywax]

The Truth can be pretty disturbing. I don't think everyone is prepared to understand that their whole life exists at once. That, as far as physics is concerned, there is no past, present and future as such, outside of our experience. All those striving for the Truth, should be prepared to lose a lot of their naivety in the process. There is a good chance, you may lose what manifests to the average Joe as everything. But is a beautiful lie better than an ugly Truth? Would you rather want to find out if your partner is cheating on you(i.e. know the truth) or would you prefer to live under the illusion that what appears is what is?

The truth is () our biological nature and survival instincts are the results of natural selection and they include psychological and neurological filters that obscure the majority of the objective truths that comprise our environment and our experience.

If our cognitive functions had no filters in place and fully processed the enormous amount of information that is simultaneously stimulating our senses we would quickly develop neurotic catatonia or go through a complete nervous melt down and that would be the end of our species.

 

[ValenceE]

baywax,

Indeed we'd be overwhelmed by the sum of it all, but I'm not sure the fact that we can't process all of it at the same time has to do with filters...

are you saying we have this capability but some evolutive filters are preventing us from deploying it?

Regardless of the answer, can you elaborate on the process that puts these filters in place ?

regards,

VE

 

[WaveJumper]

The truth is () our biological nature and survival instincts are the results of natural selection and they include psychological and neurological filters that obscure the majority of the objective truths that comprise our environment and our experience.

If our cognitive functions had no filters in place and fully processed the enormous amount of information that is simultaneously stimulating our senses we would quickly develop neurotic catatonia or go through a complete nervous melt down and that would be the end of our species.

This is what appears but under the surface there is a different reality. Objective realism is suffering heavy blows from all fields of physics, it's hard to maintain this idea even if you are a hardcore realist physicist.
Your senses would never tell you that your body is 99.999% empty space, that a certain configuration of positive and negative charges(your body) has the ability to talk, sing, cry and fall in love. That we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities of solid stuff. That the distinction between past, present and future only lies in your conscious head. I could continue but we don't want paranoia and i am not here to battle the few remaining literal realists on physics forums.

BTW, I thought you were striving for the whole Truth since it was you who started this thread about Truth.

 

[baywax]

baywax,

Indeed we'd be overwhelmed by the sum of it all, but I'm not sure the fact that we can't process all of it at the same time has to do with filters...

are you saying we have this capability but some evolutive filters are preventing us from deploying it?

Regardless of the answer, can you elaborate on the process that puts these filters in place ?

regards,

VE

The elaborate system of mazes and filters that protect our conscious-awareness has been "put into place" through natural selection. Over time there have been people with fewer of them, or who have been able to see beyond them. As far as I know, those people have been fewer in number comparatively speaking. And their lineage has been suppressed by "paranoid" villagers etc. You only have to look at how Copernicus's revelations were received by the authorities of his time... or how the open minds of alchemists and scientists of the dark ages were quickly shut down by those in control. This should explain the process of natural selection. Traits that lead to the demise of a family line are not continued within the species.

I wrote,

our biological nature and survival instincts are the results of natural selection and they include psychological and neurological filters that obscure the majority of the objective truths that comprise our environment and our experience.

 

[baywax]

Your senses would never tell you that your body is 99.999% empty space,

That we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities of solid stuff. That the distinction between past, present and future only lies in your conscious head.



BTW, I thought you were striving for the whole Truth since it was you who started this thread about Truth.

You and I are in no position to know if our senses are picking up the fact that we are electromagnetic bundles of 99.999% empty space. We are inextricably bound by the evolutionary configurations of our neurological make up. We have eon's old blinkers on our eyes and it is difficult to see beyond them. So, our opinion is just that... an opinion biased by our biological standing.

 

[ValenceE]

and...

 

[a4mula]

There have been quite a few advocates for truth by proximity since I last checked in. I can and will agree that as we progress in our knowledge we achieve a higher level of accuracy in our observations and predictions, that however does not equate to Truth.

The World is Flat -
Wrong, but it's closer then "The World is a shell held on the back of a giant turtle"

The World is Round -
Wrong, but it's closer than "The World is Flat"

The World is Spherical -
Still wrong, but we're getting closer

The World is an Oblate Spheroid -
Still Wrong, but hey... what the hell it's as close as we've got terms for.

This is truth by proximity. Just because the world isn't a sphere doesn't mean that's wrong. It's just less true than Oblate Spheroid. It's definitely more true than the world being round, or flat, or sitting on the back of a turtle.

None of these things are True though. No matter how close we model our reality we'll never reach True, just closer to True. That's why we settle for agreeing. We agree on subjects we can come to terms with.

Someone asked about Descartes earlier, I'd dig up the quote but I'm too lazy... and that is the truth. Descartes was mistaken in that he believed his perception of reality validated his existence. He felt as though it was the one great Truth. Cogito ergo sum. Yet we have no evidence that supports our perceptions as real. As we peer further down the rabbit hole our perceptions become more wild and grander than any of us would have believed. Does this point to reality, or does it point to an illusion that peers back and laughs at our feeble attempts of understanding?

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. If I were a gambling man I'd venture to say that substance is substance and I'm real, and you're real, and the doggarbage sitting on my front porch is real. But that doesn't mean it is, or has to be. It could just as easily (and much easier to explain) be a line of code, or a fanciful thought, or just a string of energy that caught the perfect random form at the perfect random time.

Is this moment nothing more than the cosmic equivalent of infinite monkeys pounding out Shakespeare? Probably not, but we'll never know. That's Truth.

 

[WaveJumper]

There have been quite a few advocates for truth by proximity since I last checked in. I can and will agree that as we progress in our knowledge we achieve a higher level of accuracy in our observations and predictions, that however does not equate to Truth.

The World is Flat -
Wrong, but it's closer then "The World is a shell held on the back of a giant turtle"

The World is Round -
Wrong, but it's closer than "The World is Flat"

The World is Spherical -
Still wrong, but we're getting closer

The World is an Oblate Spheroid -
Still Wrong, but hey... what the hell it's as close as we've got terms for.

This is truth by proximity. Just because the world isn't a sphere doesn't mean that's wrong.

We already know that the Earth is not flat. We don't know what reality really is(precisely), but we also know what reality is not(it is not as Newton imagined, or John or Ivan imagines/perceives while they are working at the mine). If there is something to be called physical reality, it has the ability to manifest itself as a fixed structure only under certain circumstances, but not in others. Relativity meets a lot of resistance in physics circles but so does quantum theory. And yet, they are the basis of our unprecedented progress in the 21st century.

No matter how close we model our reality we'll never reach True, just closer to True.

That's how you feel. We don't know if this is certainly so, although certain current limitations in physics imply this.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. If I were a gambling man I'd venture to say that substance is substance and I'm real, and you're real, and the doggarbage sitting on my front porch is real. But that doesn't mean it is, or has to be. It could just as easily (and much easier to explain) be a line of code, or a fanciful thought, or just a string of energy that caught the perfect random form at the perfect random time.

By definition, everything is real, as we cannot imagine anything more real than what we perceive(although some of us have had lucid dreams that seemed more real than reality, or have used mind altering drugs - DMT, LSD, ayahuasca, etc. that produce more vivid images of unknown realities than reality itself, or even purported OBE's). Rumour has it Moses had drugged out the Israelites when he received the 10 commandments with a weed named 'ayahuasca'.

However, we should continue to question our primitive perceptions if we are to find what exists really and understand what really is happening on a more fundamental level and why.

Is this moment nothing more than the cosmic equivalent of infinite monkeys pounding out Shakespeare? Probably not, but we'll never know. That's Truth.

This very moment exists forever, as far as physics and the universe are concerned(Einstein was initially troubled by this consequence of his relativity). The hard part is to define what is to 'exist', while we are within what manifests as reality and why we don't appear to have memories from the future. All known laws of physics are time symmetrical and Time and the arrow of time might never be fully understood without delving thoroughly in what exactly is happening in our heads wrt to what we term reality or universe. This might even be the 3rd or 4th revolution in physics(if it's possible at all).Curiously, at some point physics always seems to merge or flow into philosophy.

 

[baywax]

and...

and... that's the truth...

 

[a4mula]

We already know that the Earth is not flat. We don't know what reality really is(precisely), but we also know what reality is not(it is not as Newton imagined, or John or Ivan imagines/perceives while they are working at the mine). If there is something to be called physical reality, it has the ability to manifest itself as a fixed structure only under certain circumstances, but not in others. Relativity meets a lot of resistance in physics circles but so does quantum theory. And yet, they are the basis of our unprecedented progress in the 21st century.

And hence my point that what you're prescribing to is truth by proximity. I've already agreed that the greater advances we make bring us closer to understanding our observations and making more accurate predictions. This isn't argued.

That's how you feel. We don't know if this is certainly so, although certain current limitations in physics imply this.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It's reality. We know precisely that we'll never model reality to reality. If I create a perfect simulation of this universe it will not suddenly jump off my computer screen and become the universe. It's still just a model.

The beauty of this, and the ultimate underpinnings of this entire discussion is that even though my fictional model might be a perfect model, yet not real, it doesn't matter. The inhabitants of my simulation would be indifferent between the two. Much as we are.

By definition, everything is real, as we cannot imagine anything more real than what we perceive(although some of us have had lucid dreams that seemed more real than reality, or have used mind altering drugs - DMT, LSD, ayahuasca, etc. that produce more vivid images of unknown realities than reality itself, or even purported OBE's). Rumour has it Moses had drugged out the Israelites when he received the 10 commandments with a weed named 'ayahuasca'.

However, we should continue to question our primitive perceptions if we are to find what exists really and understand what really is happening on a more fundamental level and why.

Everything mentioned from obe's, to lucid dreams, to pyschoactive drugs have already been linked to actual physiological processes. They are still just a part of our 'reality'. That reality is open for debate however even if it is something that we define as Real, our definition is nothing more then self-conceived and abstract. We can not claim reality any more than the inhabitants of my fictional simulation world could.

This very moment exists forever, as far as physics and the universe are concerned(Einstein was initially troubled by this consequence of his relativity). The hard part is to define what is to 'exist', while we are within what manifests as reality and why we don't appear to have memories from the future. All known laws of physics are time symmetrical and Time and the arrow of time might never be fully understood without delving thoroughly in what exactly is happening in our heads wrt to what we term reality or universe. This might even be the 3rd or 4th revolution in physics(if it's possible at all).


Curiously, at some point physics always seems to merge or flow into philosophy.

Only if you buy into string theory, but that's neither here nor there. Time as a true dimension is debatable and is still quite far from being established. Most physicists still consider it a half dimension space-time in which it's not a infinite static arrow, rather just a byproduct of space and movement.

At the end of the day I think we're saying the same thing, we can only make truth statements based on what we perceive to exist, regardless of that truth.

 

[WaveJumper]

This very moment exists forever, as far as physics and the universe are concerned(Einstein was initially troubled by this consequence of his relativity).

Only if you buy into string theory, but that's neither here nor there.

No, no. String theory wasn't around when Einstein came up with his relativity(see above - i specifically said 'relativity'). String theory wasn't even around in 1954 when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died. In a letter to the widow he said:"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."In relativistic models of physics, there is no place for "the present" as an absolute element of reality. The present moment when i am typing this sentence will always be there, into eternity. The moment your grandfather was born still exists, we know that, although it's now spatially inaccessible. It's all a consequence of the finiteness of the speed of light and the expansion of the universe.

Time as a true dimension is debatable and is still quite far from being established.

It's "debatable" on message boards and blogs by philosophers, not among physicists. Even a common sense example could reveal the inadequacy of such a statement - X,Y and Z are not enough to ascertain a position of an object anywhere in the universe. Put a T beside the 3 symbols and you have a position in our 4 dimensional universe. Relativity is embedded in the GPS system, without the corrections for the relative motion, the clocks of the satellites would go wrong on the very first day and your nav will take to Vancouver instead of Mexico city. Relativity is proven, the relativity model of the universe is still the most precise, it's not up for debate and time is a dimension together with the other 3.

Most physicists still consider it a half dimension space-time in which it's not a infinite static arrow, rather just a byproduct of space and movement.

Could you re-phrase or give some reference? Time definitely does not, by any means, have a static arrow. This 'arrow' can bend, twist and even fork into separate streams.

At the end of the day I think we're saying the same thing, we can only make truth statements based on what we perceive to exist, regardless of that truth.

Agreed. But i share the sentiment of Stephen Hawking - "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”

For whatever reason intelligence has emerged in a universe that can be comprehended, it gives me some confidence that humans can describe and understand reality.

 

[WaveJumper]

Judging by the large number of views of this thread in just a few days, one would think somebody would have brought up the non-local quantum realm with its quantum weirdness and what it has to say about how true our pre-conceived concepts of time and space are. I'll start with the suggestion that the true nature of the universe is quantum and non-local, and will suggest that the classical scale is an illusionary reflection of this non-local reality. As evidence of this suggestion i will cite:

1. Quantum entanglement(immense burden on our perception of space, Einstein refused to accept this ghostly action at a distance)
2. Delayed choice experiment(does away with what we perceive as past, present and future, esp. convincing at cosmological scales)
3. Delayed choice quantum eraser(same as above with new twists)
4. HUP - an electron can be anywhere in the universe if its wavelength is known precisely(this doesn't really need explaining)
5. Bell's theorem (proves with simple math that all of the above cannot be explained by a local model of the universe)
6. The holographic principle in M-theorySo if we are on a quest for the Truth, I suggest we discuss what the true nature of local realism really is. Or does anyone feel that local realism still holds in full swing?

 

[JoeDawg]

Judging by the large number of views of this thread in just a few days, one would think somebody would have brought up the non-local quantum realm with its quantum weirdness and what it has to say about how true our pre-conceived concepts of time and space are. I'll start with the suggestion that the true nature of the universe is quantum and non-local, and will suggest that the classical scale is an illusionary reflection of this non-local reality.

Illusory?

Let's do a physics experiment, we will launch you from one of those circus-canons, aimed at two... slits, I mean, window size openings... in a concrete wall... Assuming our aim is correct, any guesses as whether your body will create an interference pattern, or just crash into the pavement, in one spot, on the other side? And oh, which result is the illusion again?
:-)

Quantum weirdness describes what happens on the quantum scale, but that doesn't mean it's TRUTH.

 

[Sorry!]

Illusory?

Let's do a physics experiment, we will launch you from one of those circus-canons, aimed at two... slits, I mean, window size openings... in a concrete wall... Assuming our aim is correct, any guesses as whether your body will create an interference pattern, or just crash into the pavement, in one spot, on the other side? And oh, which result is the illusion again?
:-)

Quantum weirdness describes what happens on the quantum scale, but that doesn't mean it's TRUTH.

I'm sure there's a probability of him getting split up creating an interference pattern.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'm sure there's a probability of him getting split up creating an interference pattern.

Not to mention the fact, it would be kewl to watch.

 

[WaveJumper]

Illusory?

Let's do a physics experiment, we will launch you from one of those circus-canons, aimed at two... slits, I mean, window size openings... in a concrete wall... Assuming our aim is correct, any guesses as whether your body will create an interference pattern, or just crash into the pavement, in one spot, on the other side? And oh, which result is the illusion again?
:-)

I thought you'd defend realism with something more than a joke. Out of all the arguments you could raise, this is clearly the worst. It's simply burying your head in the sand, pretending the problem doesn't concern you because what happens in the quantum realm is somehow irrelevant. If light, which is both a quantum and a classical object, suddenly changed its fundamental behaviour, would you keep the stance - "It doesn't concern me, i live at the macro scale"? Or would you stop using electricity because of its quantum behaviour? This one probably you don't know - the proteins in your body have the ability to transport individual atoms to repair damaged cell walls. There is no border between the quantum and classical scale, and much to your dislike the quantum exists. Oh, and you are not made from stuff, you are made from bosons and fermions. Say hi to your quantum nature.

Quantum weirdness describes what happens on the quantum scale, but that doesn't mean it's TRUTH.

Right, what you feel deep inside is the Truth. You should send letters to string theorists sweating on adS/CFT correspondence, anti-de Sitter space and P-branes and let them know they should stop messing with the quantum. After all it's irrelevant to the reality you feel you know so well.

BTW, your garden common-sense and intuition couldn't be more completely irrelevant to physics.

I expect that you'd counter the Mathematical Universe paper of Max Tegmark with the same scientific approach:

"Hey Dude, I mean, it's so f*cked up dude, this can't be! I will launch you from one of those circus-canons, aimed at two... slits, I mean, window size openings... in a concrete wall... Assuming our aim is correct, any guesses as whether your body will create an interference pattern, or just crash into the pavement, in one spot, on the other side? You see Max, there are no waves, no quantum weirdness, no non-locality just a cannon from which i'd launch you into the windows. Simple as that."

 

[JoeDawg]

I thought you'd defend realism with something more than an ill-thought joke.

Well, maybe that's the problem, you think I'm defending realism.

because what happens in the quantum realm is somehow irrelevant.

The 'quantum realm' is certainly relevant to physics, but not so relevant to the chicken sandwich I'm currently eating. I'm not sure why this should confuse you.

There is no border between the quantum and classical scale, and much to your dislike the quantum exists. Oh, and you are not made from stuff, you are made from bosons and fermions. Say hi to your quantum nature.

Must be nice to have all the answers. I'm envious.

Right, what you feel deep inside is the Truth. You should send letters to string theorists sweating on adS/CFT correspondence, anti-de Sitter space and P-branes and let them know they should stop messing with the quantum. After all it's irrelevant to the reality you feel you know so well.

Well, at least you've decided to be entertaining, dude.

That's all there is to it

You're the one claiming to know truth, not me.

 

[WaveJumper]

You're the one claiming to know truth, not me.

Really? Where did i say that? You were the one who claimed physics described reality well, to which i strongly disagreed. I specifically said that i don't know what it is, but i know how reality is not. Sorry if at some point i came across as if i had the final answers, that's not what i meant.

 

[baywax]

Judging by the large number of views of this thread in just a few days, one would think somebody would have brought up the non-local quantum realm with its quantum weirdness and what it has to say about how true our pre-conceived concepts of time and space are. I'll start with the suggestion that the true nature of the universe is quantum and non-local, and will suggest that the classical scale is an illusionary reflection of this non-local reality. As evidence of this suggestion i will cite:

1. Quantum entanglement(immense burden on our perception of space, Einstein refused to accept this ghostly action at a distance)
2. Delayed choice experiment(does away with what we perceive as past, present and future, esp. convincing at cosmological scales)
3. Delayed choice quantum eraser(same as above with new twists)
4. HUP - an electron can be anywhere in the universe if its wavelength is known precisely(this doesn't really need explaining)
5. Bell's theorem (proves with simple math that all of the above cannot be explained by a local model of the universe)
6. The holographic principle in M-theory


So if we are on a quest for the Truth, I suggest we discuss what the true nature of local realism really is. Or does anyone feel that local realism still holds in full swing?

Because it is true that water can exist as a vapor, a liquid and as a solid as well as in a combination of these states I would vote that all of the above is probably true as well.

 

[JoeDawg]

Really? Where did i say that? You were the one who claimed physics described reality well, to which i strongly disagreed. I specifically said that i don't know what it is, but i know how reality is not. Sorry if at some point i came across as if i had the final answers, that's not what i meant.

Physics provides a very useful description of reality.
And science generally, provides the most useful description of the world we experience, that we seem to have access to.

Models and equations are not truth, any more or less than sensory data is. All can be useful, in different situations.

Truth in any absolute sense of the word, is an ideal, which means, it doesn't amount to much of anything.

 

[WaveJumper]

Because it is true that water can exist as a vapor, a liquid and as a solid as well as in a combination of these states I would vote that all of the above is probably true as well.

Sure, such a theory fits all the observations really well. But if we are to pursue this weirdness even further, what model beside a universe that is a projection(hologram) can we logically deduce from these observations? Could a non-local and a local universe co-exist in another configuration? There is already serious empirical research into the holographic model:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true Or could it be that we are stretching the limits of our minds/imagination to where they are inapplicable?

 

[WaveJumper]

Physics provides a very useful description of reality.

Useful? Yes, only marginally and in a certain sense. Thorough and meaningful - no, no way, not at all in any sense. Not since the end of the 19th century.

"No development of modern science has had a more profound impact on human thinking than the advent of quantum theory. Wrenched out of centuries-old thought patterns, physicists of a generation ago found themselves compelled to embrace a new metaphysics. The distress which this reorientation caused continues to the present day. Basically physicists have suffered a severe loss: their hold on reality."

Bryce DeWitt
Neill Graham
News of the reality crisis hardly exists utside the physics community. Although worded a bit strong for most physicists tastes, this quote of Heisenberg is very telling of this reality crisis:

"The hope that new experiments will lead us back to objective events in time and space is about as well founded as the hope of discovering the end of the world in the unexplored regions of the Antarctic."

 

[JoeDawg]

Useful? Yes, only marginally and in a certain sense.

Quantum theory has provided many technological advances. I'm not sure what other sense there could be to the word 'useful' in terms of science.

News of the reality crisis hardly exists utside the physics community.

Modern science may be new to this 'reality crisis', but in philosophy its old hat, or I should say, ancient hat. The nature of reality has always been in dispute.

 

[ValenceE]

baywax,

in your opening post, you wrote;

Generally I'd like it if we could get some opinions on what truth is. Anyone offering an accepted or personal definition or description is welcome to do so as well.

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!

I can't but agree with you... however give me (gimme) some time to explain myself inregards to some truth I make out of this interpretation...

regards, VE

 

[ValenceE]

ok, here's one take on part of it...


I'd capitalize the letter t, beginning the first, second, third and sixth word followed by the ruth letters, found in

Generally I'd like it if we could get some opinions on what truth is. Anyone offering an accepted or personal definition or description is welcome to do so as well.

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!

because of the absolute nature of Truth, shared in truth.


regards,

VE

 

[ValenceE]

ok, ok... I must admit, althought i don't really need to, that I'm Truth biased...

I fully understand that we could leave it all in truth... but if you're to put an absolute on it it then must become Truth... imho that is...


VE


second edit: " aghhhhhhhh... but then again we'd have to define 'worth...' and others alike...

 

[baywax]

ok, ok... I must admit, althought i don't really need to, that I'm Truth biased...

I fully understand that we could leave it all in truth... but if you're to put an absolute on it it then must become Truth... imho that is...


VE


second edit: " aghhhhhhhh... but then again we'd have to define 'worth...' and others alike...

OK... but VE... Truth or truth to me isn't a value judgement. Its not a wishy washy subjective and relative state that changes from brain to brain.

Its like I said about truth = phenomenon or phenomena. These are a synonymous pair of words (truth and phenomenon). This way... even a lie, which is a phenomenon, is a truth... because it took place... and because it is true that it is a lie.

I'm trying to keep semantics and literary hijinks out of this look at truth. I only want the bare bones. Half truths, hidden truths... and all those derivatives of "the truth" are a long road of tributaries that wind through the garden... while all the while... they are part of the over all and absolute and phenomenal truth.

 

[WaveJumper]

Its like I said about truth = phenomenon or phenomena. These are a synonymous pair of words (truth and phenomenon). This way... even a lie, which is a phenomenon, is a truth... because it took place... and because it is true that it is a lie.

So, we established that Truth=phenomenon. I postulated earlier that Truth=Reality, i therefore posit that Truth = the Source of reality. Would you agree?

And if we don't know how the many things we commonly experience are connected together, then we do not know the source of this ultimate Truth. So we have a pretty good grasp that Truth exists(despite the flaky foundations of the word 'exist'), so can we sum up that the one absolute Truth requires true knowledge of reality?

Something and Nothing - Two simple looking concepts that continue to baffle scientists. We cannot define what 'something' is without referring to 'nothing', and we can't define 'nothing' without referring to 'something'. What is the fundamental distinction between 'something' and 'nothing' when we die? Would you say the answer would be sufficient to become the Truth?

Wouldn't a Full description of reality require an understanding/definition of what it means to not exist? If so, would you agree that we are(best case scenario) at least millions of years away from reaching the Truth? What is the statistical chance that we survive for that long?

If one day humanity finds a causal agent responsible for the existence of the universe(i.e. certain type of god/s/), wouldn't the concept of Absolute Truth require a full description/understanding of God for it to be absolute(or even truth by itself)?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,

baywax, you wrote;

I'm trying to keep semantics and literary hijinks out of this look at truth. I only want the bare bones. Half truths, hidden truths... and all those derivatives of "the truth" are a long road of tributaries that wind through the garden... while all the while... they are part of the over all and absolute and phenomenal truth.

Again, we are talking about the same thing, however what I’m saying is that this ‘ over all and absolute and phenomenal truth ’ is what I call Truth with a capital T, the same Truth that JoeDawg refers to as

Truth in any absolute sense of the word, is an ideal, which means, it doesn't amount to much of anything.

JoeDawg, I have to say that not only does this Truth amount to All that can be amounted for, but, like any other ‘good’ ideal, it is worth pursuing and could be taken as a beacon, something to strive for, in the pursuit of happiness and other meaningful realities that are available to us.

As I see it, and imo, it’s important to make the distinction between truth as what we can grasp, comprehend and hopefully use in our daily lives and Truth, something more in the sense of faith, physically inaccessible but nevertheless basis for, and source of any truth.

Let me give an example that will picture this in a more concrete way;

The setting can be anywhere in the world, although in some areas it could be more difficult to realize in truth than others… so, anyway, here it is;

There’s a need for a big project, could be housing, water plant, energy related construction, or anything that a local population might have a real need for…

In truth, which is the human interpretation opened to any subjectiveness, this project, depending on the financial burden, would or wouldn’t start, could or couldn’t ever be completed… not enough money.

In Truth, which is the absolute description, not a single penny is required to start and complete this project. All that is needed are apt men/women, engineers, architects, any and all needed crafts, ordinary workers and gofers alike… all under the ruling goal of the project to be realized. Money is no object.

So, in this illustration, we can clearly see the difference between what the human can comprehend, a 'higher' truth, and what he is able to do, is allowed to do or allow himself to do. There are so many of these little truths we’re just having such a hard time transforming into Truth, that indeed it all looks like ideals and utopia, something I call the ‘worst illusion’.


Regards,

VE

 

[JoeDawg]

Hello all,
JoeDawg, I have to say that not only does this Truth amount to All that can be amounted for, but, like any other ‘good’ ideal, it is worth pursuing and could be taken as a beacon, something to strive for, in the pursuit of happiness and other meaningful realities that are available to us.

I see nothing wrong with pursuing an ideal, in fact ideals can be very useful as goals, but an ideal by its nature is an incomplete thing, it doesn't exist in the same way a concrete perception exists.

I can say its true that I am a sitting in a chair, and I can say it is true that I intend to continue sitting in a chair, but there is no inherent truth to 'sitting'. Similarly, when someone talks about an ideal, something like TRUTH, we aren't talking about true things, but are rather referring to a concept, an abstraction.

As I see it, and imo, it’s important to make the distinction between truth as what we can grasp, comprehend and hopefully use in our daily lives and Truth, something more in the sense of faith, physically inaccessible but nevertheless basis for, and source of any truth.

If its inacessible then how do you know it. Faith doesn't much interest me, as I tend to view it as nothing more than unsupported opinion.

In Truth, which is the absolute description, not a single penny is required to start and complete this project. All that is needed are apt men/women, engineers, architects, any and all needed crafts, ordinary workers and gofers alike… all under the ruling goal of the project to be realized. Money is no object.

I would say, not taking money into account makes it an illusion. This is what I was referring to actually, the Truth you are talking about is simply concepts completely stripped of their context. Which means they are stripped of accuracy, and value, imo. Taking money out of the equation can be a useful excercise for those planning a project, but the reality of the situation demands you put in back in before any 'truth' occurs.

Ideals can be useful, but in themselves they are empty.

 

[buffordboy23]

Generally I'd like it if we could get some opinions on what truth is.

I didn't read any other posts. I want to ponder this question on my own and not be influenced by others.

Here is my definition: Truth 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.

 

[baywax]

I didn't read any other posts. I want to ponder this question on my own and not be influenced by others.

Here is my definition: Truth 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.

That seems correct. And we can't verify it since our awareness won't last that long. So, it may be just an ideal to imagine an absolute truth... much like an absolute zero.

 

[skeptic2]

I didn't read any other posts. I want to ponder this question on my own and not be influenced by others.

Here is my definition: Truth 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.

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?