100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is Truth Subjective? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 07/18/11 06:25 PM
|
|
Abra: colored emphasis mine for future reference Well then clearly the viewpoint of a beam of light must exist, because Einstein imagined... creative: So, according to this logic, if we can imagine it, then it must exist. What would be "logical" about jumping to such an unrelated and erroneous conclusion? I certainly never even remotely suggested that jumping to such unwarranted conclusions would be "logical". The form layed out below is the logical form you've employed in the above argument about the alleged existence of "the viewpoint of a beam of light". My rejoinder precisely follows the same logical form, or at least close enough. This is about form, not the value of the variables. X must exist because X was imagined. I certainly never even remotely suggested that jumping to such unwarranted conclusions would be "logical". Well, it is logical in the sense that it follows a demonstrable argumentative form. But no, you jump to conclusion that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that I've said. In no way did I ever even remotely imply that if something can be imagined it must exist. What would it take for the above to be true? X must exist because X was imagined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is truth subjective That is the beginning of the OP - how can it be subjective, objective or even independent is there if there is no such thing? There is such a thing as truth, truth is correspondence; a matching up to the way things are. I was objecting to "a truth" being confused with truth. So NOW let me ask you Is a truth claim subjective? Truth claims come through a thinking subject capable of complex thought/belief and language. I am making a distinction here between a truth claim and truth. "A" truth does not exist, unless we call a true claim "a truth" which is common use, but it is exactly what I'm rejecting. That treatment of truth causes confusion and is a case of mistaken identity. Truth is what makes the claim true. Calling a true claim "a truth" equates a true claim with that which makes it so. I would error on the side of Yes until after it has passed some kind of standard (like a scientific study, which validates or falsifies the claim. At that point it may be validated or falsified but it cannot be truth because truth does not exist. Here, we again see the differences between our uses. I would say that a verified claim cannot be truth because truth presupposition is what connects all claims to reality and truth is what connects true claims to reality. True claims correspond to fact/reality. Truth does not correspond, it is the correspondence itself. It can however, be a building block for future truth claims. Is that right? Truth is central to everything thought/believed and or known. Thanks Creative for your responses. I think this is a difficult concept and I've read yours and Bushido's posts several times. I tend to stay away from the word truth because it always seems to cause issues with discussions. I think I can better understand why it does but I will be honest and tell you that I'm still not completely clear on the topic. For example, in our English language, speaking "the truth" is stressed even to the point of holding a person responsible for speaking the truth or facing criminal charges. We must accept a person'ts sworn statment that only truth will be spoken even though, in a court of law, speaking truth may only be considered 'circumstantial,' simply because what is spoken cannot be confirmed but that doesn't mean it was not truth to the individual. What it would take to make the statement true, in the absense of 'hard evidence', is plausibility. If the person believes he/she is speaking truth, then the spoken view need only be believed an accurate depiction that is plausible. I attempt to speak/write with truth, but the word truth is not a word I have ever been comfortable with using. If I'm understanding the concepts laid out in this thread, I think better understand why. Am I learning yet??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So is the orbit of the earth around the sun subjective?   According to Relativity it is. At least in shape and velocity. That will indeed depend on the velocity and position of an observer. But those kinds of things miss the point don't they? I mean pointing to something that is extremely simple like the orbit of an object around a second object is about as simple as we can imagine. Consider the 3-body problem. Imagine three bodies of nearly equal mass orbiting each other and you have a mathematically unsolvable problem. In fact, we can actually solve those differential equations, but the solutions show us that the system is ultimately chaotic. In theory it could be "predicable" if and only if, you could guarantee the starting positions of the bodies to infinitely many decimal places. But in practice that's impossible. Not only for humans, but for the universe herself. The Heisenberg uncertainty principles forbids that kind of precision to even exist. Once you precision gets out to the Planck limits then the universe herself has to round up or down using the property of quantum complementarity. So chaos prevails. It's obviously a property of the universe that cannot be made to go away. Thus while it may be misleading to say that the orbit is subjective it's just as misleading to say that it's objective in any sense of being determined. I would argue that the orbit of the earth around the sun is objective and that the solution to the three body problem is also objective - even if it is chaotic. It doesn't perturb me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di: Thanks Creative for your responses. I think this is a difficult concept and I've read yours and Bushido's posts several times. I tend to stay away from the word truth because it always seems to cause issues with discussions. I think I can better understand why it does but I will be honest and tell you that I'm still not completely clear on the topic. You are more than welcome. What makes the topic of truth so difficult is the normal, everyday, and dare I say - mistaken - uses of the term. Repetitive thought becomes internalized - after some time all tissues become "kleenex" in one's thought. In addition, throughout written history, truth has been brutalized by the Church, through usurpation and equivocation to 'Gods will' to The Word, to "T"ruth, etc. to the point of meaninglessness. Those vestiges of the Church remain a niggling in the back of many minds and cause those who still attach truth to God to shiver at the concept. As do I. However, we know that truth is not a concept. Rather it is necessarily presupposed within all man-made concepts. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. For example, in our English language, speaking "the truth" is stressed even to the point of holding a person responsible for speaking the truth or facing criminal charges. "So help me God." When one begins a claim with "The truth of the matter..." we can know a couple of things. 1. They are about to make a claim about the way things are/were. 2. They have just confused their own thought/belief with truth. When one says "That's the truth" they are saying that whatever was just said is a true claim; that it matches up to the way things are. We must accept a person'ts sworn statment that only truth will be spoken even though, in a court of law, speaking truth may only be considered 'circumstantial,' simply because what is spoken cannot be confirmed but that doesn't mean it was not truth to the individual. Right. A truth claim is a claim about the way things are/were. One can make truth claims, and if they are being honest, then they believe what they say. Granting honesty of testimony, "I believe X" means I believe X is true... necessarily so. The evidence presented to substantiate the claims could be considered circumstantial. That does not mean that the individual did not believe X to be the case. However, belief is insufficient for truth and we know this. Therefore, in order for the court to assent to any given claim, the claimant must provide adequate evidence. The claim must be justified in the right kind of way. What it would take to make the statement true, in the absense of 'hard evidence', is plausibility. If the person believes he/she is speaking truth, then the spoken view need only be believed an accurate depiction that is plausible. I'd have to disagree with the first statement here Di. Plausibility does not make a claim true, rather it makes it believable. False claims are sometimes plausible, based upon the known facts of the time. Thunderstorms are a result of God's rage/anger. We did not know any better. Plausibility is the affect that demonstrable logical possibility grounded by objective fact(universal states of affairs) has on the mind. The concept of God was born out of the realm of logical possibility and still resides there. Correspondence to fact/reality(truth) is the only thing that makes a claim true, and we are limited in our innate and artificial abilities to detect certain aspects of the universe. There are certain states of universal affairs that happen beyond our detection capability. Therefore, we know that we are limited in our ability to become aware of the correspondence between certain scientific theories(M-Theory) and the universal states of affairs that they aim to describe and predict. Regarding the second claim... What is "speaking truth" other than a speaker who is making statements about the way things are/were that s/he believes? You see how the (mis)treatment regarding the objectification of "truth" conflates one's own belief, which they believe to be true, with that which makes it so? I attempt to speak/write with truth, but the word truth is not a word I have ever been comfortable with using. If I'm understanding the concepts laid out in this thread, I think better understand why. Am I learning yet??? We are always learning, and it is always delightful when we have discussions. You've been a fantastic person to speak with on more occasions than I can remember. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 07/18/11 08:02 PM
|
|
I certainly never even remotely suggested that jumping to such unwarranted conclusions would be "logical". Well, it is logical in the sense that it follows a demonstrable argumentative form. No, the conclusion that you jumped to was not logical and did not follow any demonstrable argumentative form. There was nothing in anything I said that would even remotely support such an erroneous conclusion. But no, you jump to conclusion that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that I've said. In no way did I ever even remotely imply that if something can be imagined it must exist. What would it take for the above to be true? X must exist because X was imagined. That is totally incorrect Michael. Either you did not comprehend what I said, or you are being purposefully deceitful. ~~~~~ The point of view of light that Einstein imagined, turned out to correctly reflect the true nature of physical manifestation. And it is THAT which ultimately gave us the knowledge that this point of view actually exists as a valid point of view with respect to the true nature of physical manifestation. NO WAY does that translate into; "X must exist because X was imagined." ~~~~ What I am conveying is that if Einstein himself did not discover this point of view of the universe, someone else eventually would have, because the point of view itself is obviously a valid point of view within the context of physical manifestation whether any conscious mind had yet thought of it or not. And this whole thing was to actually support Jeanniebeans previous observation that from the cosmic perspective all is subjective. So even from the point of view of the universe herself, truth is subjective. And that point of view preexisted Albert Einstein. Just as the sun being the center of the solar system preexisted Copernicus. ~~~~ So there are no "logical flaws" in anything that I'm saying Michael. I was just supporting Jeanniebean's wisdom with historical facts. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then clearly the viewpoint of a beam of light must exist, because Einstein imagined... It doesn't get any clearer than this. Your words not mine. You concluded a causal relationship, asserting that the existence of X is caused by(because) imagination. The viewpoint of a beam of light MUST exist because Einstein imagined it. X exists because X was imagined. -- I've nothing further to say about this. Nothing further need be said |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then clearly the viewpoint of a beam of light must exist, because Einstein imagined... It doesn't get any clearer than this. Your words not mine. You concluded a causal relationship, asserting that the existence of X is caused by(because) imagination. The viewpoint of a beam of light MUST exist because Einstein imagined it. X exists because X was imagined. -- I've nothing further to say about this. Nothing further need be said All points of view must exist if they are imagined, because that's all that a point of view is. A point of view doesn't have physical existence Micheal. Has the CONTEXT of the situation gone right over your head? In the case of the point of view that Albert Einstein imagined, THAT point of view turned out to be a point of view that is indeed a correct view of physical manifestation. So there is no logical flaws in anything that I've said Michael. Einstein and Relativity support Jeanniebean! Your own personal confusion concerning the logic of it all is totally moot. That's something you'll need to work out on your own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 07/18/11 08:47 PM
|
|
X exists because X was imagined. Perhaps this will help Micheal. Simply replace X with "point of view" and try that. A point if view exists because a point of view is imagined. Yes, that makes perfect sense because a point of view is indeed imagined. However replace X with "physical object" and you have a totally different statement. A physical object exists because a physical object is imagined. No, it doesn't work in that situation. So whether or not this statement makes sense depends entirely upon what value we assign to X. Let's try it again, let X be "A dream" A dream exists because a dream is imagined. Yep, makes perfect sense Michael. You can't just toss X's around without qualifying what they represent Micheal. There are good books for beginning logic. You might want to check some out. You must define the universe of your X's if you're going to play with logic.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 07/18/11 11:05 PM
|
|
abra: All points of view must exist if they are imagined, because that's all that a point of view is. Signs of incoherence are never good. A human imagining traveling at light speed is not a photon's point of view. It is a human's. It is not the universe's point of view. It is a humans. A human point of view is all humans have. Has the CONTEXT of the situation gone right over your head? The context of the thread is truth. My participation thus far has been and will continue to be looking at the claims in terms of what it would take for them to be true and in terms of how truth is being treated. If you're having a different kind of conversation, then may I suggest beginning your own thread? Fact 1. In context, you asserted that the viewpoint of a beam of light must exist because Einstein imagined it. Fact 2. That claim came directly off the heels of an argument that consciousness is not necessary for a point of view. Fact 3. The claim was made that the universe "herself" has a point of view, with or without consiousness. Fact 4. The beam of light point of view was an argument was put forth in order to lend support(justify) those earlier claims. Fact 5. Now you're changing positions and attributing a point of view to the imagination. If the viewpoint of a light beam is equal to Einstein's own imagination/viewpoint, then we agree. It belongs to Einstein. It is therefore Einstein's viewpoint, not the viewpoint of "the universe herself". To quite the contrary, it would be Einstein's viewpoint, based upon his imagining what it might be like if he were traveling at light speed. That is not the viewpoint of a beam of light, not the viewpoint "of the universe herself", not the viewpoint of a rock hurling through space, it is the viewpoint of a thinking subject whose imagining what it would be like to be within a frame of reference traveling at light speed. Here are the facts... Sun 07/17/11 04:36 PM Abra wrote: ...It's just a metaphor for the vantage point of the universe herself. Einstein saw the universe from the point of view of the universe herself. And that's a perfectly legitimate philosophical point of view. Sun 07/17/11 04:49 PM Abra wrote: ...I spoke about a point of view from a hypothetical universal consciousness. Speaking from Einstein's point of view from how the universe itself would see things if it had a consciousness. Sun 07/17/11 09:32 PM Abra wrote: The universe does have a point of view, whether conscious or not. Mon 07/18/11 07:47 AM Abra wrote: Does a photon need to be conscious to have a "point of view"? No it does not! The questions are about whether or not a photon can have a point of view. They are about whether or not the universe can have a point of view. You clearly claim that the photon can, and then claimed that Einstein experienced the photon's point of view. You clearly claimed that the universe can, and then claimed that Einstein saw the universe from that point of view, further claiming that we could see from that point of view. Bushido called this long ago, and he called it well. You're equivocating. There are times when you're using "a point of view" to reference two entirely different things. Einstein became the conscious mind that experienced that point of view. What would it take for the above claim to be true? We would have to be traveling at light speed to be experiencing a point of view traveling at light speed. The claim above is clearly grounded upon a conflation between experiencing something and imagining something. While imagining is an experience in and of itself, imagining an experience is not the same thing as having it. Call it what you wish, but your claims have just been invalidated. I don't want to talk about this anymore James. Let's look at what it would take in order for a claim to be true. They were Einstein's point of view based upon his imagining that he was in a frame of reference traveling at light speed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And condescension on top of it all?
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we interrupt this program for a momentary humour break
 you may continue ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Artsy... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aloha Creativeone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my favorite spider has scurried away... else I'd be playin' in the political section.
It is close to Maddow time...  She is pretty good, and funny. You'd like her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maddow on dude ...
 G'nite |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we interrupt this program for a momentary humour break you may continue ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G'nite Artsy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 07/19/11 08:02 AM
|
|
Creative wrote:
QUOTE: What it would take to make the statement true, in the absense of 'hard evidence', is plausibility. If the person believes he/she is speaking truth, then the spoken view need only be believed an accurate depiction that is plausible. I'd have to disagree with the first statement here Di. Plausibility does not make a claim true, rather it makes it believable. False claims are sometimes plausible, based upon the known facts of the time. Thunderstorms are a result of God's rage/anger. We did not know any better. Plausibility is the affect that demonstrable logical possibility grounded by objective fact(universal states of affairs) has on the mind. Correspondence to fact/reality(truth) is the only thing that makes a claim true, and we are limited in our innate and artificial abilities to detect certain aspects of the universe. There are certain states of universal affairs that happen beyond our detection capability. Therefore, we know that we are limited in our ability to become aware of the correspondence between certain scientific theories(M-Theory) and the universal states of affairs that they aim to describe and predict. YES - wonderful. Thanks for keeping with my example and expanding it to the concept of God. The concept of God was born out of the realm of logical possibility and still resides there. So as I read the quote above I thought of you saying "What would it take for a 'belief' in a god to be true" It takes only the belief in the possibility of a god to make the belief true. God's existence cannot be corresponded to (truth). It is possible that gods exist Therefore, to believe in god is to believe in its possibility Regarding the second claim... What is "speaking truth" other than a speaker who is making statements about the way things are/were that s/he believes? You see how the (mis)treatment regarding the objectification of "truth" conflates one's own belief, which they believe to be true, with that which makes it so? Much clearer now. I have to continue to watch for this though so I will try to use your prase "what would it take for 'the' claim to be true". Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we interrupt this program for a momentary humour break you may continue ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my favorite spider has scurried away... else I'd be playin' in the political section. It is close to Maddow time... She is pretty good, and funny. You'd like her. AH! Maddow - sigh!
|
|
|
|
|
