chefranden Posted June 19, 2005 Share Posted June 19, 2005 Yes, that IS very strange. I'm quite fascinated with dimensions. There are, at the present, 11 proven dimension. (pretty sure)I can't even begin to understand that! It takes 11 dimensions to solve the equations of M-theory. M-theory is far from being proven however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 From the boring world of Niels Bohr: There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true. ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 It takes 11 dimensions to solve the equations of M-theory. M-theory is far from being proven however. Yes, so I heard. And I think the 10th is about the "graviton", but I'm not sure. The other 9 is for string theory to explain quarks. Everytime I say or read Quark I think of StarTrek DS9... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 From the boring world of Niels Bohr:?????? Eeeeh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 When someone has such an experience -- you know, falling from a plane, but not crashing to the ground -- then, we'd have to redefine physics. Until then, perhaps we'd better define truth, or at least distinguish it from "perception," which is entirely different. Truth, I believe (for lack of a better way to put it), is unchangeable, unbendable -- and it doesn't rely on mortal understanding or definitions to exist or be real. Perception is how we interpret truth or reality -- and it's quite capable of bending to meet our expectations, even making us believe we can walk on air, though putting this into practice usually induces metabolic cessation in the individual that tries this off a ten-story building. BTW, there are no hidden powers or secret truths -- there's just a bunch of crap we haven't figured out yet. Ascribing everything we don't know to the supernatural is how we screwed things up to begin with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Aexapo, and with all due respect... I assure you, physics was never my major... yet a lot of science classes tends to start out... 'We USE to believe this way, but now we believe this other way.' Perhaps there is a lot of physics we still don't know out there and there may be more to perception than meets the eye. Einstien's says that time does not exist and is a trick on our subconscious. OK. Hawking claims there is no beginning and there is no end. OK Further... everything, all matter, is supposedly made up of light, vibration, and electromagnetic charge... and someone here said something about radiation. Wormholes, nutrinos... it all goes to expand previous beliefs. How do we know that the physics we have today is a definitive science when so many ideas that seemed logical before are being refuted today? I don't attribute everything we don't know to a supernatural being (God)... I attribute everything we do know and don't know to a 'God', because it seems everything came out of a singularity and returns to it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Truth is truth regardless of how anyone perceives it. The perception of truth is not what makes truth truth, truth is just true. We gain knowledge of truth through our senses, our brain and our mind but our mind does not dictate truth. If our mind perceives or believes in a reality that is untrue then we call that delusion. There is no "my" truth and "your" truth. There is simply truth, and you either believe it or you don't. Take the example of the Neo-Nazis. Whether or not they believe in the holocaust doesn't make the holocaust untrue. Not even "for them". If the holocaust happened, then it happened! If they choose to delude themselves to reality it does not mean that truth for "them" is that the holocaust didn't happen, it just means they're deluded. Truth is not subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Truth is truth regardless of how anyone perceives it. The perception of truth is not what makes truth truth, truth is just true. We gain knowledge of truth through our senses, our brain and our mind but our mind does not dictate truth. If our mind perceives or believes in a reality that is untrue then we call that delusion. There is no "my" truth and "your" truth. There is simply truth, and you either believe it or you don't. Take the example of the Neo-Nazis. Whether or not they believe in the holocaust doesn't make the holocaust untrue. Not even "for them". If the holocaust happened, then it happened! If they choose to delude themselves to reality it does not mean that truth for "them" is that the holocaust didn't happen, it just means they're deluded. Truth is not subjective. Ah, sorry, but I have to differ. It doesn't matter if any truth is objectively absolute, because it always has to be understood by a subject. Understanding is always relative to a particular subject's physical being and her cultural conditioning. Does god exist or not? My perception is that god does not exist. However, at one time, my perception was that god does exist. I did not "choose" to delude myself, as you say. I can't imagine that anyone consciously chooses to be deluded, that is will choose to believe what they know to be a lie. They may choose to delude other about what they know is a lie, but that is not the same thing. People often find their subconscious has choosen to ignore certain traumas as history(or memory). Their unconscious assumptions will steer their conscious conclusions concerning certain facts. Each human has unique subjective filters constructed from his unique experience including but not restricted to: Participants) You and other people who have "played a role" in your life. Parts) Settings, significant facts, episodes, and significant states (including the present state and some original state) Stages) Preconditions: Settings for the beginning of life, culture, language, economics, parents, siblings, extended family, environment, gene expression, etc. Beginning: The original state followed by episodes in the same temporal setting. Middle:Various episodes and significant states, in succeeding temporal order.End: The present state. Causation: Various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states. Linear Sequence) The temporal position of the various causal relations between episodes, actors, and states. (example: learning a language as a child instead of as an adult) Purpose) Goal: A desired state of self either constructed by the self, or by other actors, or by both. Plan: A sequence of episodes initiated by self and/or by other actors, which are perceived to be causally connected to the goal.* (list taken with modifications from Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By pp172, 173) A person that does not see reality as I see it not being stupid, even though it is part of my filter to judge him so. He may have a dangerous understanding of reality that tells him gravity will not effect him. That understanding will self correct in the same way that being born without the ability to swallow will self correct. Not having an understanding of the Holocaust that matches yours may not be dangerous enough to self correct. Therefore, conflicting ideas can and will exist side by side. It is a particular feature of our cultural condition that we must adjust their understanding to match ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 It doesn't matter if any truth is objectively absolute, because it always has to be understood by a subject. Understanding is always relative to a particular subject's physical being and her cultural conditioning. Yes, I agree. Just to add to it. I was considering the truth we were talking about, gravity, we percieve it to be an absolute truth, falling to the ground from the plane etc. But now with the (hypothetical) question about dark matter, there is forces that works against gravity in space, and gravity has not been explained completely yet. We know how it works in a closed environment, but our testing equipment doesn't reach out a couple of million LY, so gravity as we understand and see it in our daily life is totally limited to a fixed framework. There is absolute truths, but we only have a limited view of it. We haven't solved all mysteries of the universe and yet we claim certain knowledge as the absolute truth. When Newton made the formulas for gravity it became the absolute truth, he made the formulas for speed and acceleration etc. and it was the truth. Then came Einstein and changed our perception of time and space and suddenly Newtonian formulas only apply up to 1/3 of LS. Beyond that you have to use relatvity. Now you can claim that the absolute truth was relativity even during Newtons time, which is true, but what you don't calculate into the this is that 100 years from now, gravity formulas will have changed (regardless what the findings are), and that truth is the real truth and not what we know now. You can say absolute truth only exist when certain parameters are set: Gravity will pull a person down from a plane when he jumps The person will get killed if these conditions are met: - The plan is high up in the air - The Person doesn't have a parachute - The isn't any kind of equipment that will stop his fall when he hit ground - The person isn't dead already (and it's not a movie... just had to throw that in there) So absolute truth only exists in the conditions that are given, and we don't have all parameters for our existence yet. The day we have them, we have passed the borders of the natural into the paranormal with scientific means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Take the example of the Neo-Nazis. Whether or not they believe in the holocaust doesn't make the holocaust untrue. Not even "for them". If the holocaust happened, then it happened! If they choose to delude themselves to reality it does not mean that truth for "them" is that the holocaust didn't happen, it just means they're deluded. Truth is not subjective. I don't agree. I do believe the holocaust happened too, I have no doubt. But if I ask you right out of the blue where your evidence is to holocaust, you have to refer to pictures, documents and a very few places left in Germany to prove your case. And it's not strange at all that young kids that see these images believe they're faked just to make nazis look bad. You and I know these things happened, but the next generations will forget and even start twisting the truth. Don't be surprised if 10-20 years from now the Neonazis to have grown in numbers and claim the Jews made it all up. When you and I are gone, and the people left are next generation, they will not accept the absolute truth we know about, but will accept a different truth, and they will know no difference, to them it will be the absolute truth. This happens in history all the time. You claim holocaust happened, but what made you believe that it happened? Were you there? Or do you trust the source that gave you the information? You don't trust the neonazis, but consider this: When I was Christian I didn't trust Atheists to tell me the truth. I thought they were lying when they said they had no notion or belief in a God. Honestly I thought they were lying and I had the truth, and they were denying the truth. Now I know the difference, but can I translate that knowledge to another Christians? That has been provent to be very difficult. So Truth is based on subjective opinion, but the more information you get and the more foundation for your truth the stronger this opinion becomes a real truth in you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'm pretty simple about truth. I think it's a property of propositions. Propositions are true when they reduce to tautologies ( as in math or other closed systems) or enunciate that which can be confirmed by the evidence of the senses. That's as far as I've been able to figure out how to go with truth. When I was in college the NT professor, Bart Ellis, spoke to our Inter Varsity group. He talked about truth. He quoted Jesus as saying "I am the truth, the way, and the life...:" and contrasted Pontius Pilate's "what is truth?" Ellis said that when Jesus announces himself as the truth, he's not saying he is a property of propositions. He's saying he is the centre of a sphere of authentic being. Truth in the NT, for Ellis, is a sphere, which we inhabit - a focus of integrity and meaning. That all seemed really deep to me and the rest of us. We were left thinking, gee, this guy Ellis isn't so liberal after all! Well, as an old fart now, I think I don't know if what Ellis said actually signified anything. I'm back to truth as a property of propositions and I leave it at that. Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy seemed more helpful on this score than Bultmannesque theologizing Godtalk or whatever Ellis was giving us - decent soul that he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 But if I ask you right out of the blue where your evidence is to holocaust, you have to refer to pictures, documents and a very few places left in Germany to prove your case. And it's not strange at all that young kids that see these images believe they're faked just to make nazis look bad. What about video-taped interviews from the survivors? I would say that the evidence supports their stories. And yes, I see your point, that sooner or later someone will twist the truth and start it all over again. That would be incredibly horrible if we, as a society, allowed that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 What about video-taped interviews from the survivors? I would say that the evidence supports their stories. And yes, I see your point, that sooner or later someone will twist the truth and start it all over again. That would be incredibly horrible if we, as a society, allowed that to happen. The reason to why I compared it that way is twofold: 1. Do we know the people in the video told the truth (I believe they did, but Neonazis claim these people are actors) 2. What do we have from the early years of Christianity? All documents that could have helped us to get to the truth are probably destroyed. So the only documents left are pointing to a real Jesus, when the documents proving he didn't exist could have been destroyed. So maybe the real, objective truth is that Jesus never existed, but how can we prove it today? People will take the information that is given and make up their mind, and that becomes their truth. My point is that it is very hard to find the absolute truth, because many times we get fooled by wrong information and lies. Just like the Iraq war. I was against it from day one, because I felt something was wrong and the information sounded fixed, and now reports come out that there was no WMDs, no connections to terrorists and Bush planned the war long time before. Yet with these lies, 70%+ of America supported the war when it started, and now it’s less than 50%. So where was the absolute truth when the war started? Why wasn’t it just 50% support for the war as it is now? People were fooled, and I remember specifically how people got so upset with me for criticizing the war. Do we know the absolute truth about the war at all? So, if only absolute truths exist, and we all know them, please tell me, what is the absolute truth about the war in Iraq? And why didn’t people know that then, when we only know absolute truths and truth is not subjective? If you replace subjective truth with personal opinion, it becomes easier to understand the difference. We base our opinion on absolute truth on personal opinions, and the personal opinion has been based on general opinion or trust in the source of information. The general opinion can be wrong and so can the source to the information too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'm pretty simple about truth. I think it's a property of propositions. Propositions are true when they reduce to tautologies ( as in math or other closed systems) or enunciate that which can be confirmed by the evidence of the senses. That's as far as I've been able to figure out how to go with truth. Kind of like axioms? You can't break it down further, but you've reach a basic statement that everyone can accept as truth. To apply that to the Iraq war: Which one is the truth: 1. "The War in Iraq was wrong" or 2. "The War in Iraq was right" The only way to know the answer is to break it down further, and that we need more information. If we never get enough information we maybe never will know the absolute truth. Or another favorite: Who killed JFK? Conspiracy Theorists just love these things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 It doesn't matter if any truth is objectively absolute, because it always has to be understood by a subject. Understanding is always relative to a particular subject's physical being and her cultural conditioning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope I understand you correctly... If that person perceives it to be truth, it is truth to that person, based on their experiences and knowledge at that time? I agree with that one. OK, what would you say about the strength of a 'collective consciousness' of truth, perpetuating its influence in a subconscious manner on the masses? Perhaps kind of like the '100th monkey theory'. Furthering that idea, maybe there is a collective subconsciousness that supercedes our own collective conscious awareness, yet is generated from our collective reasoning thus far. Then... would we be creating our own reality instead of discovering it? I'm not saying that's my belief... PLEASE... just something to think about and how do we know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I hope I understand you correctly... If that person perceives it to be truth, it is truth to that person, based on their experiences and knowledge at that time? I agree with that one. OK, what would you say about the strength of a 'collective consciousness' of truth, perpetuating its influence in a subconscious manner on the masses? Perhaps kind of like the '100th monkey theory'. Furthering that idea, maybe there is a collective subconsciousness that supercedes our own collective conscious awareness, yet is generated from our collective reasoning thus far. Then... would we be creating our own reality instead of discovering it? I'm not saying that's my belief... PLEASE... just something to think about and how do we know? Very philosophical Amanda! You tell me, do we create our reality or are we a creation of reality? Even scientists asks those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 My point is that it is very hard to find the absolute truth, because many times we get fooled by wrong information and lies. Just like the Iraq war. I was against it from day one, because I felt something was wrong and the information sounded fixed, and now reports come out that there was no WMDs, no connections to terrorists and Bush planned the war long time before. I agree wholeheartedly. So, if only absolute truths exist, and we all know them, please tell me, what is the absolute truth about the war in Iraq? And why didn’t people know that then, when we only know absolute truths and truth is not subjective? If you replace subjective truth with personal opinion, it becomes easier to understand the difference. We base our opinion on absolute truth on personal opinions, and the personal opinion has been based on general opinion or trust in the source of information. The general opinion can be wrong and so can the source to the information too. You make a very good point. If the facts we have are misleading, then in that case, it isn't truth, but misinformation that people believe to be true. A lie cannot be truth; neither can a mistake in judgement. I think this is what happened in 9/11 and also WWII, and even in Christianity. I also think that the real truth of what happened in Iraq is still hidden, whether deliberately or not, and that not all of it has been uncovered yet. Until we get all the facts, we can't say if it's true. We can say that something is likely to be true, but that doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I think I probably confuse you all a bit just because I've been using the term "subjective truth", when maybe it's makes a bit more sense if you look at the term "subjective truth" as "personal opinion". We believe something being the truth based on our opinion. We make our opinion on facts and information (input). The facts and information can be absolute truth or lies. So in the transfer from information to opinion and what we believe is the truth, there's distortions (like Chef pointed out, background, culture, personality etc), and also of course we don't know if the source of the information is reliable. And then it goes in a circle, it comes back to that we trust the source based on our opinion, so we're kind of stuck in a "information->trust->acceptance->opinion->subjective truth", and our subjectivism feeds back to the trust part for the next bit of information. Did that make more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syndacit Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 ok I'm too lazy to read through all the other posts right now, I have summer school in the morning lol dont want my brain to explode! but any who, my friends in choir we had a huge discussion of truth and perseption Basicly what we came to was In perseption is truth, for if truth was law, then law would then be denied by man for it is not to his will and wanting Perseption is truth Perseption varies person to person therefore if perseption is not stable then truth cannot be stable hence truth is not existant for man cannot define what is not stable to be stable that was confusing yes but here, lets put into context If a man is insane, and sees you as a monster, and he is different, then the most common reaction would be. He is not normal. But what is normal, is normal what everyman defines his life cause everyone is defines it the same? To us we're not normal, he sees us for what he perseves to see us as. But because of that he is not normal. So what is turth? Does the insane man know the truth? or do you know the truth because its everyone elses truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Having abandoned my search for truth, I am now looking for a good fantasy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I hope I understand you correctly... If that person perceives it to be truth, it is truth to that person, based on their experiences and knowledge at that time? I agree with that one. OK, what would you say about the strength of a 'collective consciousness' of truth, perpetuating its influence in a subconscious manner on the masses? Perhaps kind of like the '100th monkey theory'. Furthering that idea, maybe there is a collective subconsciousness that supercedes our own collective conscious awareness, yet is generated from our collective reasoning thus far. Then... would we be creating our own reality instead of discovering it? I'm not saying that's my belief... PLEASE... just something to think about and how do we know? Are you talking about Sheldrake? I see no evidence for a collective consciousness or unconsciousness. Don't get me wrong please I'm not trying to say there is nothing real outside of human ability to understand it. Only that there is no way for humans to know about it that isn't relative to human sense and sensibilities. Why is that important to know? It is important because science attempts to ignore that part of the epistemological loop. That leads to an absolutism that is as controlling as any other religion. It takes scientist out of the moral arena leading to the illogic of producing the knowledge that has lead to the production of 13.5 quadrillion lethal doses of plutonium and claiming the knowledge is morally neutral. The scientist is asked to pretend that human sensibilities don't exist, and has helped to develop this insane civilization we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Are you talking about Sheldrake? I see no evidence for a collective consciousness or unconsciousness. Don't get me wrong please I'm not trying to say there is nothing real outside of human ability to understand it. Only that there is no way for humans to know about it that isn't relative to human sense and sensibilities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if it is Sheldrake or not, as I am not familiar with that name. The 100th Monkey theory, as I understand it, has found that in studying the evolution of monkeys, that once a new idea presents itself from one monkey... very soon on another island, the same idea displays itself from another monkey. These two never had means to have had contact with each other... so some postulate that their is some kind of conscious awareness manifesting and culminating amongst us all from an unconscious source. Carl Jung also speaks of the collective consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 So what is turth? Does the insane man know the truth? or do you know the truth because its everyone elses truth? Truth is that which can be proven by evidence, provided that evidence isn't made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syndacit Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Truth is that which can be proven by evidence, provided that evidence isn't made up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> evidence can be proven wrong evidence can be falsified turth cant be proven ask my dad we were just talking about it like 20 minutes ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 evidence can be proven wrongevidence can be falsified But if it can be proven wrong or falsified, then it's not the real evidence, and therefore a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syndacit Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Amethyst, I completely Understand your arguement! but when I said So what is turth? Does the insane man know the truth? or do you know the truth because its everyone elses truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was meaning to be contridictorary (cant spell worth crap lol) cause lets replace the insane man, with Agnostics and the other with Christianity its the same problem does the Agnostic know the truth or does Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts