WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Truth

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:13 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default


Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
ďIn an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ... G. K. Chesterton;
Interesting... Always heard that one attributed to Orwell.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-24-2018, 09:16 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 435
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46
Default

@Bee nah I aint read the whole thing yet. But slowly but surely. And ripped the cartilage in me ribs. Gahhh there is not part of me not falling apart



Does antimatter factor into this agreement?


I dont see why it wouldnt but I dont see why it would make any difference either. The fact that it annihilates matter I dont think has any weight on objective truth. Its simply a feature of our reality.


I see what you're saying, and on one level I agree with the categories, but:

Ultimately "truth" is a conscious thing. It is not synonymous with reality, but is a judgement thereupon. What you're calling objective truth is in fact reality. Truth can only emerge via a conscious affirmation of that reality. It's when the historically derived constructs of a consciousness accord with a given stimuli - when something we experience accords with what we already know. Therefore truth requires a conscious observer, and the objective truth you're talking about is impossible.

Well there is a problem here and it comes down to do we consider truth to be simply an abstract or rather something concrete. I tenuously hold with the latter and in my thinking I hold that truth has as much substance as stone. I think this is somewhat derived from Plato's forms. But the implication of this would be that truth is an independent 'form' or 'thing' as much an entity as any other in reality. Thats maybe a little out there but I got a gut feeling. Would we ever find something demarked truth in a higher reality? I kindly doubt it but I feel as though it has a physical substance.

Had a quick look at the links - have seen similar material before. What these people are measuring isn't the kind of space I alluded to. The space between, say, our sun and another star is full of criss-crossing waves of all manner, and teeming with energy, but what of the space into which the furthest remnants of the big bang is still fleeing? The first photon of light that escaped the big bang is still fleeing the event at light speed, but into what? Unless scientists have found a means to overtake light that has been moving faster than us for some 14 billion years and then take measurements f the space into which that light is escaping, I don't think we can rule out perfectly empty space. The notion of the big bang states that all matter/energy/waves originated from the singularity. If there were no matter/energy/waves prior, then there must have been empty space surrounding it, no?

I've always thought of the laws applying only to energy/matter/waves anyway. When these elements enter into a void they take their rules with them. In empty space you don't need rules - there is nothing to apply them to.

Honest answer is I dont know. Practically speaking since its uninteractable it cant contradict our reality however it can obviously accomodate it. Now this assumes two things (and probably more): That the physical laws are embedded in the fabric of the cosmos and that the expansion of the universe is not simply the distribution of bayronic and other types of matter in an already existing and truly empty space. Except the problem is then if we are inhabiting a truly empty space then does the matter/energy carry its own laws within itself. But this assumes that the universe was injected for lack of a better word into an empty space but from what we know about the makeup of the universe it seems more like it bubbled up. At least thats how I understand quantum foam and Im probably wrong in that understanding.


I've got an alternative thought on time I wouldn't mind your thoughts on:

I always had a problem with the notion of a space-time continuum. It seemed strange to take a real phenomenon - space - and form a continuum with a man-made concept - time. So I asked "what is time?". It dawned on me that time is entirely dependent on change. Without change no hands rotate on a clock, no radio-isotopes decay, no planets rotate on their axes...

So time, I've come to think, is the measurement of change. But it's not that simple. Everything changes. Even rocks are slowly changing at the quantum level. Time is therefore really the measurement of change relative to change: rotations of the second hand per increments of the minute hand per increments of the hour. Change in state of an egg per sand through an egg timer. Rotations of the earth on its axis per orbits of the sun...

Once I thought of time as a measurement of change a space-time continuum made perfect sense:

1. Space without change is meaningless
2. Change without space is impossible

1 - If nothing changes, there is no meaning in the universe, for no information flows - no light reaches the eye, no particles the nose, longitudinal waves don't reach the ears, etc.

2 - Change, even at the quantum level, can only occur in space.

Therefore there is an intimate relationship between time and space. Time is only the alteration of space, after all.

I dont know. Im not sure we really understand the relation between time and space. In Of Time, Passion, And Knowledge JT Fraser wrote up this hierarchy of time:

atemporal -blank sheet of paper, objects travelling at speed of light, black hole/Big Bang, causation has no meaning
prototemporal -fragmented shaft of an arrow, particle-waves travelling at less than speed of light, instants may be specified only statistically, probabilistic causation joins prototemporal events
eotemporal -shaft of an arrow, countable and orderable without a preferred direction, nowless time, physical matter, time orientable but not time oriented, deterministic causation joins eotemporal events
biotemporal -short arrow, future, past, present, limited temporal horizons, organic present, simultaneities of necessity, organic intentionality directed toward concrete goals and serving the continuity of the organism's life, multiple and final causation, rigid programming gives way to dynamic programming
nootemporal -long straight arrow, "You'll come to me out of the long ago", intentionality directed towards concrete or symbolic goals, serving continued integrity of the self, human actions are connected through symbolic causes known as ideas, the possibility of choice among ideas and corresponding actions is known as human freedom, ideas can produce responses to imaginary challenges
sociotemporal -A society is a group of people with a family of conflicts that defines them and distinguishes them from other societies. man has capacity to change social institutions in response to symbolic causes

I would disagree with your first point that space without change is meaningless because look at any picture. Its static, as much as something can be in the medium, and it carries a whole host of meaning. A friend of mine is a physicist and he told me once that he couldnt understand the universe as anything other than a piece of art. It was the only way he could attribute meaning to the universe. If there is meaning it may be intrinsic and meaningful in a way thats outside our definition.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-24-2018, 02:38 PM
spshane (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 221
Thanks: 41
Thanks 60
Default

Holy Yoda! Some time you people have! Searching for you mental health workers are. Your pills you must take!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-24-2018, 04:41 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 435
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46
Default

A point Id like to clarify. It appears to be of no interest to the universe if we know the truth (although considering we are part of the universe that claim might be too much) because it keeps its own history in its own being. Much in the way that an aged body records the injuries of its years. That said the importance of truth is so that mankind knows his own history. And this is what worries me and something of which I rail against and as it would happen I was reading Looking Back on the Spanish War by Orwell today and I happened across this passage:

I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, ‘History stopped in 1936’, at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant. It concerned secondary issues — namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could not have been otherwise.

The only propaganda line open to the Nazis and Fascists was to represent themselves as Christian patriots saving Spain from a Russian dictatorship. This involved pretending that life in Government Spain was just one long massacre (vide the Catholic Herald or the Daily Mail — but these were child's play compared with the Continental Fascist press), and it involved immensely exaggerating the scale of Russian intervention. Out of the huge pyramid of lies which the Catholic and reactionary press all over the world built up, let me take just one point — the presence in Spain of a Russian army. Devout Franco partisans all believed in this; estimates of its strength went as high as half a million. Now, there was no Russian army in Spain. There may have been a handful of airmen and other technicians, a few hundred at the most, but an army there was not. Some thousands of foreigners who fought in Spain, not to mention millions of Spaniards, were witnesses of this. Well, their testimony made no impression at all upon the Franco propagandists, not one of whom had set foot in Government Spain. Simultaneously these people refused utterly to admit the fact of German or Italian intervention at the same time as the Germany and Italian press were openly boasting about the exploits of their’ legionaries’. I have chosen to mention only one point, but in fact the whole of Fascist propaganda about the war was on this level.

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history. How will the history of the Spanish war be written? If Franco remains in power his nominees will write the history books, and (to stick to my chosen point) that Russian army which never existed will become historical fact, and schoolchildren will learn about it generations hence. But suppose Fascism is finally defeated and some kind of democratic government restored in Spain in the fairly near future; even then, how is the history of the war to be written? What kind of records will Franco have left behind him? Suppose even that the records kept on the Government side are recoverable — even so, how is a true history of the war to be written? For, as I have pointed out already, the Government, also dealt extensively in lies. From the anti-Fascist angle one could write a broadly truthful history of the war, but it would be a partisan history, unreliable on every minor point. Yet, after all, some kind of history will be written, and after those who actually remember the war are dead, it will be universally accepted. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth.

I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that ‘facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, you will find that a respectable amount of the material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science’. There is only ‘German Science’, ‘Jewish Science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ — well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five — well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs — and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:02 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,694
Thanks: 392
Thanks 999
Default

Facts and the truth are not always the same thing, though. Facts are objectively real, whether we know them or not. They are discoverable, but they may or may not ever be discovered.

Truth is our best, honest assessment of what we do now know. Someone can tell the truth and still have the facts wrong. A thoughtful, intelligent person may nuance his or her ďtruthĒ with a preface about its potential incompleteness, but they are still telling the truth at the time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:16 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 435
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46
Default

I would say that truth is at least in part an attempt to saddle fact with an idea or an emotion. Tim O'Brien in The Things They Carried approaches this idea but unless my memory is failing I dont think he ever takes it to its logical end. Ill have to go back and reread him.

Say a man kills another man in a robbery. The strict fact would be that this individual ended the life of this individual. Objective reality. But the host of influencing factors, the murderer lost his house due to an inability to afford rising property taxes which was caused by layoffs at his plant which was caused by the invention of a better steel that could be produced at a cheaper price and faster rate so that it shut out the competition. All of these are factors and you could make the argument that it was the shutdown of the plant that killed the man. This isnt a fact but it may be true. The law even takes something of this into consideration. Say our murderer is apprehended and charged. He cant say that the invention of a new steel was the primary cause of the murder but at the same time his situation can be taken as a mitigation in the act. So thats maybe the approach of the law on truth.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:28 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,694
Thanks: 392
Thanks 999
Default

Maybe a smidge in the sentencing phase, but otherwise thatís not a good example. A little far fetched in the conclusion, but I get what you mean.

And Id say itís exactly an attempt to saddle a fact. Thatís what it is.
Where some lose the principle these days is when they say well, we can never really know for sure, therefore we canít know anything for sure, therefore truth is only subjective, therefore objective reality doesnít exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-24-2018, 05:48 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 435
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46
Default

Aye youre right. The better example would have been just a robbery.


As for the rest I have trouble believing that those proponents of unattainable truth really believe what theyre saying but rather that they dont want people to believe truth is attainable because it is this gray zone where all is true and false in which the unscrupulous thrive.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-24-2018, 06:23 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,694
Thanks: 392
Thanks 999
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
Aye youre right. The better example would have been just a robbery.


As for the rest I have trouble believing that those proponents of unattainable truth really believe what theyre saying but rather that they dont want people to believe truth is attainable because it is this gray zone where all is true and false in which the unscrupulous thrive.


Maybe so. But I know lots of people who continuously spew some party line or other, regardless of how carefully one tries to debunk it. Debunkís not the right word, but Iím tired. Anyway, it seems more like they just want to be right, win some argument, than explore possible alternatives that might help everyone reach some understanding with opponents that both sides could live with.

It doesnít seem like they know itís not true at all. Yeah, the political ops who advance the shit know itís not true, but their motive is clear. Regular people just seem lazy or tired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Truth - 4509 Words Winterbite Fiction 11 06-30-2008 01:37 AM
Is Beauty Truth? starrwriter Writers' Cafe 4 06-28-2008 02:39 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:52 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.