Truth

[Ophiolite]

So it is subjectively real.

No. We treat it as real for practical purposes while declining to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it is real. Those two acts (treating as rea; defering a decision) are subjective, reality? Not so much.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No. We treat it as real for practical purposes while declining to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it is real. Those two acts (treating as rea; defering a decision) are subjective, reality? Not so much.

The relativistic structure makes it subjective.

 

[Ophiolite]

The relativistic structure makes it subjective.

What are you discerning as being relativistic about it?

I am taking a subjective look at reality and concluding I don't know what it is. My observation is subjective, my conclusion is ????

 

[timothyu]

This is Ethics and Morality not Christian Ethics and Morality

They are supposed to be one and the same regardless. Of course humans need to first realize they are a backwards thinking species

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What are you discerning as being relativistic about it?

I am taking a subjective look at reality and concluding I don't know what it is. My observation is subjective, my conclusion is ????

Yes, since you are the one determining what reality is and will change your mind based on such and such factors. This is an example of subjective reality.

However, the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it.

 

[stevevw]

Truth is objective. There is only one reality, and truth is an accurate reflection of reality.

Not all questions or statements are amenable to being classified as true or false. "Vanilla tastes better than chocolate." is obviously a subjective opinion rather than a fact about all of reality.

" is obviously a subjective opinion rather than a fact about all of reality.

What is all of reality.

 

[stevevw]

However, the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it.

Does it really. It seems to me what was fact 100 years ago can be fiction today. Look at physics. The fact was reality was made up to tiny bits of matter like billiard ball schema. Now its probabilitic.

The earth was flat and now its a sphere. There was a real substance call luminiferous aether, a proposed substance that allowed light to travel through empty space. Now this is not a fact.

The universe began with a BB which gradually evolved stars and galaxies as a fact under the standard model. Now thats being questions by the JWT. Who knows how our facts about reality will change in the future. There may be a complete paradigm shift which completely undermines the current models.

John Wheeler (Participatory Anthropic Principle) proposed that the universe was waking up to itself with conscious beings. That what we thought were facts long ago are then re conceptualised by the questions we pose of reality. That it is actually the conscious being who is creating that reality by the questions and choices made in measuring reality.

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

Wigner thought that there was no single objective reality and reality was subjective.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does it really. It seems to me what was fact 100 years ago can be fiction today. Look at physics. The fact was reality was made up to tiny bits of matter like billiard ball schema. Now its probabilitic.

The earth was flat and now its a sphere. There was a real substance call luminiferous aether, a proposed substance that allowed light to travel through empty space. Now this is not a fact.

The universe began with a BB which gradually evolved stars and galaxies as a fact under the standard model. Now thats being questions by the JWT. Who knows how our facts about reality will change in the future. There may be a complete paradigm shift which completely undermines the current models.

John Wheeler (Participatory Anthropic Principle) proposed that the universe was waking up to itself with conscious beings. That what we thought were facts long ago are then re conceptualised by the questions we pose of reality. That it is actually the conscious being who is creating that reality by the questions and choices made in measuring reality.

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

Wigner thought that there was no single objective reality and reality was subjective.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

Yes, our perception of reality only affects our perception of reality.

Reality remains the same, but the way we act towards it changes without going back.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, since you are the one determining what reality is and will change your mind based on such and such factors. This is an example of subjective reality.

However, the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it.

Incorrect, since I have not made any determination of what reality is and do not expect to do so. Reality can go about its business and I shall remain indifferent. People play immersive video games, well aware they are not real. My position is analogous, but not identical.

 

[Hawkins]

Truth itself by definition should be objective. The problem is rather, humans actually (but without their own awareness) lack the ability to detect truth. What they detected as truth can be relative, or even fallacious. To humans, the most accurate way of detecting truth is by fore-telling. Hard science can foretell with 100% accuracy. The nature of science is that humans lack the ability to tell a future. If a theory which allows us to tell a future without mistake, we know that the theory holds a truth.

Foretelling applies for humans to detect truth on a daily basis. When we see a ball, it can be a delusion. We touch it to confirm. Before touching we predict how it should feel by our hands as what a ball should feel. Then we touch, the prediction comes to pass, it feels as predicted as we should for a ball. We confirm our detection that our eye-sight is consistent with our touch, more precisely our prediction.

We are incapable of detecting all truth this way though. Then the next efficient way to detect a truth, due to human incapability, is by believing espeically the believing of human testimony by means of examining its validity (or credibility). That's how we've got daily facts through mass media. If media with equal validity (i.e., credibility) but inconsistent, humans will be confused or even driven nuts. In the 2020 US election, CNN (and its camp) said that Biden won while Fox News (and camp) said that Trump won. Sane humans thus rushed into the US Capitol with a gun. This will not be the case if humans are capable of reaching the vote counts directly.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Does it really.

Yes, all of your examples were about "what we think about it".

[Gregory Thompason] " the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it."

The earth was flat and now its a sphere.

No, the earth was always a sphere. Regardless of what people thought about it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Incorrect, since I have not made any determination of what reality is and do not expect to do so. Reality can go about its business and I shall remain indifferent. People play immersive video games, well aware they are not real. My position is analogous, but not identical.

Still sounds fairly relative and subjective from this perspective. Of course that is a subjective observation, since you know what you mean.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, our perception of reality only affects our perception of reality.

Reality remains the same, but the way we act towards it changes without going back.

Though if you look at history what we thought was reality at certain points in time turned out to be different and sometimes radically different to what we discovered later. But at each point we believed that was the reality.

Which poses the question how do we know what we believe is reality today is just another misunderstood reality. Which seems to suggest that it is the observer who is determining the reality. Rather than reality remaining fixed and the same.

Remembering that what is constituted as reality is determined by the prior assumptions being made. So for example if there is a God or if Consciousness is something that prevades the universe which may influence reality. Then the science method will never include such assumptions.

But if we do included them then suddenly fundemental reality would be a completely different reality. But the science method (methodological naturalism) where only material reality is measured will never be able to acknowledge this. So therefore they would be excluding vital aspects that may alter how reality is seen.

In that sense the science method will always fall short and miss the markof fundemental reality. Perhaps this is why it has always been changing and falling short of a theory of everything.

It seems to me that in science excluding the observers conscious experiences it is excluding a fundemental aspect of reality. That is why I think we are seeing a rise in proposing ideas like consciousness or information as fundemental reality as this seems to offer a way forward in explaining the observations better than the material ontology.

Maybe this is the beginning of a paradigm shift in how we think about reality and in 100 years the material basis for reality will be outdated.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, all of your examples were about "what we think about it".

The point that Wheeler and Wigner were suggesting was that it was "what we think about it" that created reality. We cannot ever remove the observer from the measuring of reality.

So what we think or observe is what we think it is. Is perhaps limited because of the senses we use to observe it. I mean objective science works well for certain measures. But not everything.

[Gregory Thompason] " the reality that is objective stays the same regardless of what we think of it."

But we know thats not the case. What we thought was objective reality 100 years ago was wrong. It did not stay the same.

How do we know that what we think is fixed and objective today will not also in time become wrong and even a complete paradigm shift occurs like in the past and we end up with a completely different fundemental reality.

No, the earth was always a sphere. Regardless of what people thought about it.

Yes but the point is to those at that time this was reality and a fact. It use to be that we seen reality as like a mechanical clock, a mechanical universe that operated on fixed points of matter reacting with a Newtonian world. This was deemed fact and reality. Then this was completely revised into Einsteins theory. This is being revised again with QM.

How do we know that is not happening right now. How do we know we are not in a simulation or there is a God. Science cannot verify this so its excluded. Which implies that they are missing something if true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How do we know that is not happening right now. How do we know we are not in a simulation or there is a God.

We believe neither of those things with absolute certainty. I'm not sure what your boggle is. Everybody should be aware of this.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does it really. It seems to me what was fact 100 years ago can be fiction today. Look at physics.

OK, let's look at physics 100 years ago and now.

The fact was reality was made up to tiny bits of matter like billiard ball schema. Now its probabilitic.

Schrödinger's equation was around 100 years ago. We still teach it today.

The earth was flat and now its a sphere.

This has been the case for 2000 years before 1925.

There was a real substance call luminiferous aether, a proposed substance that allowed light to travel through empty space. Now this is not a fact.

ether was disproved more than 100 years ago.

The universe began with a BB which gradually evolved stars and galaxies as a fact under the standard model.

the BB is 100 years old, but there was no theory about how stars and galaxies formed from the BB. (The Standard Model is particle physics. There is no "standard model" in cosmology.

Now thats being questions by the JWT.

First it's JWST. NASA really likes to rub it in that their telescopes are "space telescopes".

It also hasn't put into question how stars and galaxies "gradually evolve". These new observation of early galaxies will certainly provide constraints on the growth of galaxies and stars. They don't know the development of galaxies, stars, and SMBHs interact or which came first (if any did).

It's a really hard numerical problem, and if you want to ask about it, I'll try to answer your questions.

Who knows how our facts about reality will change in the future. There may be a complete paradigm shift which completely undermines the current models.

Which is how science works. Isn't it fabulous? We can get rid of wrong ideas and get better ones!

John Wheeler (Participatory Anthropic Principle) proposed that the universe was waking up to itself with conscious beings. That what we thought were facts long ago are then re conceptualised by the questions we pose of reality. That it is actually the conscious being who is creating that reality by the questions and choices made in measuring reality.

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

Wigner thought that there was no single objective reality and reality was subjective.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

I'll pass on physicists playing amateur philosopher (and philosophers playing amateur physicist). Cheers.

 

[stevevw]

We believe neither of those things with absolute certainty. I'm not sure what your boggle is. Everybody should be aware of this.

Maybe aware but not in reality. For example when it comes down to it material atheist will use the material evidence to prove the theistic worldview as unreal and false.

People cannot help it as primarily its about metaphysics and what in reality is real or not. So though being aware in practice they live as though their worldview is the only truth which can be used to attack and deny any opposing metaphysics.

We see it everyday in the many debates on forums like this. When science is used to dispute and even dominate over alternative views even dictating what is taught and allowed this is beyond science and into epistemic dogmas about how we should understand what is reality. Just like the church did in days gone by.

The science method is deemed as the only pure and real epistemics above all other alternatives. In doing so it is also positing an ontological truth that there is only material reality at the fundemental level. Or that at least this material reality trumps all other ways of knowing and ontogies such as the thiestic or transcedental ontologies.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then the next efficient way to detect a truth, due to human incapability, is by believing espeically the believing of human testimony by means of examining its validity (or credibility)

You appear to place a surprising confidence in human testimony, without specifying what methods you will use to determine its validity. Would you expand on how that should be done, in your opinion?