In Einstein’s general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don’t violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
Comment on The Projected Truth
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
It’s rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building. Because guess what, odds are they know it’s bullshit.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]
And yet, gravity is still there.
Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can’t really claim it didn’t fall. And you can’t claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they’re stationary for you, so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!” and more of a “truth is relative to that speed”. It’s still an objective matter, not a subjective one.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!”
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only. An excellent example of relativity, if I’m being honest.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only.
This is blatantly false. The argument exists in the comment I wrote. If it existed only “inside my head”, you wouldn’t access it. Because nobody knows what’s “inside someone else’s head”, nor we (people in general) should lie = assume = bullshit otherwise.
An excellent example of relativity [SIC - subjectivity], if I’m being honest.
Also false. While I believe my argument is correct, there’s also the chance it’s incorrect. If it is correct, my belief is true. But if it is incorrect, it won’t magically become “true for ME! ME! ME!”; I’d be simply holding a false belief. But either way, that depends on the argument itself, not on the fact I’m the one voicing it or analysing it or whatever. The subject here (me) still doesn’t fucking matter. And that’s bloody common sense.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. [implied* by context: “relativity makes lvxferre uncomfortable”.]
Okay… first off, let me address the most pressing matter: in no moment you showed that this “truth is subjective” babble would be even remotely true.
Secondly. You’re making a bloody mess of “relativity” and “subjectivity”, as if both were synonymous. Get shit right dammit — subjectivity is a specific type of relativity regarding the subject. Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject, i.e. “gravity is false for me lol I’m jumping from the building!”.
Thirdly. Why are you bullshitting = assuming = lying about what I’m comfortable or not with? You have no way to know it, don’t lie you do. I’m not uncomfortable with subjectivity. I simply consider it such inane bullshit, that I’m outright mocking it. Just like I’d mock flat Earth, souls, zodiacal signs, aliens visiting Earth on weekends, et cetera.
Finally, drop off the Reddit style sealion: “I dun unrrurstand” followed by bullshit? Seriously, keep this shit in Reddit.
Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
Gotta love assumptions…
Not wasting my time further with you.
*see Gricean maxims, specially the one of relevance.
marcos@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you jump out of a bridge, you will still break your face on the ground for every reference frame outside of a black hole.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Not if the bridge is over water. Water isn’t ground. Truth is subjective!
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I believe that’s true, yes. Your point?
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Sure, if you’re traveling near the speed of light. For everyone on Earth, no one has ever experienced this (beyond a micro level that doesn’t matter and no one is discussing).
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
wait i wanna discuss the micro level
what the fuck tell me more this is neat
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Your head ages faster than your feet do! :D
By such a small amount that it would never, ever matter, but it’s still cool to know!
This small difference does actually become relevant when trying to explain gravity, though.
As I’m sure you’ve heard, objects in free-fall do not feel an acceleration. Instead, objects in an inertial frame travel along straight world lines through curved spacetime “down” toward the gravitational source. Light is “pulled” into large objects because that’s what a straight line looks like to a light beam.
I have a question, though: why is that I can’t feel gravity during a free-fall, but I can feel my own weight when standing on the Earth? Isn’t that kinda weird?
(I’m wrapping the rest in a spoiler tag out of mercy to mobile users.)
Tap for more paragraphs.
Wouldn’t everything I just said suggest that if I can feel the direction of gravity, it must be because I’m accelerating somehow? If I were blind and in free-fall, I wouldn’t be able to tell what direction “down” even is, and yet, the muscles in my legs tell me very explicitly that they are “lifting” me. The answer, or a very useful answer, anyway, is that something is accelerating: the ground. The stationary ground accelerates up through curved spacetime to push me. That’s how I can tell. But how does the ground accelerate without moving? Shouldn’t the Earth expand if it’s accelerating? We’re definitely approaching the limit of the things I can explain at the moment, but the key is time dilation. The fact that your head ages faster than your feet is the reason why the Earth doesn’t expand. It accelerates without moving because time is also curved. You can think of it this way: If you were to graph the position of objects through time, the Earth’s surface might curve toward the y-axis, the time axis, because it is accelerating. But, the y-axis also curves “away” from the Earth’s surface in the same way, such that they maintain their distance. And so, the Earth doesn’t appear to move. Isn’t that cool?
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Why do you think I disagree with this?
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve meet anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Ooh, time for science pedantry! The ISS is plenty close enough to Earth to experience almost the same gravity from the planet as on its surface, which is why it has to be orbiting at such speed - falling sideways fast enough and at the right angle so as not to come crashing down!
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount.
It sounds like someone still hasn’t played KSP! Play it! It’s great. You’ll learn a lot, and you’ll have fun doing it.
Stuff doesn’t stay in orbit because there isn’t gravity. It stays there because it’s moving sideways while it’s falling down, so it doesn’t hit the thing it’s orbiting. Without gravity it’d be able to just sit in space wherever it wants. There wouldn’t be a geosyncronus orbit as all orbits would allow you to just sit above any location you want. A geosyncronus orbit is one that the amount it has to move sideways is, in degrees from the center of earth, the same amount the earth rotates.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount
Imagine being this convinced that one’s understanding of gravity is objective truth, while also being this wrong about how gravity works
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them
sort of. they just keep falling and missing
Zagorath@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective
Hmm, maybe. Others have covered this and it doesn’t quite seem perfectly true, but let’s let that slide.
and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality
No, that definitely doesn’t follow. If truth is subjective it doesn’t at all mean you can control it. It just means that what is true for you might be different from what is true for me. The reason that’s the case isn’t a part of that equation.
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
no no i’ve gotten really high and ass-philosophical and sometimes we take ridiculous positions (e.g. horses are just poorly behaved long dogs) just to see how long it takes for the other person to figure out we’re high off our ass and giggling inside the entire time.
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
what is the difference between what is true and what merely is? because truth is the former, gravity is the latter.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
truth is the former
i.e. “the truth is what’s true”. Wow, deep.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
who said i was trying to be deep?
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I wonder if belief has anything to do with reality. Hmm.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter that spontaneously and randomly fell into place with only the barest of coincidences we can try to grasp as objective truths with which to define our sensationally complex environment.
Although . . . it is just as possible that matter arises from something more fundamental to something like a universal order, such as consciousness.
I dunno though, they never told me.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter
This, but unironically.
Spoilers: we’re riding some weird rock in the middle of the empty space.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Image
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
that’s A football, not Football. we’re allowed to hit one moleman in the groin.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ahyuk yuk!