Comment

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Senal@programming.dev ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
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?

Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.

But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.

If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.

And context.

Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.

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’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.

But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.

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.

There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.

Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.

It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.

But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.

In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off.

I’m a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is true.

Which brings me back to:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

Emphasis mine.

source
- i_love_FFT@jlai.lu ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn’t make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
  
  That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
  
  source
  - Senal@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
    
    I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
    
    Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
    
    The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
    
    in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
    
    in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
    
    The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
    
    Which , again, brings me back to:
    
    There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth
    
    For completeness, I should have probably said:
    
    There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )
    
    That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
    
    Agreed
    
    As an aside:
    
    You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
    
    What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
    
    source
  - petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I see you have cleverly noticed there is a 3D object in the meme image that is casting both projections.
    
    This argument is one that is very, very difficult to have because it veers too closely to people’s first principles.
    
    On one side, we have people who know they are forced by reason to believe in all truths that appear before them.
    
    And on the other, we have people who have decided they will choose to believe in all truths that appear before them.
    
    Like, it’s just a semantic difference. Nobody on the subjectivity side, nobody rational anyway, disagrees with the concept of gravity, we are just simply aware of our power as fallible human beings to destructively choose not to.
    
    That said, there is something very dangerous about being in the second group of people, but thinking you’re among the first. And frequently, it becomes a problem when science brushes up against cultural fields it has more trouble explaining.
    
    It is not always possible to see the 3D object. The ability to recognize that two groups can both be ‘correct’, like in a Newtonian way, even when they disagree with each other is a very useful skill.
    
    source