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.
The Projected Truth
Submitted 3 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/2a3af0e7-128a-4945-9f3b-6c0b480697b9.jpeg
Comments
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zerush@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yes please lets have a semantic debate in which no one defines their terms
AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Hupf@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
An Orange Box on the left wall, a blue portal on the right.
Allero@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).
Some other languages have different words for these “truths”. You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named “truth”, which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.
ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
Truth opinion and belief
Nomad@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
Factt opinion and belief. The word truth is a statement over belief of something.
Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word “law” has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be “belief,” as it is what you hold inside you. That too has been highjacked by religions to push their agenda.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
English is a dogshit creole that also lacks distinction between libre and gratis and “cultural artist” and “visual artist” (Turkish : sanatkar v ressam)
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
English is not a creole language.
To keep it simple, a creole language originates from children learning a pidgin (a contact “language” with barely any grammar), and “gluing” the lexicon with features on the spot. To the point its grammar doesn’t resemble any of the parent languages over the course of, like, a single generation.
In the meantime English is simply a West Germanic language that got a bunch of borrowings from Old Norse and then Norman+French. Those borrowings don’t change affiliation.
Regarding the distinction between “libre” and “gratis”: it’s simply that “free” displaced “costless”. That sort of semantic shift happens, it’s most of the time internal (i.e. not caused by interference of other languages).
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
It does not at all lack the ability to distinguish between any of those things, it just doesn’t do so in single words
Gladaed@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The obsession to have dedicated words when one would rarely bother to specify and just use the generic term anyway will forever elude me.
There is very little difference to me between saying two 1 syllable words and one two syllable words. And English is a very packed language. Most english wordy things already have meaning and reserving a 1 syllable thing that is sufficiently different to be distinguishable is just not realistic.
xylogx@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The twist:
It’s actually a flat piece of paper.
Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ceci n’est pas une pipe
flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
How very Escher of you…
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Oh yeah. I remember attempting that. Lotta words in there.
tdawg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait
VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 3 weeks ago
How we go about living our lives on only partially-available and unreliable information is one of the most practical and important questions of all! Who do we trust? What assumptions should we make?
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s funny you bring that up, I offer a 6-week course on who to trust and what assumptions you should make!
fonix232@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it's not the complete truth.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s only a lie if there’s intent to deceive. Mistakes are not lies and false memories are not lies.
Viceversa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
Can an incomplete truth be not a lie if it’s incomplete, because the speaking person just doesn’t know the whole truth?
Eheran@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
When you say something fully believing it, it is not a lie, regardless of objective correctness.
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
It’s not a lie, it’s a projection.
dwemthy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Therefore lies are subjective
troglodytis@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The object’s ness is objective. The projection is your own dumbass ways of perceiving it because you lack the ability to objectively observe.
halvar@lemy.lol 3 weeks ago
Some say we live in a post-truth world. I say we live in a post-realism world. It’s not that objective reality vanished once this massive scale in ideological separation happened, it’s just that people stopped giving a fuck once it happened. Objective truth didn’t vanish though, most people just live without letting it inconvinience them.
WellTheresYourCobbler@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
We live in a post-world world
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Truth is subjective.
Maybe you’re an empiricist, and you think seeing is believing. But how did you verify that your visual processing cortex is showing accurate data?
Maybe you’re a rationalist, and you think that logic can reason us towards objectivity. But syllogism requires premises. Premises require evidence or axioms. How did you choose your axioms?
Maybe you’re a conformist, and you think agreement with other people will correct errors in your individual perception. But other people are human too. How are you going to correct for errors in the collective genome? How do you know other people exist?
Donald Hoffman ran thousands of evolutionary simulations. He compared organisms that perceive the simulated world accurately with organisms that perceive only fitness payoffs. Fitness always beats truth. Truth always goes extinct. Your ancestors were the creatures that used hacks and oversimplifications to turn the complicated world around them into a simple mental model. That simple mental model is your perception of the universe.
There is no scientific definition of an object. What makes some molecules one object and not another? Human convenience of perception. You’re not even a single species. You have tiny bacteria in every cell of your body with their own separate genome, processing glucose into ATP for you. Not to mention bacteria such as firmicutes and bacteriodes that help your digestive system process food. And are you the body containing all of these different organisms, or just a pattern of neural impulses? If your brain were simulated by an advanced computer, copying the function of every neuron, would it be you?
It’s subjective.
i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
What about gravity? It doesn’t exist, we just collectively hallucinate that stuff falls? That’s dumb
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Well I don’t believe matter or spacetime objectively exist, so I don’t think gravity objectively exists either. To borrow from Donald Hoffman’s language, I take gravity seriously but not literally. I know that gravity represents something which is important to our species’ survival, which is why we all perceive it. But I do not think it is as simple as we perceive it to be with our eyes. I do not think it is even as simple as Einstein described it. I think the truth is much, much more complicated.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
frog@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Depending on the light source or sources, there should be a gradient on the top and bottom parts of the first projection.
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
I’m sure you can work out the kinks with right lenses.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
There is no truth, only interpretations.
fipto@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
of what
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s a quote from Nietzsche; which I think is becoming more true than truth itself the older I get.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
what, you ain’t familiar with the double cylinder experiment?
GainGround@kopitalk.net 3 weeks ago
I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don’t understand the work they’re reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they’re trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it’s kind of a null position to argue.
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
It’s more recent idealogy, namely postmodernism. They genuinely deny the existence of universals in all respects. But I am yet to see a legitimate (philosophical) argument supporting that 🤷 seems more like a pop culture thing than real philosophy.
Semjeza@fedinsfw.app 3 weeks ago
Post-modernism denies grand narratives and puts forward that people will deceive themselves for their own benefit.
And indeed that values and ideals are socially contracted, so what is “Good” will vary across space-time.Not that there is no Truth.
qualia@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Now do that with non-commutative (quantum) geometry and try to make the same claim.
supplier@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
Plato has an allegory that would be right up your alley
Kowowow@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
The product? so the projections created the product?
TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 3 weeks ago
BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Truth is entirely subjective because all observations are subjective.
OccamsTeapot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
What about a thermometer?
BloodMuffin@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
truth=facts. facts are objective. it’s a fact that the USA is a country in north America. there is no disputing that.
the notion that the USA is a good place to live is not a fact, it’s a subjective opinion
Uebercomplicated@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Descartes wants a word…
Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I’m 14 and this is deep.
Sure, we can think there’s no way to actually know anything because your mind could have made up everything that happened before this moment. That’s a stupid way to interact with the world though. It doesn’t help you do anything thinking that way and only makes everything pointless, including conversing with you for people who don’t even believe this.