h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There has been no Truth since the birth of the concept of Relativity.

I am not speaking here of Einstein's relativity, but rather of the accptance of the idea that things can be perceived as being different depending on one's location or point of view. The foremost modern discussion on this is is "Gödel, Esher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Other early writings leading to the firm establisment of Relativity in opposition to Truth are the works of Freud and Darwin.

Truth actually began to die with the advent of the scientific method which was intitially perceived as a method of learning what Truth was through the observation of the details of God's creation. It soon became clear that what had been percieved as Truth to the early thinkers (such as, for instance, the number of teeth in a horses mouth) was shown not to be all that true. In fact, science does not record Truth at all, instead it measures/records Reality.

Plato had postulated that there existed a place of Truth and that our world was simply an approximation to this True world. His metaphor was that we wer like people chained in a cave from birth and all that we saw was the shadows of things passing on the wall before us. Since we had no other experiences than what we saw on the wall, we assumed that what we saw was real. He was trying to account for his observation that there were no instances of Truths or Ideals to be found in the world despite the fact that we could conceive of them. Had Plato gone a few steps further in his thinking he might have fathered the concept of Relativity.

The Renaissance was the beginning of the end of Truth (particularly seen in the effects of the printing press and the proliferation of new interpretations of the Christian documents) but it did not truly die till the ninteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Obviously more than a simple assertion is required to make this point and at some point I will attempt to write an article on it.

Barton

I'd like to pose a few brief questions to add to this debate. I have heard it said that there is no such thing as absolute truth. People say "well if thats true for you then thats fine but I don't go along with that". It seems that its all about perception, whats right for you may not be right for me.

The justification for this seems to be that since we are always finding out new things about the universe we cannot stop and say what we have found out today is absolutely true. We can only say its true as far as we know. This would seem at first glance to be a reasonable arguement but when you ask other questions you find you can't apply it in many areas of life. For example, one area of undeniable absolute truth is mathematics: 1 and 1 will always = 2 no matter what your perspective is. The universe is founded on mathematical principles that people are finding out all the time. It is true to say that people don't always know what all those principles are but the fact that there are absolute truths operating behind them is undeniable. If mathematics was dependant on opinion then the universe would fall apart.

Mathematics can be further extended to include logic. Mathematics is bound up with logic and vice versa. You can extend this to say that events are things of absolute truth: The fact that we are here is an absolute truth, abandon this and you can abandon all other arguements. The fact that you have a name is an absolute truth, that you were born, grew up, live in a certain place are all absolute truths that you are sure of. Where we can have debate is in regard to history. We can say with absolute certainty that we had parents and grandparents but the further back we go the less sure we can be of who our ancestors were. What we can be sure of is that we had ancestors and that our ancestors go back thousands of years.
We can debate history and events that we have not personally experienced but we cannot, with absolute certainty say that those things did or did not happen. I can only say with absolute conviction that I was born and have lived and have experienced certain things. Another person will not be able to confirm as much.

It would, in my opinion, be wrong to say that science only records reality and not truths. In the measure that it records events it is recording things that happen and either did happen or didn't. It also records mathematically and logically. It may not know all the facts but it knows some and can be sure of those.

In conclusion, the truth is out there if you look for it.
To declare that there is no such thing as an absolute truth is of itself the declaration of an absolute truth!

I'm afraid that mathematics does not present absolute truth at all.

Mathematics is a purely intellectual process that is based on certain postulates that are treated as if they were true, but whole different maths are based on altering one or more of those postulates.

You cite 1 + 1 = 2. Setting aside the fact that this 'truth' is one of those postulates. There is a wonderful quote by the mathematician Eddington who said, approximately, "People think that when we have finished our study of 1 we will automatically understand 2, because 1 + 1 = 2. They forget that we have yet to begin our study of +."

The simple fact is that the universe is not based in mathematics. Rather, we attempt to model the universe by using mathematics. We have seen some limited success in this process, but our model is still incomplete. The fact that mathematics and logic are based on clearly definable rules makes it necessary for any prediction we make to be 100% accurate. If we fail in this, then there is something wrong with the basic structure of our thinking. Any error calls all those rules into question.

I would be the first person to allow that we have been very succesful in modeling much of the way the universe appears to work. But, any mathematician will tell you that math is an artificial structure that has no necessary relationship with the world. All we can say is that it is self-consistent once we have stated our postulates.

You end by asserting the credo, "I think therefore I am." It is a powerful philosophical position. But it is not the only such position and it does not prove anymore in the long run than the fact that you assert it. Ultimately it is itself a relative statement of reality.

Barton

Question number 1. I quote: "mathematics does not present absolute truth at all". Does this mean that there are occasions when 1 + 1 does not = 2? If so then I could agree with you when you say that there is no absolute truth in mathematics.
What I said was "The universe is founded on mathematical principles that people are finding out all the time". By this I meant that it operates in ways that we can calculate using maths not that somehow "it knows" maths because maths is something we have in our minds. I would have thought though that (and scientists have expressed this) if certain parameters were very subtly different things would be very different or would not work at all. This would imply that these parameters are fundamental to the working of things and could be considered absolutes though we may not have found out what those absolutes are in full yet.
But I think my main point is about upholding logic. This is used in the conclusion of any scientific finding and is the basis of maths, without this we are nowhere. I'm not sure I did quote "I think therefore I am" but I agree that it is a powerful statement nevertheless. It seems the deeper we go into this debate the more philosophical it becomes. That statement is the acknowledgement that the only thing you can be absolutely certain of is your own existance, everything else could be an illusion fed into your senses directly into your brain like in the Matrix. And we wouldn't know any different. Scary thought.
Nice debate though

One of the postulates of aritmetic is that 1+1=2. This is a fundamental truth of Aritmetic. This breaks down to a statement that the abstract value 1 when cosidered with itself is precisely and exactly equivalent to the value 2. The statement is, in essence, a definition of the terms involved. It is true by definition. If we take this out of the realm of ideal mathematics into the real world, we must first find some way of finding a 'one' that is precisely and exactly equivalent to another 'one' before we can begin to talk about some 'two.' Before we can do that, we must arrive at a definition of what constitutes identity (equivalent to a fundamental postulate of 1=1). Is one apple exactly equivalent to another apple? If all you are concerned about is counting apples then the answer is yes. If you are concerned with using an apple as a standard for something other than counting, appearance, weight, smell, taste, texture, and you want to be able to say one apple is precisely and exactly equivalent to another apple then you will have troubles directly proportional to the degree of exact comparison you require. You might be able to say that this apple is exactly and precisely equal to itself in the real world (if we discount issues of change in time) but then you could not say that one plus one equals two. You only have one so you cannot have two.

You can speak statistically and say that this apple is approximately equal to that apple and thus be able to say that this one apple and this other one apple are approximately equal to an ideal two apples. But now you are forced to define what constitutes two apples within the area of your concern. The same problem follows for each 'number' that follows.

Let's suppose that we are going to define weight in terms of apples. According to our new standard, a pound is equal to one apple. Suddenly, the exact size and makeup of any given apple is significant if you are concerned with less than a statistcally significant number of apples.

Let's consider that common warning, "You can't add apples and oranges." Why can't I? They are both approximately round, the both grow on trees, they both have skins, meat, and seeds. There is obviously some quality of one that makes it non=equivalent to the other. And even this statement is only conditionally true. I *can* add one orange and one apple to get two fruits, again, so long as I am only concerned with counting units of fruit.

If I cut an apple into two halves. Do I have two apples? Do I have two half apples? Put each half on a scale and weigh it very precisely, add the values together, compute the precise fraction that each proportion represents. Let's imagine that the values work out to precisely 3/7 and 4/7 and that 3/7 was exactly equal as close as we cared to measure to 3 oz. and 4/7 weighed 4 oz. Can we now say, using aritmetic and logic that an apple weighs 7 oz.? Can we even say that 'this' apple weighs 7 oz. or should we consider the juice and bits of apple skin that were lost during the cutting process? Are we justified in saying that all apples weigh 7 oz. or is this a small or large apple for this tree, for this variety of apple, for all types of apples. We can't even make a statitical judgement about apples by examining this one apple.

Yet, we call this an apple. We can put it in a bowl with many other apples, none of which look exactly alike, some of which are red, some of which are green, some of which are yellow, and all of which are apples. So, now we can say that one apple plus one apple eqals two apples. This is only counting, but that's fine. But, please note, we still can't say one plus one equals two. What's different? The labels are missing. The label is the defining characteristic that controls the legitimacy of the operation.

In fact, when we use math -- pure math -- even though we don't use the labels which define the characteristics of the numbers being manipulated they are there by implication.

Now let me present a system of math similar to arithmetic execept that every time you use a number some small part of it is consumed depending on how it is used -- perhaps to simulate friction or radiation or some effect of aging -- now, does 1+1=2?

I will not belabor this point any further. My issue was that aritmetic is an artificial ideal process of the mind that must be modified to be used in the real world. It works because it is carefully defined using concepts that are asserted not proven. Any proofs within math may be considered proven only so long as the hypotheses are permitted to go unproven. Before we can move anything from the world of math into the real world we must accept that the hypotheses may not be True, in the pure sense, and be prepared to deal with the results.

Barton

I appreciate the lengths you have gone to to explain the ways we can ook at numbers. But to go back to the original concept of the "death of truth" I don't think you can prove to me simply that if I pick up one apple and then another one that sometimes I may not have two apples in my hands. I know you can go on about labels and try and make it more complicated than it is but at the end of the day it is the absolute TRUTH that i have two apples. Its the absolute truth that i picked up one and then the other. And that if this is true then truth, absolute truth, must exist. A child can understand that and I have to say that talking about labels and such only serves to confuse this simple truth. I'm sure thats not what you're trying to do of course but its all too easy to do when we are thinking about such things. I don't think truth is that hard to grasp, its simple really as simple as the example I just gave. There are other truths such as logic, if this wasn't true none of our computers would work.
So far i've read nothing that convinces me that there is no such thing as absolute truth. If there were no such thing as absolute truth the universe would not be here, it would never have got going or would have fallen apart as the laws that hold it together would have failed all the time. I read alot of stuff about how to describe things but you can call an apple a banana if you want but it doesn't make it any less of an apple. Perhaps you can explain how picking up one apple and then another one sometimes will mean I don't have two apples in my hands? If you can do that without resorting to renaming or re-labelling my apples or by saying "depands what you mean by one" or such then I will be impressed. It sounds awfully like Bill Clintons defence when he said "It depends what the meaning of 'is' is".

Ricardo1,

I hope you do not think that I am just trying to get your goat or that I am arguing just for the sake argument.

You are insisting that there is "absolute truth" and that you have some knowledge that is absolute truth. You also say that logic is a source of absolute truth. I have tried to show you that we cannot talk about anything without sharing a mutual understanding. That, speaking in poorly defimed generalities doesn't even allow us to discus the problem.

You complain that I make things more difficult than they need to be. That any child can understand that some things are absolutely true.

I am going to set aside the issue of how you know what anyone else thinks or understands when you can't even be sure you share a common understanding of the language. I will also set aside the point that children often believe things that you no longer believe in.

I'm sure that you would be willing to assert that one doesn't need language to understand that one thing and another thing make two things. It doesn't matter what the things are, if one can pick one up in one hand and pick another up in the other hand then one has two things. Even if this hupothetical person doesn't know how to count, he still has two things. If you can accept this then we have just defined two things as one thing in one hand and one thing in the other hand.

Now, if you will forgive me using the second person so freely, you want to go on to assert that if one has one thing in each hand now and you just stand around and don't do anything till the end of the day, you will still have one thing in each hand at the end of the day.

Setting aside stupid coments like, "What if one of those things was a piece of ice?" I can't imagine that if you were me and if I had done what you had just done, I would not expect that I would have one thing in each hand just as you say.

But, I didn't do it. You did it. (Or, you say you did. I'm not necessarily willing to believe that you really did what I think you said you did. You see, I've seen this guy, for instance, who can put a thing in one hand and another thing in his other hand, while I'm watching, and he opens his hands and he has two things in each hand. Then he closes his hands and opens them again and he has no things in his hands. I can't do that. He may be a god! Gods can set their own rules, can't they?)

Now, ignoring the aside, how do you know that it will happen again? If you think it *must* happen again that it must happen EVERY time. Then you have an Absolute Truth. However, it is one that is based mostly on faith. You can't prove it will happen every time, even though I might be a magician or a god and can show you that it doesn't have to happen every time (and just one time should be enough to show you that you don't have an 'absolute' truth.)

I need to take this one step more. Though you tried the two-thing thing 50,000 times and every time it worked exactly as it did the first time, no matter what two things you picked up. And you are totally convinced that, even if you see it doesn't work one time, that your Truth is Absolute and what you saw must have been a mistake or a deceit. How can you make me believe that your Truth is True for me?

I didn't see you do it so I don't know if you're a liar, a mad man, a prophet or a god. You could say, "I'll prove it to you." And show me how you do it. And make me hold onto both of your closed hands the whole time till you open them and show that nothing has changed. And you could have me do that with you each of us taking turns holding the things while the other person holds the holders hands for 50,000 more times with the same results. And, we could both believe that we know an Absolute Truth. But, it would still be faith on our parts.

No amount of instantiation is a universal proof. We have become convinced but nothing has been proven. And, how will we convey our new religion to the next person we meet?

Please don't get me wrong? I BELIEVE that faith is a necessary part of getting up every day. I have faith that mathematics CAN model the real world even though I know that it doesn't have to, so long as I follow the rules I was taught about what is required and permissible. I know that when we discover that math is wrong, we will change whatever needs to be changed in math to make it work again. But, I can only believe that, if I understand that math is based on certain postulates that we assume are true. If they aren't true then we can change them, but if they are True, Absolutely True, then they can't be changed and we will be forced to abandon all mathematics.

Logic works because it proceeds with rigor from one point to the next, so long as our postulates can be trusted then so can our logic based on those postulates.

We used to believe that Newton had doped out celestial mechanics, then along came Einstein and his friends and collegues and showed that Newtonian physics were only true up to a point. Einstein proved that everything is relative to your frame of reference ('everything' being everything concerning the physics he was talking about -- he was very specific even with general relativity) He couldn't even rule out that the speed of light wouldn't change in other parts of the universe.

Plank's Constant is a fundamental value in understanding our universe. Recently, it was discovered that that value had changed. Not that it was wrong but that it had changed. The physicists are now theorizubg that it will take at least seven dimensions to fully explain how things work. There is no way that any human being can visualize more than three physical dimensions and time from their own personal experience. The only proof that will be accepted of these theories is if they can be used to predict the way things work better than a theory that isn't so complicated and outside of our experience.

Occam's Razor is a strategy. It isn't even a formal theory. It's a formalization of how we have learned to learn.

Given two theories that both answer a question, choose the least complicated.

You are asserting Occam's Razor. It's simpler to believe that one plus one equals two and will aluays equal two. So, that is how you have chosen to act, as if the theory is absolute truth.

My point is, and has always been, that man has advanced to the point where he is aware that his assumptions are simply assumptions. If we fail to accept this and insist that these are Absolute Truths, then we cannot learn anything that might contradict them, just as the Church of the Middle Ages forbade any knowledge that contradicted its Truth.

Now as fat as logic being the reason why computers work. I am a computer professional and you may be surprised but I have observed that they don't alwys work. Sometimes, people tell me that they don't work and, when they go to show me how they don't work, they work. There are excuses, I use them, and explanations. But, if anything gets complicated enough, mysterious and non-logical things DO happen.

I, personally, maintain, completely without proof, that logic is just another one of man's emothions. It just happens to be one emothion that, if he practices, a man can control.

I hope that this has in some way met your challenge. I hope that you can see, not that I am right, but that I have a point.

I make it a rule of my life not to defy anyone's faith. It's rude and it's pointless. If you still feel that you have an argument to make and can make it without forcing me to accept your beliefs /a priori/ then I will be happy to continue this discussion.

If your only response to what I have written is, "You're wrong." without rhyme or reason, then you should ask yourself what it is about your personal belief structure that I am challenging. If you can't set that aside for the sake of argument, then let's stop here and just say we disagree.

Barton

I tried and I tried but I just couldn't resist asking:

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear, does it make any sound?

What do you really think? Why? And, how do you know?

Barton

Light exsists as a wave, this can be shown with an expiriment involving two slits and one light source. If set up properly the light makes interference patterns with the other light waves and froms a different pattern that the sum of the two slits (uhh, not a good description at all).

Light exsits as a particle, this can be shown (although with much better technology then two slits) by observing angles and trajectories and all that of colisions of light with various gasses.

Both of these mutually exclusive properties can be observed in experiments. But, that means light has different properties depending on how we (human beings) choose to observe it. This, acording to science, means that light has no fundemental properties beyond our experience with it (you follow?). Electrons have a similar structure, a particle wave duality. This means, from the school of thought of quantam mechanics, that electrons and the the air, the sound waves in the air and the whole tree it's self do not exsist if no one is around to witness the event. Scary huh?

But the question assumes that a tree can exsist with out us, and that it can fall. with this assumption, the tree still does not make a noise. Sound is defined as the interaction between subtle waves of air and the ear drum. Waves that do not wiglle that little organ are not sound. Ocean waves are not sound, ext although they travle through the same medium and by the same means as sound.

But science can be (is) wrong

the idea that 1+1=2 is accepted by philosophers as true by definition. It is an apriori truth that has no relevance to the outside world. The Truth that this forum is concerned with is Synthetic a Priori truth (or atleast i think it is). (Synthic means Not logically certain but bearing on reality. analytic means true by definition but not bearing on reality. A priori, Dervied independantly of sence experience, a posteriori, derived through sence experience.) a syntheic apriori truth is one that is dervied independantly of sense experience but has bearing on reality. The religion of science cannot (by cannot i mean it dont think it will) meet this goal because it is based on sense experience. Math cannot contribute either because it is analytic and deals with manipulating definitions.
1+1=2? 360 degrees in a circle? Science has found that an electron, when spun 360 degrees is not the same, but the MIRROR IMAGE of itself. the idea that 360 degrees is "all the way around" does not apply to the quantum world. alos, in quantam mechanics, it has been found that sometimes 0=3, so it can hardly follow logically that 1+1=2 (from nothing comes three things, this event violates not only arithmetic logic but the law of conservation of energy). For more mind blowing science, please read "The Dancing Wu Li" masters by Gary Zuvak.

Truth is "the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality"(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).

The dictionary defines truth as being realted to fact or reality: what really happens/happend. The fact is simple: people must "find the truth." We all need truth to support our ideas, our images, our beliefs, etc. We all must know that there is truth in what we are doing, and we all strive to find the "universal truths of life."

Whether existant or not, these "truths" are based on personal opinion and experience. They key to finding "truth" is through experience. Therefore, I agree with Plato's metaphor on truth. The longer we live, the greater the influence experience has on our minds and souls.

To prove truth through mathematics and logic is irrelevant; it is off-subject. Mathematics and logic are two "safety barriers" we humans use to "identify truth." One cannot mix and match math and logic with truth because truth is based on one's own perception. Instead of trying to prove that something is either fact or fiction using logic or mathematics, one might try to observe whether something is fact or fiction. In the end, time tells all, and time is beneficiary for those trying to find truth.

My final suggestion is: wait and observe. Soak like a sponge the experiences and events in your life. From these things one may develop his or her "own sense of truth." I do believe that truth exists in all things, but it is just waiting for a will to find it.

-Sir Thomas

Megabyte,

I know it will seem trivial but I asked if it would make a sound not if it would make a noise. Therein, lies the real issue of the question.

The whole question is rooted in the concept of relativity. So, your citation of quantum physics is valid. However, you have two things wrong. First, no physicist maintains that quantum effects are valid on the macro scale. Statistical events seem to cancel them out. Consider, there is no reason that all or most of the atoms of an ashtray might not happen to be going straight up in the air at the same time. The result, the ashtray appears to levitate for no reason at all. The fact is though that such events have never been observed to happen. The reason, well, they say the odds just haven't ever worked out that way (This is not an issue of gravity, though gravity is probably a part of the reason why it doesn't seem to happen.

Second, quantum uncertainty states that if any of the possible events can happen there is no way to know which will actually take place till it is observed. If a particle may go right or left and it isn't checked (which is to say if it can have no effect on anything else, not that there must be someone there to check it) then there is know way to know which way it turned. AND, if we arrange that it won't be checked till it has gone one light-year in either direction then at the moment it is checked it will be in one place and not the other. But, it could be in either place at equal probability. Therefore, since it can't travel faster than light, it must potentially be in both places. Not, as you suggest, in neither place.

In your illustration of the dual properties of light, you made another fundamental error. You assumed that the properties of light changes depending on how *we* observe it. In point of fact, the dual properties of light are always there. That is the reason for postulating that light is neither particle or wave but a 'wavicle' which somehow partakes of both properties. Why is this mystifying? We're the ones who insist on either/or, not the universe. It's another case of confusing the map with the territory.

Noise or sound? There is an interesting distinction that *can* be but need not be made. Noise, in the general sense, is the result of something vibrating in the air or in some way causing the air to be moved in waves of compression and rarefication. Sound, then, is the perception of noise. Which you acknowledge at the end of your post, though you are still insisting that it is the physical movement that makes the sound.

I would suggest that it is the perception that makes the sound. If you hear music in your dreams, does it make a sound even though there was no noise to jiggle the bones? If not, can you describe the difference without pre-defining a cause-effect relationship. Yes, I agree, it's not real, but I can't prove it. How do you know it's not real? And when do you know it's not real?

Alright. There's no one there to hear it but there is a tape recorder. If a tree falls, *when* does it make a sound? Let's hypothesize that we have a perfect recording and playback system, just for the sake of this thought experiment. If we can't tell the difference between the singer and the Memorex then what is the difference? It's an old adage in science that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. AND, if it makes a sound after the noise (I admit that the noise is recorded and the noise is played back so in a sense we have simply stopped the noise till after the tree had fallen and then restarted it.) then does the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear make a sound? Did the tree make the sound or did you? If it was you then the tree without the recorder made no sound. If it was the noise and only the noise then the distinction is one without distinction.

If the latter, what is the significance of the observer? Yet, Heisenberg assures us that at least on the atomic level, the observer is significant since he cannot observe without altering that which is observed. And Heisenberg was not talking about quantum probablility, he was talking about actual alteration due to act of measurement.

As far as the 360 degree electron, you have fallen prey to the confusion of mixing different jargon. In this case, the spin of a geometer has no relationship with the spin of an atomic physicist except for the same four letters. Spin in geometry is to rotate, spin in physics is a fundamental property of 'particles' (quotes because an electon is another wavicle, it has no rest mass and so exists as radiation that is somehow confined to it's proper quantum state according to its energy and it's spin.) Spin has nothing to do with turning around 360 degrees or not. Electrons have a spin of positive or negative 1/2. So, change the spin, then by definition you have the mirror image of what you had. Physicists have spoken of right and left hand spin but not about degrees of rotation of electrons.

You state: "it has been found that sometimes 0=3" Please show us the proof. I assume that this statement is in the domain of mathematics so your proof must not merely be apparent, it must not violate any of the laws of mathematics such as performing illegal operations on a variable equal to zero. I'd love to see it, if only for the benefit of others I have by talking with.


Researcher 172795,

You start with a general definition from Webster's Collegiate, a decent dictionary but highly abridged. I just pulled down my copy (admitedly not the Collegiate edition -- My Collegiate would have been a different edition than yours anyway.) and found this:

truth n, pl truths [ME trewthe, fr. OE treowth fidelity; akin to OE treowe faithful--more at true] (bef. 12c) 1 a archaic: fidelity, constancy b: sincerity in action, character, and utterance 2 a (1): the state of being the case: fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts: actuality (3) often cap: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <~s of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions 3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly Brit: true 2 c: fidelity to an original or to a standard 4 cap, Christian Science: god -- in truth : in accordance with fact: actually

My only point here is if the definition you cited was the only one there then your dictionary is not nearly complete. If it wasn't, then you are picking and choosing, which is a no-no.

The definition of Truth we have been working with here is more closely related to version (3) above. We use the capital to signify that we are specifically excluding the relative truth which you praise. And, I have no objection, if you are saying that your personal truth(s) is all that you need. But, in that case, you should not cite Plato who spoke of a realm of Truth of which our realm is a flawed projection. (I'm not sure that some of my professors of long ago would have allowed you to say that Plato spoke in metaphors eitther -- not without a very long and well researched paper -- but those professors were a bit too anal for me anyway.) Truths, to Plato, did not exist for us except through the power of our minds to refine those things we know in the realm of the ideal.

Still, I see what you are saying and I will simply say that you make my point for me. Each man must find the truth (small t) but that truth must necessarily be personal and not universal since each of us will be building on individual experiences which no other man can share.

On the other hand, if you believe that there are Truths which lie behind the truths you find through life experiences, presumably derived by abstraction, then there should be no problem presenting those abstractions for everyone to agree upon. I'm afraid that hasn't happened.

In fact, this thread began with my contention that the world has moved on past the concept of Absolute Truth that precludes all lesser truths. That was the contention before science made it impossible for us to understand how Aristotle could with his collegues have debated on the number of teeth a horse should have without ever going to count the teeth in x number of horses to at least get a consensus. (Well, how many horses back then had all their teeth, anyway? And at what stage of their lives?)

Take care all of you.

Barton

Barton,

May I ask you what is your philosophy? I cannot tell you mine because I am really not sure what type of philosophy I live life by. Also, I am curious as to your meaning of Absolute Truth. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, rather, I am trying to learn and understand where and how others think. From your writings I can infer that you are a collge-educated and a highly intelligent being. I would like to comprehend more of this topic area because I find it extremely fascinating.

To say that man must find his personal truth(s) is correct. I am not so sure, though, if many a man desires to find the Truth, the Absolute Truth, the Truth that turns the world. For many a man it is too great a challenge, and many people just lead their simple little lives not knowing that an Absolute Truth exists. If the majority of the population lives life in the darkness of the shadows of fiction, how then is the minority supposed to discover the Absolute Truth when the majority refuses and or declines to acknowledge it exists. Is this why you believe that the Truth is dead?

-sir Thomas

Sir Thomas,

If you want to get a better idea of my personal philosophy, particularly in regard to Truth, Reality, and Honesty, you might visit my 'space' by clicking on my name above this posting.

I maintain that Truth is an old fashioned and obsolete concept. (Please note the capital T.) It used to refer to things that were absolutely true without exception every single time. My contention is that those truths were based on acts of faith. Whatever they stated, they were ultimately based on some fundamental postulate that had to be accepted without proof whether for reasons of logic or reasons of religion. They date from a time when it was possible to believe that there must be *something* that is always true or the universe would fall apart.

Some of these Truths made sociological statements, some made physical statements, some made religious statements, etc. All of them were ultimately expressions about what the philosopher (all of us are philosophers) felt must be the way things are. To the believer if you did not share that belief, you were wrong. To the non-believer, that other fellow was equally wrong and misguided. Truth is about faith, which has no fundamental tie to anything outside the mind.
Truth is binary in nature, there are not degrees of truth.

With the advent of the scientific method (based on another set of equally arbitrary but harder to contest set of postulates) Reality not ideals took center stage. Later, came the observation that observation was colored by the observer and the conditions under which the observer observed. This ultimately resulted in the concept of relativity. Not just Einstein's relativity but psychological, political, logical, mathematical, aesthetical, and even religious relativity. This is when we went from THE Truth to A truth to MY truth and your truth.

Fundamental to this aspect of relativity is the understanding that understanding is relative as well. We may speak together and come to agreement yet have two completely different understandings about what was agreed upon. The problem is not that we have discussed poorly but that we have not used the same languages. Each of us uses the words of the language with a relative understanding as well.

The solution is to be very careful to define what is being discussed so that both parties are using the same terms for the same thing in the same way. How do we get to that place when we only have an individual understanding of the language? The process is to move from the assumption of a general understanding to a careful definition of terms and relationships always with the basic postulate that logic can be trusted. If it can't, then we will never make any progress, so we might as well assume that it can till it turns out wrong.

The same is largely true in science. There are certainly some fundamental postulates that can be questioned but science seems to be self-consistent enough that we can use it. Science is the religion of Reality. It has been said in this thread that science is based on what can be sensed, but that is not true. Reality strives to free itself from that which is sensed, to rely on that which can be measured in the same way no matter who does the measurement so long as the same methods are used for verification, etc. Reality is thus independant of the mind. Reality is also analog in nature, in the sense that understanding is achieved in progressive steps and that scientific 'truths' can be approximations.

The 'truth' you presented fits nicely into my category of Honesty. Honesty is solidly based in personal experience and observations. There are aspects of Truth but the assertion of universality is not required. There are aspects of reality, but there is no assertion of objectivity. There is an assertion of understanding but that understanding is not truth but wisdom. Above all else, honesty must accept that while there may be Truths and there may be Reality, they only matter to the individual mind.

To my way of thinking, none of these categories can be rejected as irrelevent, but one must try to understand which category is being used. It is always necessary to be aware that all three may be valid.

So, I suppose I would have to say that the reason that I believe Truth is dead is that it is an old tool that is broken. It can't be used to solve problems anymore.

Sorry, I'm rambling tonight.

Take care.

Barton

Barton,

Quantam mechanics is mystifying. Many scientists disagree on the ramifications of the particle wave duality. It is possible that light is actually a wavicle, it is also possible that the properties of light are dependant upon the observer. It is also possible that light is 'organic' (in this sense i mean alive, and capable of making decisions) and can 'know' what observers are observing and act accordingly. All three of these are guesses because we cannot observe without observing (wihich is the whole problem). Your guess is as good as mine, and the guess of your quantam physicst is as good as mine. Unless of course scientists have proved light exsists without an observer (man, photographic paper, anything), in which case id be interested to know.

Your correct in saying that perception and not the eardrum causes sound ( or noise, which i think are the same, unless one is the name for waves of a specific wavelength) but i would consider a tape recorder an observer.

As far as 0=3, There is a quantam reaction between three particles (a pion, and i think an anti neutron and something else, i'll find out if you care) which completly destroyes all three particles (both mass and energy, leaving absolutly nothing). Because nothing leaves the reaction, it also causes nothing to cause it. The particles thus come from nothing (a perfect vacuum is all that is required but extra doesn't hinder the reaction) fly off in various directions and find other particles to form the same trinity and destroy themselves. Thus from nothing comes three, IE: 0=3. And the laws of conservation of energy and mass are briefly (but frequently) violated (like with virtual protons). As for the 360 electron thing, thats what my teacher says, im only in high school so i take his word. But your probably correct.

And perhaps you could comment on some things for me. 1/3=.333333(for infinity) but 3 * 1/3 = 3 * .333333 = 3/3 = .999999(ect.) = 1?
also, the consevation of spin of photons may allow us (or any force) to affect light on the otherside of the universe. does this paly into the idea of universal symetry?

And, sorry, but if force = mass times acceleration, how can every action have an equal and oposite reaction? (I dont accelerate downwards, nor upwards, but gravity is a force and so is the normal force (the forces are 'equal' but there is no acceleration, what is the alternate definition of force?))

As far as possibilities go. Statistics can't prove anything can't happen just that the liklihood is low. By the same token they can't prove anything can happen, just that the liklihood is high. And that's based on the assumption that the statistician doesn't have a personal ax to grind. Mark Twain once said, "There are liars. Damn liars, and statisticians." However, I know of no way to rank the reliability of physicists except by peer review. It may have been Clarke or Asimov or Heinlein who once said, approximately, "When a world renowned and highly respected scientist tells you that something is possiblem you would do best to believc him. However, when he says that something is impossible, you can be pretty sure he's wrong."

Without an observer, there is no way to prove that anything exists, particularly since it seems that everything is relative to the observer or so I've observed.

If there were nobody here, we wouldn't be having this discussion so the point wouldn't have been raised.

You missed my point, sound and noise are not the same; I defined them to be different. (and this is my thread. Nyah!) Or do you want to say that the difference is no difference and so makes no difference? You are certainly welcome to do that. But I think I have demonstrated that, at least on a philisophical level the difference is significant. The mind percieves the noise and through that perception it becomes sound.

Of course you are welcome to dispute that my definitions prejudice the discussion in my favor. In which case, I will smile a very large smile.

Yes, please find out about your three particle reaction. (I once studied nuclear physics back when it was the next best thing after atomic physics, but I've fallen disgracefully behind.) It's an interesting point, if there is in fact a verifiable reaction that results in a net loss or gain in the mass-energy content of the universe (assuming that there is no way to prove that an inverse reaction automatically takes place somewhere else.) Make sure that there is no energy radiated from the event in either direction of time. Remember when dealing with anti-particles that their life vectors have an opposite sign from the 'normal' particles. (and don't forget that E=MC^2 as far as we can tell so far. Since the photon is the smallest possible unit of energy, so far as we know -- this week, it stands to reason that the smallest possible particle, with a rest mass or not, must be equivalent to one photon of energy or some even multiple. We can have more and less energetic photons though so it hard to decide what that value is and thus what the smallest possible sub-nuclear reaction would be.)

This 0=3 reaction brings us to the white hole hypothesis which speculates that for every unit of mass leaving the universe through black holes (assuming that that is what happens) another enters the universe from a white hole so that the net balance of the universe remains the same.

To answer your questions:

Since it is impossible to finish the devision of 1/3 any partial result used to calculate backwards will result in a rounding error. Most modern calculators compensate for this by rounding two or three decimal places beyond the displayed values which guarantees accuracy within the limits of the display. This is why you should be able to perform the following operation: 1/3*3-1=0 If you can't then you need a better calculator. I haven't seen a calculator fail that test for years now, but I never look at calculators that don't have scientific functions on them.

The conservation of spin issue is hard to verify. The only way that a remote particle or wavicle would be affected is if we can prevent it from affecting something near by generating a chain reaction of sorts. However, conservation of spin may not work that way. We may simply be describing the fact that the universe will not allow us to perform the experiment. Which is mainly the reason why Pauli called it an "exclusion" principle. After all, how do we identify the exact spin of any given particle without changing it? Heisenberg.

Accelleration: I'm sorry but you do accelerate towards the center of gravity of every mass that you are near unless that acceleration is stopped by some other counter-acting force. When you walk down the stairs you accellerate toward the next tread until the tread and the structure it is connected to causes you to decelerate through its resistance to your applied force. The glass of orange juice is attracted to your larger mass next to it and it would slide across the counter towards you if it were not for gravity bringing into increased efficiency the forces of friction due to the molecular structure of the two materials in close proximity. When you sit on a chair that chair is resisting the force of gravity so long as its integrity permits it to. At some point in time, that stress may well demonstrate itself by causing the chair to collapse under you and allowing gravity to take over pulling you the rest of the way to the floor.

Oh sorry. I just got what you were asking. Force = mass times acceleration. Acceleration is a vector because velocity has direction and acceleration is velocity/second/second. It has direction and so it must be opposed by an equal and opposite force. If not equal you will either continue in your plunge or move off in a new direction depending on the vector sums of the forces applied.

And while you are there, chew on this one. Work=Mass times distance. No matter how hard you push if you don't move it you haven't done any work. That's the power of definitions.

Barton

Incidentally, you are doing very well in this conversation for a high shooler. So, don't expect any sympathy from me.

One more minor point. I don't believe that perception causes sound. I believe that perception creates sound. The cause is probably the noise vibrating the various parts of the ear and jiggling hairs that trigger nerves that stimulate the appropriate section of the brain. That doesn't explain what sound is, just its cause (a point that the behaviorists maintain isn't important.) The mind creates sound when it perceives noise. Sound has significance whereas noise is just a physical penomenon without significance or meaning in and of itself. If we had no ears and no sense of touch capable of experiencing sound waves, then while we might detect noise with the appropriate equipment but it would have no inherent signficance for us till we invented a way to use it for something, such as a stun gun or a movement sensor. Even then the significance would be distant from our essence much as is a stun gun or a movement sensor till it destroys our eardrums when it stuns us or announces our presnce.

Barton

Barton

yea i understand what acceleration is (and situations in equilibrium), let me use your example of work to reword my question:

work=force (im pretty sure it's force and not mass) X distance. no distance than no work, correct? so if F=ma, but there is no acceleration, then there is no force? but it's obvious that force still exsists, just sit on a scale without accelerating. So is there a definition of force that encompasses both F=ma and forces that dont actually involve acceleration (although the ability to accelerate if the forces become unbalanced)? (force due to gravity = normal force, but there is no acceleration, so how can either be a force, is there a broader definition?) that's all.

I will check on the reaction, but another phenomenon that properly illustrates my point is the virtual photon. Some scientists fell they have proven that atoms regularly emmit a photon without cause. Because this violates all sorts of laws, the photon must quickly be reabsorbed into another atom (and it doesn't cause any electrons to jump 'orbits'). as i understand it, Scientists feel this is the explanation for actions at a distance. if a proton absorbs a virtual photon, it is accelerated towards the source and the oposite for an electron. This is magnetic and electric attraction at a distance, or so i hear some speculate. But the point is the laws of conservation of mass and energy are very briefly violated.

I didn't mean to make you think i didnt understand the distinction between sound and sound waves, whatever the names, or the role of perception in sound.

I didn't mean that the 3 X 1/3 = .9999~ question was an error in rounding or a technical calculator problem. 3x.3=.9, 3x.03=.09, 3x.003=.009, ect. how does 3x .0000000003= .000000001 regardless of the number of zeros or how small the number is. small numbers obey the same laws as more manegable ones, exccept for quantum things, but i didnt think analytic math was subjuect to quantam laws. I mention this in reference to old ricardo who said math was an absolute truth, and that logic and reason were always valid, i find reason and math to dissagree somewhat on this. thats all. i know very well 3/3=1, because it is defined as such (1+1=2 is true by defintion). so dont get me wrong, this is the truth forum, not the science and math forum.

Barton;

and one quick question.
do you believe that there is no Truth, that nothing is real and at the same time the statement that there is no truth is false (because that would be a truth). or just that it is beyond any living creature to see Truth, and thus the idea of Truth as it pertains to us humans is obsolete.

-elliot (thats my name)

Elliot,

Let me take the simple one first.

If we accept that our perception and experience of the universe is relative as Einsten's calculations seem to indicate. The we must face the fact that we can have no absolute knowlege of anything. If we can have no absolute knowledge then any Absolute Truth we formulate must only be speculation. Including the speculation that logic has any absolute bearing on anything, this whole paragraph having been based on logic.

So, either Einstein is wrong, which is entirely possible. Or, the only way we can have knowledge of an Absolute Truth is to exit the universe and examine it from some Absolute Frame of Reference.

Now my usual reaction to paradox is to say that there is something wrong with thw way the statement has been formulated. For instance, if I say, everything I say is a lie. In logic, their can be no resolution of the paradox. In life, we know that I am lying when I say that everything I said was a lie because I am in no way bound to lie, or tell the truth, *everytime* I speak. Logic does not apply to this statement since I do not live in a logical realm. (Incidentally, thus logic need not apply to any world I live in. And since, anyone may say what I just said, logic need not apply to any world containing anyone who might speak, speaking logically, of course. )

What do I believe? That's another question. I do not believe that anyone has yet come up with a Truth that is true for all people in all times. I suspect that no one every will, but I say that without recourse to logic which allows me to say it without fear of contradiction. It is faith on my part that man will always discover that somepart of what he knows is wrong because there will always be something new to change his collective mind.


Math (the hard part):

First of all when you sit on a scale in a gravity field you ARE measuring weight which is to say mass which is being accelerated by gravity and conterballenced by the spring or mass of the scale mechanism. Weight is mass in gravity and it is measured by contrasting accelerations or as you properly put it an equilibrium of forces.

Consider this:

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time

Force acting on a body is equal to mass times the acceleration of its center of mass

F=ma

If a=0 then there is no acceleration so no force is expended.
If m=0 then nothing is accelerated so no force is expended.

m=F/a is a valid transform but seemingly not allowable because a cannot be 0. However, if we substitute for a,

F=m*v/t^2

m=F*t^2/v which implies then that v can't be 0 even though a can be. And a can only be 0 when t=0. And if t=0 then m=0 no matter what F is.

a=F/m works because there cannot be a force to mass relationship with no mass.

Which implies also that there can be no force to acceleration relationship without acceleration.

If mass can never be 0 and velocity can never be 0 and time can never be 0 (which it can't if we accept math that does not allow division by 0) then aren't we allowing our math to define the world than the other way around?

Does this mean that the formulation is at fault or that our math is arbitrary and inaccurate.

We need to talk to Hell who wrote the article about Gravity about your 3=0 problem. I suspect that the issue is one of oversimplification.

I agree with you that if Conservation of Mass and Energy can be suspended at all then it can be suspended period. Since the universe hasn't crumbled you or I or someone is misunderstanding something.

Barton