World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Is there such a thing as one and the only truth or is truth a matter of perspective?

Always perspective. The inability to understand this has caused a lot of bloodshed throughout history.

Does truth really exists?

I think it does. There are absolutes, which are truths, just individualized.

A tree viewed from different perspective looks different. But it is still the same tree.

Mehreen wrote: "A tree viewed from different perspective looks different. But it is still the same tree."

Agree.

There is fact and interpretation, together forming an individual truth. The fact should be indisputable.... unless disputed -:)

The only truth is math and physics. If anyone really understood any of these two facts, would we act differently, or would we use it differently?

GR wrote: "The only truth is math and physics. If anyone really understood any of these two facts, would we act differently, or would we use it differently?"

The laws of physics are the ultimate truth. Not sure if anyone has been able to fully grasp them.

We live in an age where people seem to be tearing apart every institution human beings have created. It seems to me dangerous to say there are NO truths. As I have said before, for me there is a huge difference between doubt and anarchic doubt.

Jimmy wrote: "We live in an age where people seem to be tearing apart every institution human beings have created. It seems to me dangerous to say there are NO truths. As I have said before, for me there is a hu..."

Agree to a point. There is no 'truth' in opinions, unless it's something widely recognized, as it's a matter of perspective, but there should be truth in facts and it's worth searching for and separating from different layers, so one can make his/her own evaluation rather than relying on that of others...

Sure, there is an objective truth. That's what science is about and why it is replicable. But we all experience only a sliver of that truth. My experience is valid, but only one of many data points.

Many folks refer to the parable of the elephant in these discussions, where several blind monks are asked to describe an elephant. One felt a leg, and said "like a column." Another felt the trunk, and said "No, it's like a snake." Etc. And then they began arguing in order to defend their point.

This is often brought out to illustrate the relativism of truth -- that there is no truth, just interpretation. And how we back into self-defensive postures to protect that truth we perceive.

But the relativistic interpretation misses a key point: there is an elephant. The elephant is real. If, instead of attacking and blindly defending their positions. the monks investigated others' experience of the truth, their composite picture of the elephant would more closely approach the truth.

GR wrote: "The only truth is math and physics. If anyone really understood any of these two facts, would we act differently, or would we use it differently?"

This implies, for instance, that a chemical formula, like 2(H2) + O2 = 2(H2O) is inaccurate. Because is isn't math. Or that Watson & Crick's understanding the structure of DNA is just opinion... because it wasn't math. Or that Darwin isn't worth a hill of beans... because he doesn't employ math.

Etc.

Physics is useful. But it is also the simplest system to study. Sure, the maths are difficult, and it is abstract. But it's much easier to study simple, non-sentient and/ or chemically inert systems than it is to study larger, whole systems.

Your response also implies that each physics equation has a single solution which would determine the real. Instead, there are many unsolvable physics problems (like the 'three-body problem'). What's more, the entire realm of quantum physics, which describes reality in terms of the chance -- "there's a 50% chance that the electron is in this arm of this orbital, and a 1% chance its in this precise region of space..."

In short, even physics is imperfect. It measures only one aspect of reality, ignoring others. Like, for instance, how mitochondria process food -- which is in the realm of biochem. Or how human react when playing a game where a second player makes an unfair offer -- which is in the realm of behavioral economics. Or what happened in Nazi Germany -- which is in the realm of history.

What's more, physics is built on a phantom called math.

How can I say that math isn't real? I dare you to walk up to me with a partial derivative, or give me 1(i) [an imaginary 1] worth of anything. :-)

Leo wrote: "GR wrote: "The only truth is math and physics. If anyone really understood any of these two facts, would we act differently, or would we use it differently?"

This implies, for instance, that a che..."

I like your point of view. It's in the dimension in which we live. How is it in other dimensions? Does this apply?

To say that physics is truth is misleading. There are true laws of physics, but that doesn't mean we know them. And in my opinion, what we think may occasionally be wrong. Very specifically, you see a lot about quantum entanglement, and deviations from Bell's inequalities. I have argued the experimental "proofs" actually contain a logic error, and I have even showed this to physicists that each the topic, and one who has written a book. Nobody has falsified my reasoning, but equally, they have not accepted it either. Instead they ignore it, and hope it will go away.

Another problem with physics is there seems to be a belief that if an equation represents nature, then all solutions are true. This is just plain false. As an example, you see a train going east, and someone gives you the kinetic energy. What is its velocity? Because you have to take a square root, you end up with two answers: plus and minus. Everybody knows there is only one train, so the minus solution is discarded, but once you get into quantum physics, there is a strange reluctance to consider discarding solutions.

I could produce an i (square root of -1) of something, but of course you couldn't see it :-)

Yeah, and hasn't Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics, which work and were regarded for centuries as true, don't work at near light speed?

Actually, Newtonian mechanics are true within the framework of their premises. In your example, Nik, the problem is that Galilean relativity is not true at high velocities, hence the relevant Einsteinian mechanics are called special relativity, and not true at all, hence general relativity.

Newton laid down three laws of motion, but there were two additional assumed premises that were unstated, and these unfortunately were false in their extreme domains. The second one was that something called action (energy multiplied by time) is continuous, i.e it change smoothly, but when you go small enough it changes discretely. That gives you quantum mechanics. Two small omissions that Newton had no reason to consider in the slightest, and within the domains that these do not matter (slow enough; large enough) Newton was quite correct.

I hoped that any inaccuracy I might have in scientific issues would be swiftly corrected -:) Thanks

Sorry. Couldn't help myself

Mehreen wrote: "Is there such a thing as one and the only truth or is truth a matter of perspective?"

Let's presuppose that there is, in fact, a "one and the only truth."

Could we experience it, understand it, know it?

If we can't answer that question definitively in the affirmative, than the original question is a moot one.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Is there such a thing as one and the only truth or is truth a matter of perspective?"

Let's presuppose that there is, in fact, a "one and the only truth."

Could we experience it, ..."

We know that some truths are constant while others are clearly not. The world's rotation around the sun for example. However, this was also not the truth when believed otherwise. From what perspective the sun is viewed also reveals different information.