What is truth?

[SwimExpert]

Because an object exists in time doesn't necessarily mean its existence is dependent on time.

False.

Reference: All of known science.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, you need to support your claim. Sorry if you think that isn't fair.

You are dismissing a fundamental precept of logic. It is you who needs to support such an outlandish premise. I have already supported my claim. A statement must be either true for false. The evidence to that end is the law of excluded middle. That you wish to simply reject that law is not a meaningful argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, you need to support your claim. Sorry if you think that isn't fair.

You are dismissing a fundamental precept of logic. It is you who needs to support such an outlandish premise. I have already supported my claim. A statement must be either true for false. The evidence to that end is the law of excluded middle. That you wish to simply reject that law is not a meaningful argument.

I am dismissing your claim, which is absurd. You made a statement where I must determine what is beautiful, but you did not tell me precisely and objectively what that means. Define the term in such a way that it will be a valid definition for everyone, and not subject to opinion. Then you can use logic.

Until then... there is a turtle on my desk. Is that statement true or false?

 

[Wuwei]

Look. We both do agree. If you want to view light from a Socratic POV, that's fine by me. I'm looking at it from a physics point of view. We are both right if we stand by our separate definitions.

My point is that you are choosing one definition, or interpretation, to utilize, and from it you are claiming an objective reality in regards to the definition of red. Ultimately, your definition is subjective. In the final measure, your position is not objective at all. Which should not at all surprise you, because true objectivity is impossible for any observer.

Physical definitions of wavelengths don't need a human for color analysis. NIST and other international agencies often set definitions of time, distance etc. They could easily have a standard for red that would bypass human subjectiveness. If they (most likely) don't then probably nobody really cares how red is defined. The point is that there is a potential method for defining color objectiveness if anyone cares to use it.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am dismissing your claim, which is absurd.

A statement must be either true or false. That is not absurd, it is the law of excluded middle. You cannot call my statement absurd without abandoning all logic.

You made a statement where I must determine what is beautiful, but you did not tell me precisely and objectively what that means.

Yes, I did. It highlights the fact that an object does not require an objective definition, and that in some cases definitions are entirely subjective. Beauty does not have an objective definition. Each observer defines for himself what constitutes beauty. Thus, the truth of the statement "Sandra Bullock is beautiful" lacks an objective truth value. It's truth value is entirely subjective.

The real problem here is that you are desperately trying to hold on to your previously attested idea that truth is always objective, to the point where you are dismissing all logic. Your position is wrong, and I have demonstrated as much. Sitting here and trying to force a square peg through a triangular hole is not going to alleviate your problem, it's only going to make it worse.

Define the term in such a way that it will be a valid definition for everyone, and not subject to opinion.

You assume that it can be defined in such a way.

Then you can use logic.

No, logic is always applicable. Just because it yields a result you dislike does not mean you get to simply reject it's use.

Until then... there is a turtle on my desk. Is that statement true or false?

I am not able to determine the truth of that statement, due to a lack of evidence. But then again, it's an irrelevant question to the rest of the discussion.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am dismissing your claim, which is absurd.

A statement must be either true or false. That is not absurd, it is the law of excluded middle. You cannot call my statement absurd without abandoning all logic.

You made a statement where I must determine what is beautiful, but you did not tell me precisely and objectively what that means.

Yes, I did. It highlights the fact that an object does not require an objective definition, and that in some cases definitions are entirely subjective. Beauty does not have an objective definition. Each observer defines for himself what constitutes beauty. Thus, the truth of the statement "Sandra Bullock is beautiful" lacks an objective truth value. It's truth value is entirely subjective.

The real problem here is that you are desperately trying to hold on to your previously attested idea that truth is always objective, to the point where you are dismissing all logic. Your position is wrong, and I have demonstrated as much. Sitting here and trying to force a square peg through a triangular hole is not going to alleviate your problem, it's only going to make it worse.

Define the term in such a way that it will be a valid definition for everyone, and not subject to opinion.

You assume that it can be defined in such a way.

Then you can use logic.

No, logic is always applicable. Just because it yields a result you dislike does not mean you get to simply reject it's use.

Until then... there is a turtle on my desk. Is that statement true or false?

I am not able to determine the truth of that statement, due to a lack of evidence. But then again, it's an irrelevant question to the rest of the discussion.

Until such time as you define your terms, then the statement is meaningless and thus is neither true nor false. Logic does not create reality, it is merely a set of tools. There is another rule of logic - garbage in/garbage out.

As to the turtle, I refer you to Schrodinger's cat.

 

[SwimExpert]

Physical definitions of wavelengths don't need a human for color analysis.

That is correct, but nobody every said otherwise. The wavelengths of EM radiation can (theoretically) be studied and identified without regard to color. We are not talking about the definition of EM wavelengths, though. We are talking about the definition of colors. You are using EM wavelength as the lone defining feature of colors. Seeing as you have just conceded that color can be severed from wavelength, you are defeating your own premise.

NIST and other international agencies often set definitions of time, distance etc. They could easily have a standard for red that would bypass human subjectiveness.

Really? And how would that work? You see green, I purple, someone else sees blue, but we're just going to call it "red" because we are all walking around with handheld scanners that identify the wavelength of light being emitted?

Time and distance are units of measurement. These units are defined against standards. These standards are readily referenced. Great care is put into crafting objects that are exactly 1 meter in length, exactly 1 kilogram in mass, etc. From these standards, other standards are defined in mathematical terms of the primary standards. A second is defined as the amount of elapsed time it takes light to travel a certain number of meters, etc.

No such standard can be created for colors. The perception of color is 100% a subjective phenomenon. Even when removing the variability of people who have impaired color vision, the "red" you see is not necessarily the "red" another person sees. And it is absolutely impossible to determine whether the "red" two different people see has any relationship to each other. That two people agree it the object is red only indicates that there is something that can be commonly identified. But you cannot get inside the head of the other person.

If they (most likely) don't then probably nobody really cares how red is defined.

Actually, it's a question that has been debated since times immemorable.

The point is that there is a potential method for defining color objectiveness if anyone cares to use it.

Prove it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Until such time as you define your terms, then the statement is meaningless and thus is neither true nor false.

Then you are irrational.

Logic does not create reality, it is merely a set of tools. There is another rule of logic - garbage in/garbage out.

Now you're just making things up.

As to the turtle, I refer you to Schrodinger's cat.

I already explained this. Schrodinger's cat was a rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation, laying bare it's irrationality. So you're irrational, uneducated, and ignorant. A powerful combination.

 

[Wuwei]

We are talking about the definition of colors. You are using EM wavelength as the lone defining feature of colors. Seeing as you have just conceded that color can be severed from wavelength, you are defeating your own premise.

Actually I'm using the full spectrum of wavelengths to define color.

we are all walking around with handheld scanners that identify the wavelength of light being emitted?

.... classify the spectrum of light..... not the wavelength

No such standard can be created for colors.

I just told you how it could be done. Here is the famous picture of the full set of human color perception. Just choose a subset and give it a name, eg red. However defining color in terms of a function of the actual spectrum would be best.

That would remove all subjectivity for all people.

Even when removing the variability of people who have impaired color vision, the "red" you see is not necessarily the "red" another person sees.

You better believe it. My wife (an artist) can see a whole lot of colors that I can't see because I have a touch of red-green color blindness. When she sees red flowers popping out of a green bush I defer to her judgment. I realize that I am handicapped that way and certainly wouldn't argue the point like you seem to be doing.

Actually, it's a question that has been debated since times immemorable.

Time immemorial ... like way before prisms and spectral analyzers were invented.

Prove it.

I did on this and my previous post.

 

[SwimExpert]

We are talking about the definition of colors. You are using EM wavelength as the lone defining feature of colors. Seeing as you have just conceded that color can be severed from wavelength, you are defeating your own premise.

Actually I'm using the full spectrum of wavelengths to define color.

we are all walking around with handheld scanners that identify the wavelength of light being emitted?

.... classify the spectrum of light..... not the wavelength

No such standard can be created for colors.

I just told you how it could be done. Here is the famous picture of the full set of human color perception. Just choose a subset and give it a name, eg red. However defining color in terms of a function of the actual spectrum would be best.

That would remove all subjectivity for all people.

Even when removing the variability of people who have impaired color vision, the "red" you see is not necessarily the "red" another person sees.

You better believe it. My wife (an artist) can see a whole lot of colors that I can't see because I have a touch of red-green color blindness. When she sees red flowers popping out of a green bush I defer to her judgment. I realize that I am handicapped that way and certainly wouldn't argue the point like you seem to be doing.

Actually, it's a question that has been debated since times immemorable.

Time immemorial ... like way before prisms and spectral analyzers were invented.

Prove it.

I did on this and my previous post.

Now you're getting yourself even more confused. The graphic you posted is not the "color spectrum" it is the CIE color space. It shows the spectral colors in combination with the normal range of colors of human perception.

A spectral color is a color that corresponds with a single wavelength. In the CIE diagram they are represented by the colors along the arc. They are also (approximately) represented in this image:

The rest of the colors in the CIE diagram are colors that can be perceived in normal human vision. The irony of you invoking the CIE color space is that your own evidence actually refutes your idea that colors are defined by EM wavelengths. The CIE color space demonstrates that human perception is an integral part of color.

 

[hangover]

Silly egos...Trix are for kids.

 

[PratchettFan]

Until such time as you define your terms, then the statement is meaningless and thus is neither true nor false.

Then you are irrational.

Logic does not create reality, it is merely a set of tools. There is another rule of logic - garbage in/garbage out.

Now you're just making things up.

As to the turtle, I refer you to Schrodinger's cat.

I already explained this. Schrodinger's cat was a rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation, laying bare it's irrationality. So you're irrational, uneducated, and ignorant. A powerful combination.

Wow. You are extremely impressed with yourself. Enjoy it.

 

[Capstone]

False. [. . .] Reference: All of known science.

First the implicit appeal to ignorance against self-evident truths...and now this explicit (albeit vague) appeal to authority?!

What's next, an appeal to silence, maybe?

Not to impugn the authority of your most recent appeal, but there's a buttload of objective verification (via scientific experimentation) in support of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. What else could reasonably be inferred from the more direct existential implications of the well-established principles that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that the total mass of an 'isolated system' remains constant in spite of any physical or chemical changes? Should we infer from those physical MO's, for instance, that the total mass and energy of the Universe simply *poofed* into existence aat the outset of linear "time"? On what basis should we place our faith in the notion that "time" as we know it even had a beginning? Regardless of time, is it not more in line with the apparent nature of those scientific principles to believe that the truly fundamental building blocks and impetuses of the Universe have always existed, despite the temporariness of the structures and forms created as a result of their eternal interactions? Think hard before responding to these questions, SE, because I have the scientific and logical chops to back up my answers.

 

[SwimExpert]

Until such time as you define your terms, then the statement is meaningless and thus is neither true nor false.

Then you are irrational.

Logic does not create reality, it is merely a set of tools. There is another rule of logic - garbage in/garbage out.

Now you're just making things up.

As to the turtle, I refer you to Schrodinger's cat.

I already explained this. Schrodinger's cat was a rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation, laying bare it's irrationality. So you're irrational, uneducated, and ignorant. A powerful combination.

Wow. You are extremely impressed with yourself. Enjoy it.

No, I just make a point to gain knowledge and wisdom first, before I try to make arguments that are fatally flawed.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you're getting yourself even more confused. The graphic you posted is not the "color spectrum" it is the CIE color space. It shows the spectral colors in combination with the normal range of colors of human perception.

A spectral color is a color that corresponds with a single wavelength. In the CIE diagram they are represented by the colors along the arc. They are also (approximately) represented in this image:

The rest of the colors in the CIE diagram are colors that can be perceived in normal human vision. The irony of you invoking the CIE color space is that your own evidence actually refutes your idea that colors are defined by EM wavelengths. The CIE color space demonstrates that human perception is an integral part of color.

Naw I didn't refute anything. The weakness of the CIE representation is precisely why I said, "However defining color in terms of a function of the actual spectrum would be best."

I think you are confusing the idea of a single wavelength spectral line, with multiple wavelength lines in a full spectrum. The full spectrum is necessary as an underlying basis for color. The CIE color chart is for people, but can be constructed from spectral distributions.

I think you are confused between the physiology of human vision as it relates to the full spectral distribution of incoming light. The CIE chart maps the tristimulus values of the three types of color receptors - the cones. That indeed is a poor objective way of defining color, but an easy scheme that relates to human vision. I will give an example of what I mean.

Your "green" receptor cones are sensitive to wavelengths that start to peak 480 to 590 nm. Your eye would see green if there was a single spectral line at 540 nm. Your eye would get the exact same sensation if there were two half-intensity spectral lines, one at 520 nm and the other at 560 nm.

There is more color complexity to the spectral distribution (two sharp lines vs one centered sharp line) than you can perceive with just three color receptor cones. Of course the spectral distribution of reflected light is usually much more complicated than the two spectral line example I gave. If you know math, a good definition of human perception of color is a mapping of a multivalued spectrum of wavelengths to a single valued point on the CIE color chart.

Indeed human perception is a poor way to define color objectively.

 

[SwimExpert]

False. [. . .] Reference: All of known science.

First the implicit appeal to ignorance against self-evident truths...and now this explicit (albeit vague) appeal to authority?!

What's next, an appeal to silence, maybe?

Not to impugn the authority of your most recent appeal, but there's a buttload of objective verification (via scientific experimentation) in support of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. What else could reasonably be inferred from the more direct existential implications of the well-established principles that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that the total mass of an 'isolated system' remains constant in spite of any physical or chemical changes? Should we infer from those physical MO's, for instance, that the total mass and energy of the Universe simply *poofed* into existence aat the outset of linear "time"? On what basis should we place our faith in the notion that "time" as we know it even had a beginning? Regardless of time, is it not more in line with the apparent nature of those scientific principles to believe that the truly fundamental building blocks and impetuses of the Universe have always existed, despite the temporariness of the structures and forms created as a result of their eternal interactions? Think hard before responding to these questions, SE, because I have the scientific and logical chops to back up my answers.

Why do you keep bringing up conservation of mass and energy? That is a complete and utter straw man, and is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. That you are trying to use the conservation of mass and energy to somehow claim that an object can exist forever without its existence being temporal is ridiculous. You may as well be arguing that an object submerged in water stays dry because evolution is a scientific fact, therefore aliens don't wear hats. The only fallacies here are your own, in this case that of the non sequitor.

I have provided evidence of everything I have said. That you reject fundamental principles of logic and want to make patently absurd claims while offering no support whatsoever is not an appeal to ignorance on my part. It is an appeal to ignorance on your part. That you are ignorant of both logic and science is not an appeal to authority fallacy on my part, it is ignorance on your part.

Finally, if you're going to try to invoke logical fallacies you would be most wise to actually know what they mean. Because what you are doing only underscores your shameful ignorance on the matter. Citing Joe Montana as an authority on tee shirts is an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing the scientific fact that all objects that exist exist in time, is not a fallacy, it is a fact.

 

[SwimExpert]

Naw I didn't refute anything. The weakness of the CIE representation is precisely why I said, "However defining color in terms of a function of the actual spectrum would be best."

Actually, what you said was that it was an objective definition for color.

I think you are confused between the physiology of human vision as it relates to the full spectral distribution of incoming light.

No, you are confused, because you have gone from insisting that light is defined by wavelength, and now are backtracking to say that it is defined otherwise. You are confused by trying to mash together the range of human color perception with the range of visible EM wavelengths.

The CIE chart maps the tristimulus values of the three types of color receptors - the cones. That indeed is a poor objective way of defining color

And yet you claimed it was an objective definition of color.

Your "green" receptor cones are sensitive to wavelengths that start to peak 480 to 590 nm. Your eye would see green if there was a single spectral line at 540 nm. Your eye would get the exact same sensation if there were two half-intensity spectral lines, one at 520 nm and the other at 560 nm.

Please, don't pretend you can tell me anything about human anatomy as it pertains to color vision that I don't already know.

There is more color complexity to the spectral distribution (two sharp lines vs one centered sharp line) than you can perceive with just three color receptor cones. Of course the spectral distribution of reflected light is usually much more complicated than the two spectral line example I gave. If you know math, a good definition of human perception of color is a mapping of a multivalued spectrum of wavelengths to a single valued point on the CIE color chart.

Indeed human perception is a poor way to define color objectively.

Gee, ya think? Subjective facts make for poor objective facts? Well color me rainbow!

Despite all of your apologetics, you cannot escape that your entire line of argument has been that color has objective definition, and adamantly refuse to recognize that there is absolutely no objective definition possible. The more scientific information you attempt to inject, the more the definition of color is shown to rely on subjective human perception. Color is subjective. The perception of color is a subjective experience. Thus, that a red object is red is a subjective truth, not an objective truth. No matter how much objective data can be applied and studied, it all still relies on entirely subjective perception at its final point. As such, the taint of subjectivity cannot be washed away.

 

[Wuwei]

No, you are confused, because you have gone from insisting that light is defined by wavelength, and now are backtracking to say that it is defined otherwise. You are confused by trying to mash together the range of human color perception with the range of visible EM wavelengths.

Nope. I am not backtracking. It is simply that you are beginning to see the light of what I have been trying to tell you all along.

Despite all of your apologetics, you cannot escape that your entire line of argument has been that color has objective definition, and adamantly refuse to recognize that there is absolutely no objective definition possible.

Nope, I believe that there absolutely is an objective definition possible. That's what all this science stuff is about.

The perception of color is a subjective experience. Thus, that a red object is red is a subjective truth, not an objective truth.

Yep, I agree with that if you want to talk only about human perception. But that human perception is subject to error. You brought it up yourself with colorblindness as an example.

No matter how much objective data can be applied and studied, it all still relies on entirely subjective perception at its final point. As such, the taint of subjectivity cannot be washed away.

Nope. A spectrometer can assess a color spectrum in all it's detail and name it according to an algorithm without human perception being involved. That washes away the human foibles of perception. You might argue whether the algorithm is accurate, but you can't argue human perception is better than calibrated instruments. If you take a color sample to a paint store these days they put it in a spectrometer that tells the mixer exactly what tints to use. This is an example of going directly from a wavelength spectrum to something akin to (but not exactly) a CIE chart.

Look, I agree that human perception of color is important. There is also an important physical concept behind color. I agree to both, but you refuse to take seriously the physics aspect of defining color in a way that removes subjectivity. The OP is about truth. Truth lies in the interaction of matter, not in human perception of same. We all know how accurate "eye witness" reports can be, and used as "truth" in the witness stand.

 

[Capstone]

Why do you keep bringing up conservation of mass and energy? That is a complete and utter straw man, and is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. That you are trying to use the conservation of mass and energy to somehow claim that an object can exist forever without its existence being temporal is ridiculous. ...

A 'system' is considered 'isolated' when there's no exchange of energy with its surrounding/external environment. Accordingly, the universe is an 'isolated system', because it contains (or is composed of) everything that exists by definition, and therefore there can be no such exchange with anything external. You see, since nothing exists beyond the totality of existence, the law of conservation of mass applies to the Universe as a whole. That means the total amount of mass in/of the Universe has remained unchanged (despite any of the effects of time) throughout the entirety of its existence thus far...and that this constancy of mass will remain in effect for the remainder of the Universe's existence (even into infinity).

Implicit in this would be the fact that all of the physical material in the total mass has always existed (even allowing for the undifferentiated 'singularity' in Big Bang cosmology); that is, of course, unless we're to believe that the total mass *poofed* into existence out of nothingness at the 'outset of time' (which is sometimes conflated with the point in time at which the singularity of the Big Bang model allegedly went BOOM, as though no spacetime, motion, or change could have possibly preceded that moment). Here again, in line with my succinct definitions and preferred logical principles (chiefly ex nihilo nihil fit), that eterally existent mass would be "atemporal, existentially speaking".

That you're apparently too dense or too ignorant (or both) to see the obvious relevance all of this has to my claim that eternally existent objects are not "dependent on time"...is, in any case, indicative of nothing more than your personal deficiency in understanding the relevant concepts.

...I have provided evidence of everything I have said. That you reject fundamental principles of logic and want to make patently absurd claims while offering no support whatsoever is not an appeal to ignorance on my part. It is an appeal to ignorance on your part. That you are ignorant of both logic and science is not an appeal to authority fallacy on my part, it is ignorance on your part.

I've roundly exposed your allegations of fallacy on my part for the strawmen they've been from the start of our interaction in this thread; from the mischaracterization of my view as self-contradictory WRT the definitions of "atemporal" and "eternal"; to your patently fallacious insinuation that self-evident truths are somehow undermined by subjective ignorance (in essence, appealing to such ignorance as a means of rejecting my view); to the silly charge that the eternal/atemporal existence of the total mass of the Cosmos is irrelevant to my previous claims (to the point of being a non sequitur). In the process, I've appealed to widely accepted definitions and to a decent sized scientific consensus (which has been trending away from the notion that the Universe and time had clear-cut 'beginnings' and more towards eternally existent models and/or cyclical interpretations of the Big Bang theory).

Which brings us to this:

...Finally, if you're going to try to invoke logical fallacies you would be most wise to actually know what they mean. Because what you are doing only underscores your shameful ignorance on the matter. Citing Joe Montana as an authority on tee shirts is an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing the scientific fact that all objects that exist exist in time, is not a fallacy, it is a fact.

With the statement, "False. [...] Reference: All of known science.", you dismissed my claim with a ridiculously broad appeal to the authority of "all of known science" - this despite a significant faction of proponents of an eternally existent Universe in the scientific community. Without so much as a single reference to any known scientist's writings on your proposed distinction between 'atemporal objects' and 'eternally existent objects', I can't help but wonder how on Earth you can be so comfortable in your hubris as to assume that none of those proponents would follow my line of reasoning without arriving at some level of agreement with my views on the matter. That's why your vague appeal invalidated your dismissal right out of the gate.

So let's see your comprehensive list of the relevant scientific references from the well of "all of known science". You do have one, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Implicit in this would be the fact that all of the physical material in the total mass has always existed (even allowing for the undifferentiated 'singularity' in Big Bang cosmology); that is, of course, unless we're to believe that the total mass *poofed* into existence out of nothingness at the 'outset of time'

There is strong evidence that the total mass/energy of the universe is zero. Estimates show that the positive mass is largely balanced out by the negative gravitational potential energy.That opens up many interesting questions. Try googling: mass universe zero