What is truth?

[Capstone]

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

That is an interesting train of thought...

 

[SwimExpert]

I believe that there absolutely is an objective definition possible.

Prove it.

 

[SwimExpert]

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).

So? If I take an egg and throw it into a bucket the mass will remain the same, but the egg has changed.

Stop going off on a meaningless tangent.

 

[Wuwei]

I believe that there absolutely is an objective definition possible.

Prove it.

That is what I did in the last several posts.
One definition of objective is that it exists independent of or external to the mind.
I showed that a person is not needed when a spectrograph is used to assess incoming light. That is external to the mind. Even a blind person could have a good idea of the objective truth of "red" if the spectrometer had a voice activated output.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is what I did in the last several posts.

No you haven't. Are you even serious at this point? No, you're not. Get lost, you're a joke. You can't make up your mind. You reference one thing and say it's objective, then you admit it's not objective, then you jump to something else as if they were interchangable because you're using too many big words that you don't actually understand and google can't keep up with your blatant ignorance.

Now, "I believe" is your standard of proof. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Gee, 'I believe' the tooth fairy exists. And I just proved it, because I believe it.

 

[Wuwei]

No you haven't. Are you even serious at this point? No, you're not. Get lost, you're a joke. You can't make up your mind. You reference one thing and say it's objective, then you admit it's not objective, then you jump to something else as if they were interchangable because you're using too many big words that you don't actually understand and google can't keep up with your blatant ignorance.

My gosh you are getting testy. I have stuck with physical wavelengths as the best definition of color since the beginning at post # 83 when I said,

The color red is evoked by light with a dominance of wavelengths in the range 620-740 nanometers.

So you now want to attack me. That is the last resort when a poster doesn't have a good reply.

You keep talking about subjectivity being a final necessity, but you never demonstrated why objectivity breaks down when color is measured by a spectrometer. If you can keep yourself out of attack mode, can you support your contention.

Try to remember this thread is about the nature of truth. I contend that there are certain physical processes that are unambiguous in deriving the reality (truth) of certain physical events given the appropriate measuring tools. Please be clear on why you think it is always ultimately subjective.

 

[SwimExpert]

I have stuck with physical wavelengths as the best definition of color...

Until it was pointed out to you that spectral colors were an incomplete set of human color perception. Then you changed to the CIE color space, until it was pointed out to you that that relied heavily on subjectivity. Now, you're changing your story again back to spectral colors.

What a joke.

 

[Wuwei]

C

Until it was pointed out to you that spectral colors were an incomplete set of human color perception. Then you changed to the CIE color space, until it was pointed out to you that that relied heavily on subjectivity. Now, you're changing your story again back to spectral colors.

You are right; I agree with you. The CIE color space does not make the point I wanted to make.

Now back to the original intent of this thread. You never answered the questions that I will repeat here:

You keep talking about subjectivity being a final necessity, but you never clearly demonstrated why objectivity breaks down when color is measured by an autonomous spectrometer. Can you support your contention?

Try to remember this thread is about the nature of truth. I contend that there are certain physical processes that are unambiguous in deriving the reality (truth) of certain physical events given the appropriate measuring tools. Please be clear on why you think that type of physical measurement is always ultimately subjective.

 

[Capstone]

So? If I take an egg and throw it into a bucket the mass will remain the same, but the egg has changed.

Stop going off on a meaningless tangent.

Apparently the phrase, "going off on a meaningless tangent", has suddenly become synonymous with proving my point, as your example seemingly implies a concession on what has been a major point of contention through multiple posts between us.

Evoking the imagery of your example, as an egg is an egg whether it's fried, scrambled, or hard-boiled, the total mass of the cosmos remains what it has always been, no matter how or where it's been distributed throughout space and time. Despite its presence and activity in temporal reality, it is an atemporal quantity, because the quantity is neither "dependent on" nor in any way "affected by" time. It is what it is, was, and forever will be, regardless of the ravages of time.

 

[Wuwei]

Apparently the phrase, "going off on a meaningless tangent", has suddenly become synonymous with proving my point, as your example seemingly implies a concession on what has been a major point of contention through multiple posts between us.

That is an indication that he doesn't have a good argument. So he focuses on some small distraction because that's all he can do. His final answer to me was that I changed my story on a point he either didn't understand or didn't have a counter argument for. In both our cases he was never able to provide an argument that would hold water for his own opinion so resorted to his brand of juvenile distraction. .

I don't think he will be back because both you and I are more up on science and clarity in thinking than he is and his bruised ego can't take it anymore.

 

[danielpalos]

What is Truth; an absence of Falseness.

 

[teddyearp]

(and PLEASE, let's not derail this thread into another hate gays rant):

Then why did you derail it in that direction in the first place?

the truth is the truth. You should know it when you hear it. Unless you are too calloused by the world to do so.

I used to be lost in the shuffle, now I shuffle with the lost.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Things as they are, things as they were, and things as they will be.

In other words, reality.

With respect to my learned collegue here, reality isn't truth but an opinion.

We don't perceive reality, only a tiny fraction of it. What color is a clear daytime sky? Blue? Maybe to us, but not to say animals which don't see that color. Also the sky isn't blue on every planet. Is black from the Moon. Thus at best, the truth or reality of what color is the sky is subjective, spatially-dependent, and species-dependent. Or to put it simply, an opinion.

There's very little absolute truth in the universe as most things are relative and subjective, dependent upon the observer's frame of reference.

 

[SwimExpert]

You keep talking about subjectivity being a final necessity, but you never clearly demonstrated why objectivity breaks down when color is measured by an autonomous spectrometer. Can you support your contention?

Color is not measured by a spectrometer. A spectrometer measures the spectrum of wavelengths in a given sample of EM radiation, and graphs that data. Do I really need to explain this to you again? Spectral colors are a limited subset human perception of color.

You seem to think that just because something can have attributes and qualities that can be observed and measured, it is an objective object. The absolute absurdity and bass akwardsness of your thinking is amazing. Falling in love is a subjective experience. This doesn't cease to be true just because we can objectively identify that the experience involves certain chemicals in the brain. Pain is also a subjective experience, even though we can observe the action of neurons polarizing to transmit information to the brain which can also be observed reacting strongly to that information.

Color is in your mind! It does not exist in the outside world. Just like pain does not exist in the objective world. Sure, the knife that stabbed you objectively exists, but the pain you feel is entirely subjective. Just like the color you see is entirely subjective.

I'm not even sure why I'm discussing this with you. There is nothing to debate on the subjectivity of color. No, you don't have an opinion, you are wrong as an issue of fact and definition. Color is not an objective phenomenon. I'm amazed that anyone can be so ignorant and uneducated to even think otherwise.

Try to remember this thread is about the nature of truth. I contend that there are certain physical processes that are unambiguous in deriving the reality (truth) of certain physical events given the appropriate measuring tools. Please be clear on why you think that type of physical measurement is always ultimately subjective.

Oh sure, let's put more words in my mouth, shall we? I have a better idea....perhaps you can go out on a dinner date with your straw man, because you're obtuse thinking is becoming so weak that I fear you may be on the verge of an insulin coma. Your brain needs fuel in order to work properly.

 

[SwimExpert]

Apparently the phrase, "going off on a meaningless tangent", has suddenly become synonymous with proving my point, as your example seemingly implies a concession on what has been a major point of contention through multiple posts between us.

This is pretty sad. You think that your previous garble was actually proving your point? No, not at all. Rambling about mass-energy conservation is not proving your point. It is entirely irrelevant to your point. Do you know what your point was? Maybe you've forgotten. Maybe you got your threads mixed up. Let me give you a little refresher: You were trying to claim that temporal phenomenon and events can be atemporal. In other words, you are trying to claim that two contradictories can be true, which is an absurdity.

Evoking the imagery of your example, as an egg is an egg whether it's fried, scrambled, or hard-boiled, the total mass of the cosmos remains what it has always been, no matter how or where it's been distributed throughout space and time. Despite its presence and activity in temporal reality, it is an atemporal quantity, because the quantity is neither "dependent on" nor in any way "affected by" time. It is what it is, was, and forever will be, regardless of the ravages of time.

Are you seriously trying to say that scrambling an egg does not effect it? That is completely asinine. Events take place in time. That the egg cannot be both whole and scrambled is a temporal effect. It was whole, now it's scrambled. Time has had an effect.

 

[SwimExpert]

Apparently the phrase, "going off on a meaningless tangent", has suddenly become synonymous with proving my point, as your example seemingly implies a concession on what has been a major point of contention through multiple posts between us.

That is an indication that he doesn't have a good argument. So he focuses on some small distraction because that's all he can do. His final answer to me was that I changed my story on a point he either didn't understand or didn't have a counter argument for. In both our cases he was never able to provide an argument that would hold water for his own opinion so resorted to his brand of juvenile distraction. .

I don't think he will be back because both you and I are more up on science and clarity in thinking than he is and his bruised ego can't take it anymore.

You and cap are "up on science"? You both are trying to argue logical absurdities and scientific falsehoods, and going off on irrelevant tangents because you keep running into your own walls. You are both claiming premises which are false. Not different opinions, scientifically false. Color is not an objective phenomenon, and the universe is not atemporal; events are not atemporal.

Both of you are desperately, and pathetically, trying to evade a truth that I have demonstrated 1000 times over now. Truth is not always objective, subjective truths exist. Your attempts to pin all truth to some objective phenomenon continue to fail, because your arguments and examples all continue to rely on subjectivity. You tried to define color objectively in terms of wavelength, and that failed because wavelength cannot establish what you or I will perceive (I didn't even scratch the surface on the fact that even light at a given wavelength still does not possess color; color still remains a subjective perception and interpretation of the human mind). Then, you tried to define color in terms of the CIE color space that failed when I pointed out that the majority of the color space is based on subjective human perception. You've made a sloppy mess of yourself as you continue to try to avoid the simple fact that subjective truth does exist, and not all truth can be objectively weighed and measured. Cap has gone down the rabbit hole and tried to claim that as long as an object retains the same mass it never changes, and that that somehow means that time does not exist.

Both of you are compounding foolishness in a post hoc attempt to maintain flawed premises about truth necessarily being objective. But you're right....the reason you and he have both gone off on tangents is because I jedi-mind tricked you into providing me with the distraction I was looking for.

 

[SwimExpert]

We don't perceive reality, only a tiny fraction of it. What color is a clear daytime sky? Blue? Maybe to us, but not to say animals which don't see that color. Also the sky isn't blue on every planet. Is black from the Moon. Thus at best, the truth or reality of what color is the sky is subjective, spatially-dependent, and species-dependent. Or to put it simply, an opinion.

There's very little absolute truth in the universe as most things are relative and subjective, dependent upon the observer's frame of reference.

The difference between the color of the sky in different locations can be attributed to elliptical statement. They don't lack a truth value, i.e. they aren't opinions. They merely lack adequate articulation to properly identify the underlying premise.

"The sky is blue" can be both a true statement (on Earth) and a false statement (on the moon) inasmuch as they are elliptical statements which do not fully detail the underlying logical premise. Much like "George Washington is a living person" requires additional caveats that need to either be explicitly provided, or able to be directly inferred from additional context before a truth value can be determined. "The sky is blue on Earth, during the daytime, in clear weather" is a more complete statement with a more determinant truth value.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We don't perceive reality, only a tiny fraction of it. What color is a clear daytime sky? Blue? Maybe to us, but not to say animals which don't see that color. Also the sky isn't blue on every planet. Is black from the Moon. Thus at best, the truth or reality of what color is the sky is subjective, spatially-dependent, and species-dependent. Or to put it simply, an opinion.

There's very little absolute truth in the universe as most things are relative and subjective, dependent upon the observer's frame of reference.

The difference between the color of the sky in different locations can be attributed to elliptical statement. They don't lack a truth value, i.e. they aren't opinions. They merely lack adequate articulation to properly identify the underlying premise.

"The sky is blue" can be both a true statement (on Earth) and a false statement (on the moon) inasmuch as they are elliptical statements which do not fully detail the underlying logical premise. Much like "George Washington is a living person" requires additional caveats that need to either be explicitly provided, or able to be directly inferred from additional context before a truth value can be determined. "The sky is blue on Earth, during the daytime, in clear weather" is a more complete statement with a more determinant truth value.

"The sky is blue." is false. It only looks blue, to us, given daytime and clear skies. But it's no more blue than a polar bear is white. Look it up, will blow your mind.

 

[Wuwei]

Color is not measured by a spectrometer. A spectrometer measures the spectrum of wavelengths in a given sample of EM radiation, and graphs that data. Do I really need to explain this to you again? Spectral colors are a limited subset human perception of color.

Modern spectrometer instruments can make decisions on color without the awkward usage of visible graphs that a human would have to interpret.

You seem to think that just because something can have attributes and qualities that can be observed and measured, it is an objective object. The absolute absurdity and bass akwardsness of your thinking is amazing. Falling in love is a subjective experience. This doesn't cease to be true just because we can objectively identify that the experience involves certain chemicals in the brain. Pain is also a subjective experience, even though we can observe the action of neurons polarizing to transmit information to the brain which can also be observed reacting strongly to that information.

Color is in your mind! It does not exist in the outside world. Just like pain does not exist in the objective world. Sure, the knife that stabbed you objectively exists, but the pain you feel is entirely subjective. Just like the color you see is entirely subjective.

Love, pain, emotion, etc are complex neural phenomena. Yes, color can evoke sensations and emotions too. That is a valid humanistic argument.

However, when it comes to a discussion on truth it is also valid to look at what phenomena can be measured outside the foibles of human perception. These phenomena such as color have a simpler more fundamental aspect related to the laws of physics that much more easily capture the objectivity of what is being sensed, sometimes falsely, by a human.

I'm not even sure why I'm discussing this with you. There is nothing to debate on the subjectivity of color. No, you don't have an opinion, you are wrong as an issue of fact and definition. Color is not an objective phenomenon. I'm amazed that anyone can be so ignorant and uneducated to even think otherwise.

Ad hominem argument. Very juvenile.

Oh sure, let's put more words in my mouth, shall we? I have a better idea....perhaps you can go out on a dinner date with your straw man, because you're obtuse thinking is becoming so weak that I fear you may be on the verge of an insulin coma. Your brain needs fuel in order to work properly.

You are making another ad hominem reply to my question below.

Try to remember this thread is about the nature of truth. I contend that there are certain physical processes that are unambiguous in deriving the reality (truth) of certain physical events given the appropriate measuring tools. Please be clear on why you think that type of physical measurement is always ultimately subjective.

That is not putting words in your mouth nor a strawman. That is a question which is at the crux of the argument on truth that you keep avoiding. Are you going to answer the question or diverge into another ad hominem or distraction?

 

[SwimExpert]

"The sky is blue." is false. It only looks blue, to us, given daytime and clear skies. But it's no more blue than a polar bear is white. Look it up, will blow your mind.

Yes, I know. It has no color and what we see is an attribute of that hollowness. You're missing my point, which is that just because a statement on its surface might not be able to be determined to have a truth value does not mean the matter is a simple opinion.

There is a difference between a statement and a premise. A statement is expressed in language. A premise is the underlying meaning of the statement. In logic, it is the premise itself which is most important. Statements are merely vehicles for the premise. Elliptical statements are ones that are essentially incomplete, where context and other information leads to additional information being inferred so as to reveal the premise.

Thus, your examples rely on ambiguity, creating elliptical statements. When Jane Doe says "Polar bears are white" she is typically are talking about the general appearance of polar bears. On the other hand, when you say here that "Polar bears are not white" you are referring to the fact that the transparent fur has no pigmentation and has light scattering properties that cause light to become trapped inside the fur and glow at every visible wavelength. That is an entirely different premise than what Jane was talking about. Your premise is true, and so is Jane's premise.