Is there anyone who cares about truth anymore...

a reply to: karl 12

I devoured Phil Dick, ate him up. I would wait and wait for his next book to come out so I could grab it off the shelf. I admit to accepting him as being almost prophetic in his musings. There was about him, that sense of verisimilitude, that is because of his genre one need not take any of his writings as if they were from ''on high'' but rather fully acceptable as being some pretty good assessments on our human condition.

I turned to SF early in my readings. My uncle again had the full set of Analog,and Astounding Science Fiction publications and was the one to turn me onto early Heinlein and Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

Unfortunately, the concept of objective truth has been replaced with soft feelings and opinions.

originally posted by: Shoujikina
a reply to: St0rD

.. or did anyone ever cared anyway?

For someone that talks about the truth, you sure didn't research how to write simple english correctly very efficiently. How can I trust the 'truth' coming from someone that doesn't even know the truth about how to write simple english sentence correctly?

"Did anyone care" is correct. "Did anyone cared" is wrong, and you should already KNOW this. If you talk about truth, make sure you at least know how to type something simple, or you have no credibility. Truth about english language is SO basic, that anything more advanced can't be trusted, if the english is this bad. No offence, but information is everywhere these days, almost literally at your fingertips. There is no excuse, and you just absolutely demolish your own credibility when you prove you don't have the ability / stamina / inclination to research even this basic stuff.

How can anyone trust you to research anything more advanced? It's like mathematician talking about some really complex equation, while IMMEDIATELY demonstrating they can't calculate 1+4 correctly. Would you trust that mathematician's equations?

Wow,
IMO most replies towards my OP were totally disrespectful in regards to the perspective I wanted to present about truth and maybe it was deserved from a lack in structure in my thoughts or whatever and I couldn't help but think to myself they don't seem to care or have a clue at all about the reality I'm pointing at and it's alright, to each their own....

BUT YOU...
all you did take from all of this is one simple grammar mistake I did (out of distraction) in a secondary language I mostly learned on the internet all by myself a few years ago.
That's telling me one thing about you bud-

Just even talking about the concept of truth makes you feel so uncomfortable that you have to rely on such ridiculous arguments right away without further consideration.
My advice to you (since I took the time to write this down to only you since Page.2) take a step back and look at yourself and your life, there is something you probably lie to yourself about and anyone trying to remind you will be see a threat immediately.

Relax, I'm just brainstorming and we all lie to ourselves at one point so it's all good.
But just think about it

Peace

a reply to: glend
Do you think sophistry can change the very meaning of the word "truth", i.e. something that is true/absolute, the very opposite of relative (if we're talking about the word absolute)? Does sophistry provide evidence for the claim or notion that "all truths are relative"?

I guess from your latest words now I take it that you've changed that to some truths are absolute and some are relative anyway.

Most of the times the sky appears blue to human eyes, and sometimes different circumstances cause it to appear a bit more reddish (to human eyes); these are all truths, things that are true/absolute/factual/certain. Just because sometimes it appears more reddish does not negate or change the fact/truth that most of the times the sky appears blue to human eyes. That is an accurate/truthful description of the reality of the matter. It does not make that truth/reality/fact relative, or any more relative just because both are true under different circumstances. Nor do these 2 truths/facts/realities conflict with one another or contradict one another.

a reply to: whereislogic

That is the point of relative truths. That they all are accurate/truthful descriptions of reality relative to our frame of reference (time and position). It is the same as Special Theory of Relativity. In which Einstein proved that time is relative. The rate in which time passes depends on our frame of reference.

Consider that our mind translates stimili from sensations into a world view. Because we each have a different frame of reference we do not recieve identical stimili. The sensations of our bodies are not exactly the same (some people have better eyesight etc). Some minds translate stimili better than others etc. All points of view cannot be absolute because each is relative from one another.

The Buddhist parable about the blind men describing an elephant,..

The one who had touched the head said, “An elephant is like a pot.” w
The one who had touched the ear said, “An elephant is like a winnowing basket.”
The one who had touched the tusk said, “An elephant is like a plough pole”
The one who had touched the trunk said, “It is like a plough.”
The one who had touched the body said, “It is like a granary,” and
The one who had touched the leg said, “It is like a pillar.”
The one who had touched the back said, “It is like a mortar”,
The one who had touched the tail said, “It is like a pestle” while
The one who had touched the end of the tail said, “An elephant is like a broom.”
Then they began to quarrel saying, “Yes it is!” “No it isn’t!” “An elephant is like this!” “An elephant is like that!” until eventually they began fighting with each other.’

I saved a lot on my car insurance today.

Everyone has their own truth.

A lie starts out, first, with having the advantage of being the truth until proven otherwise. You take the average person who most likely has a lot of things going on in their life that preoccupies their time...they might feel taking the time to find out if something is true or not, unless serious, would take time away from everything else. Most especially if it is something not directly related to them.

a reply to: glend

Einstein’s special theory of relativity showed that distance (length), time, and mass are not absolutes. But that does not show that truth is any less absolute, or that the truths described in his special theory of relativity are relative truths rather than absolute truths.

It seems you latched on to it because the word "relativity" is used. Just because something is relative rather than absolute, doesn't change the meaning of the word "truth(s)", i.e. something that is true/absolute/certain/correct, without error.

For instance, toward the end of the 19th century, physicists observed something odd about the speed of light. They found that relative to an observer, light always traveled at the same speed no matter how fast the observer was moving. (which does not make that truth itself relative) But that seemed to defy common sense! The problem was addressed in 1905 in Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which showed that distance (length), time, and mass are not absolutes. Then, in 1907, after a flash of intuition that he termed “the happiest thought of my life,” Einstein began to develop his general theory of relativity, which he published in 1916. In this revolutionary work, Einstein wove gravity, space, and time together and refined the physics of Isaac Newton.

But he never refuted any of the absolute truths already discovered by Newton. Likewise, the addition of the knowledge* discovered in the field of quantum physics do not negate or refute the absolute truths of Newtonian physics, a.k.a. classical physics. (*: essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities) Another common misconception promoted by those who like to publish their unverified (and often unverifiable) speculations in the field of quantum physics, who tend to give people the impression that quantum physics somehow supersedes, or renders Newtonian/classical physics obsolete, or shows that it's wrong or outdated in some aspects. Physicist Freeman Dyson addresses this point somewhat in the video below starting at 0:30 with the keypoints at 2:03 - 3:34, 5:35 - 6:03, 21:23 - 23:56. Two notable conclusions in that presentation (which are absolute truths proven by his thought experiment example and common sense; he's spot on, so to speak, and he recognizes the issue quantum physicists are reluctant to acknowledge, because it shows many of their published speculations and papers to be based on imagination rather than the facts of "science", from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"; or they are based on or include an inappropiate use of quantum mechanical language; often, the term pseudoscience applies to their published speculations, such as the speculations in string theory and M-theory, the latter being connected to the speculations and fiction concerning a multiverse, see 2nd video with Roger Penrose):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms" (Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle"; which is related to this issue of applying and interpreting QM incorrectly as described at 2:40 in the video)

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."


Note how the notion responded to below concerning "the early condition of the universe" being a "quantum vacuum" (which lies at the basis of Krauss' and Hawking's books and their claim concerning "A Universe from Nothing", as per the title of Krauss' book) is a statement "about the past ... in quantum mechanical language" (compare 1st conclusion by Freeman Dyson quoted above). Among all the other things that are wrong with that way of thinking discussed in these 2 videos:

a reply to: whereislogic

Let me try a different approach. Would you agree as Michio Kaku believes here that the universe is finely tuned for consciousness. Michio Kaku answer to that conundrum is the existance of multiverses, That the physical laws are all different in each universe.

There is another option. The "Autodidactic Universe Theory" suggest that the laws of physics may have adapted over time to allow life to evolve. Akin to Charles Darwin's evolution theory but on a much grander scale.

The last option is that all the laws of physics existed from day 1 (but not before day 1 as there was no universe).

In all three scenarios. The laws of physics are no longer absolute.

btw,,, Newtonian gravity failed to predict mercury's orbit. That needed the Lense–Thirring effect from general relativity to do so.

a reply to: glend

I simply do not have the time or inclination to consider every speculative thought/idea/philosophy that is out there. I see Michio Kaku more as an entertainer than a scientist. There is no proper evidence for a multiverse. When the philosophy is used for the purpose described in the article below and not supported by any proper evidence (and the evidence is pointing in an undesirable direction for those proposing the philosophy of a multiverse, causing them to come up with that idea to avoid the conclusion the evidence is pointing towards), that's a red flag for me:

...

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

They're attempts to drive home the notion that '(Mother) Nature did it' (by chance), somehow, screw the evidence pointing in another direction (purposeful design). And then sell that notion under the marketinglabel "science", making it pseudoscience. Michio Kaku's specialty. In today's climate, promoting pseudoscience draws more attention, cause actual science is too boring for most people who would watch the kind of shows or entertainment media that people like Michio Kaku show up in.

Also, if you are describing what Michio Kaku said concerning this somewhat accurately, it sounds like he's confusing the issue here by changing the following point:

When they examine the laws of nature, many investigators balk at the notion of a cosmos without purpose. They are impressed, for example, by the fundamental forces that regulate the universe. The laws underlying these forces appear to have been fine-tuned in such a way as to produce a universe capable of supporting life.

To: "finely tuned for consciousness". That just confuses the issue here. Why swap out "life" with "consciousness" as if you're still talking about the same subject? Those 2 terms are not interchangeable or synonyms, consciousness is a different subject. God has a type of consciousness that does not require any force of nature to be fine-tuned for his existence to continue.

Objective truth, water is wet. Subjective, is it too cold, too hot, or just right.