Truth

[Anonymous]

I’m sure there are plenty of famous (or not so famous) philosophers who have reached this conclusion centuries before I have, but…

The more I read about Fortean topics, the more I seem to be rapidly reaching, as Fort did, the strange, and in some ways disconcerting, conclusion: there’s no such thing as ‘truth’.

Truth appears to be entirely subjective – one man’s truth is another’s falsehood. One man believes in God, which is his truth, and another does not, which is his truth. But proving either as The Truth beyond a shadow of any doubt is impossible. Even in science, which is held up as the prime example of the successful search for truth, there is the uncertainty principle which means we can never nail things down for certain. Science is also something which enables us to make sense of observation, not necessarily provide The Truth. It is, as Fort said, nothing but the proper clothes to wear for a while, until the next theory arrives which provides a better fit. Everyone was probably happy with atoms made of protons and electrons, until the neutron arrived.
So, one of the grand things about Forteana is that truth is a rare thing. We often rely on eyewitnesses, whose truth may be that they witnessed something paranormal, but one can never know for certain. I like to try to solve mysteries, but in the absence of a fundamental truth in anything it’s a futile exercise – best to enjoy the mystery itself.
One can apply this principle to everyday life – there is no absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, it’s all artificial. What is right to one person may be wrong to another. If you think about it, it’s quite liberating. No-one is right, and no-one has a monopoly on the truth, despite what they tell you. If it makes sense to believe that the government is run by pink elephants from Arcturus, then that’s my truth. On the other hand, some may find this as a rug pulled from beneath them – there are suddenly no solid foundations to life, and the consequent loss of a feeling of security will make people seek security in other peoples’ truth even more.
Question everything. Find your own truth, not someone else’s. That is, until a better one comes along…

*Sits back and lights a pipe*

 

[Anonymous]

There are three sides to every story; your side, my side and the truth.
I don't believe that the truth can be known, but I do believe that it exists.

 

[Beakmoo]

But surely "truth" doesn't exist on a quantum level? Why should it therefore exist at any level?

 

[Timble2]

A wee bit OT...

Perhaps truth's like reality according to PKD...

'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

Philip K. Dick

 

[Hospitaller]

So are we to take it then that there is definitely no such thing as absolute truth?

 

[butterfly27]

So are we to take it then that there is definitely no such thing as absolute truth?

Yup!
Chris Carter's got it all wrong. The truth is not out there.

The OED gives the second definition of truth as:
conformity with fact; agreement with reality

Unless someone can come up with a definition of reality that caters for all the data that until now has been damned, and that would be a tall order, I'd say that "the truth" is merely an illusion which changes according to your perspective. And if quantum mechanics is anything to go by then merely looking for the truth will change its essence in any case.

 

[Anonymous]

Harken Ye To Ye Oracle (And Pay Ye Shilling)...

But surely "truth" doesn't exist on a quantum level? Why should it therefore exist at any level?

Depends entirely on how you decide to measure it, I'm afraid. Exactly what peed off Einstein. Quantum theory explicitly states that there are no absolute measurements, or events. Only probabilities and possibilities.

There are of course objective things, events, and phenomena out there, which are real and physical. But, as philosophers from Plato, through Kant, to Wittgenstein and Eco have pointed out, it's down to the subjectivity of human experience and the necessity for humans to further reduce things down to culturally agreed and recognised systems of signs, symbols and languages to understand and communicate that which we perceive, where the real fault lies. On the Cosmic scale human truths are at best approximations and otherwise, simply convincing lies. Even science and mathematics.

Doesn't mean we should not attempt to reach and understand the truth of a situation, or phenomenon, but it is the process of trying to discover and understand the truth that is important rather than any chimaerical illusion that we have reached, or acheived 'the truth.'

Means are as important as ends.

 

[Hospitaller]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hospitaller
So are we to take it then that there is definitely no such thing as absolute truth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Susan Bulmer wrote:

Yup!

Are you absolutely sure about that Susan?
If you are then THAT is an absolute truth.

So if we hold that:
"There is definitely no absolute truth"
We are in fact proclaiming an absolute truth and in doing so we verify that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

If, in true Fortean fashion, we hold that:
"There may be such a thing as absolute truth"
We then seek it. Isn't that the point of all our forays into the unseen?

 

[Anonymous]

Things may act indeterminately on very small scales, but that doesn't say much about the ultimate impossibility of truth, surely? Somehow lots of weirdly random events combine to form a physical world that looks, at least on the macro level that we operate at, fairly determinate? A lot of the time, at least... And anyway, scientists don't just give up trying to find things out just because they encounter unpredictable or paradoxical quantum behaviour. They come up with theories that account for this unpredictableness more or less well. The unpredictability is mathematically and precisely predictable...

 

[Anonymous]

Things may act indeterminately on very small scales, but that doesn't say much about the ultimate impossibility of truth, surely? Somehow lots of weirdly random events combine to form a physical world that looks, at least on the macro level that we operate at, fairly determinate? A lot of the time, at least... And anyway, scientists don't just give up trying to find things out just because they encounter unpredictable or paradoxical quantum behaviour. They come up with theories that account for this unpredictableness more or less well. The unpredictability is mathematically and precisely predictable...

Depends entirely on how you decide to interpret things, which branch of math you choose to invent to explain it all, what spin you put on the ball.

We build our reality minute by minute and second by second. Hopefully, we can communicate it simply and clearly to others, who will agree with us, without panicking. The odds have been in our favour, so far.

Yesterday's demon is today's electricity and tomorrow's folded and vibrating conundrum waiting to be solved.

 

[Anonymous]

Truth is a damn tricky subject and here are some of the problems I see in finding an 'absolute truth':

We will forever be limited by being unable to think outside our culture and so will only be able to see a truth wich is aceptable to said culture.

By culture I meen not a local but a global one. We can not think without using language to interpit though but language is limited by the need for others to verify it (a person can not have a language without atleast one other person sharing it.)

We've hit a brick wall already. We can not move beyond the experence and knowlage of others and therefore we can not think in a trully origional way. Perhaps if there is a truth then it exists beyond our capasity as humans to express it.

And no, I don't meen God.

 

[hallybods]

I consider myself to be a truthful and honest person but I struggle sometimes with truth. I find it hard to figure out occasions when telling the truth may be hurtful or inappropriate. And I know people who are totally convinced that their lies are true. If they believe they are true then if one mans truth is anothers fiction then doesn't it mean that they are true? :eek!!!!: Perhaps there isn't so much a truth but a right or wrong of that moment.

I think I'll go and have a lie down now 'cos my head hurts.

 

[Anonymous]

Truth is what we seek
truth is what we get

oh, and 42

 

[Anonymous]

Subjectivity of Truth

Ok, here's one argument as to why there has to be an absolute truth, even if we only experience subjectively.

Firstly, define your terms. Absolute truth. We could take that to mean: that there IS some underlying, total existence which is 'what things *are*'

Let's say that this Absolute Truth is a sphere, with a pattern of zigzags all over it. We, the human observer, are limited by our faculties to seeing only ever one side of the sphere. So, we look at the sphere, and see only a circle with zigzag lines. The person sitting next to us, will see pretty much the same circle, with pretty much the same pattern, only theirs will be one degree different from ours. Three-hundred-and-sixty people at least would be needed to perceive the absolute reality..so no human could see the whole thing at once.

Even though there IS the absolute truth of the patterned sphere, no one human culd ever fully perceive it. Even the wisest, sagest, cleverest and most perceptive of us will never see more than one side of the sphere.

Assuming it IS a sphere!

There has to be an absolute truth: we are all experiencing a reality which, by and large, is like that of others. But there are differences. So we are perceiving one reality, but we are all perceiving a slightly different angle of it than others.

Fort said that the closest thing to 'reality' (whatever *that* was!) was the universe itself- which is everything!

 

[Anonymous]

The uncertainty of quantum mechanics doesn't really apply to the macroscopic world- I think they call this decoherence...
the effects of uncertainty cancel each other out if the whole system can be observed.

however if the many-worlds interpretation is correct, it might be possible that a macroscopic object has two separate histories, which have merged... it is probably incredibly unlikely, but I don't think it is impossible.
So, to carry on this incredible line of reasoning to an absurdity, you could perhaps never discover who Jack the Ripper was, because there might be several different histories which have merged into our present, and the solution to the problem that has driven Ms Cornwell and others to distraction is-
they all did it!

 

[Timble2]

Thought it reminded me of something...

...however if the many-worlds interpretation is correct, it might be possible that a macroscopic object has two separate histories, which have merged... it is probably incredibly unlikely, but I don't think it is impossible....

There are no inconsistencies in the Discworld books; ocassionally,
however, there are alternate pasts.

Terry Pratchett

I just wonder if the world actually is wildly inconsistent, with different versions of reality jostling for precedence. It's just that we don't notice it most of the time...

What I mean is many worlds, but superimposed until some blatant inconsistency (e.g. someone being both dead and alive) forces them into different timelines.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Thought it reminded me of something...

I just wonder if the world actually is wildly inconsistent, with different versions of reality jostling for precedence. It's just that we don't notice it most of the time...

I suspect that is actually very true for our culturally mediated 'World Views.' Just look at the serious breakdowns in communication taking place, not only between East and West, but also between Mainland Europe and the US sphere of influence.

Sometimes, even, diametrically opposed views of reality, where there is not even common agreement, or consensus on what is actually being meant by some of the terms and usages concerning the subjects in dispute.

I believe that it all goes way beyond wilful ignorance. It has more to do with several decades of separate, insular development and identification of policy needs. The Media's increasing parochialism may also be to blame.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Thought it reminded me of something...

I suspect that is actually very true for our culturally mediated 'World Views.' Just look at the serious breakdowns in communication taking place, not only between East and West, but also between Mainland Europe and the US sphere of influence.

Sometimes, even, diametrically opposed views of reality, where there is not even common agreement, or consensus on what is actually being meant by some of the terms and usages concerning the subjects in dispute.

I believe that it all goes way beyond wilful ignorance. It has more to do with several decades of separate, insular development and identification of policy needs. The Media's increasing parochialism may also be to blame.

it may also be a political desision to cause a breakdown in comunication between seprate cultures.

 

[NilesCalder]

It could be the past is a series of quantum possibilities that exist only to support the present. That you are only the most likely you for all the possible alternatives.

Scary :eek!!!!:

 

[Anonymous]

Just the one universes...

I think it was Feynman who suggested that, from the moment of creation, every atom took every possible path open to it, creating an infinite number of universes. Could be, then, that countless more universes are created every instant. Get your head around that.

But I know it was Ockham who said simple is best* so there's actually only one universe. And we can't even understand that.

Ian

* in case anyone objects, yes, I know this isn't *esactly* what Ockham said, but it's close enough. There's another post on this very subject somewhere in this forum

 

[Anonymous]

Well I was watching a prog on the origins of the universe the other day and again the weakness of science became apparent to me. Science is the cornerstone of the universe for people like James "The Amazing Randi" Randi, but it's so unsatisfying.

Science is largely based on observation, so when it comes to the universe, our knowledge is horribly limited. We're told that 2/3 of the mass in the universe is unaccounted for. Two thirds! So they give it a name "Dark Matter" and that, supposedly, is that. Only it isn't. In reality, they haven't a bloody clue what it is and probably no way of measuring it.
Same goes for red shift. The universe is accelerating away from itself, and no-one knows why. So it's something to do with "particles coming into existence and perhaps interacting with each other, exerting forces within nothingness that is causing this". My Truth, is that they haven't a bloody clue and nothing to base it on. But science doesn't allow that so we're allowed to speculate as long as we have the initials "Ph.D" after our name.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissive of science, neither am I fan of big spooky theories about invisible men and sneezing Gods, but I'd kinda have a bit more respect for these people if they said "Sorry. I don't know."

 

[Anonymous]

Well I was watching a prog on the origins of the universe the other day and again the weakness of science became apparent to me. Science is the cornerstone of the universe for people like James "The Amazing Randi" Randi, but it's so unsatisfying.

Unsatisfying??? :eek!!!!:

Science is largely based on observation, so when it comes to the universe, our knowledge is horribly limited. We're told that 2/3 of the mass in the universe is unaccounted for. Two thirds! So they give it a name "Dark Matter" and that, supposedly, is that. Only it isn't. In reality, they haven't a bloody clue what it is and probably no way of measuring it.

"I don't know" is a given in science: it's the point that the scientist always starts from! Science isn't really about the answers, it's about asking questions. The answers serve mainly to confirm that the right questions are being asked (assuming that the right questions are being asked). It's human nature to focus on the answers and forget that that the point is the questions because it's human nature to want things nailed down to "This is the way it is" and "This is the way it isn't". But science isn't in the business of providing us with Absolutes to cling to.

'Dark Matter' is something I'm also unconvinced by: maybe its existence solves all sorts of problems with the observable universe, but we can't see it or detect it? That smells like a cop-out. Recently I read something -IIRC, it was a brief snippet in New Scientist- where someone was suggesting that the same math -or a variation on it- that suggests the existence of higher dimensions can be used to explain the so called 'missing mass', and furthermore can also explain the apparent acceleration of red shift without requiring the existence of any 'anti-gravitational force'. (I'll take a look through the back issues and see if I can find the piece: it was only a few months ago unless I'm completely delusional. But no promises. My filing system is a couple of messy piles of various publications in a dusty corner.)

Now once upon a time the idea that somebody could just sit down and do some sums and discover some hidden aspect of the universe that was subsequently actually verifiably real, would have had me snorting my milk out through my nose: then I read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku (Oxford University Press 1994, ISBN 0-19-286189-1). Among his expositions on what was then current thinking on String Theory and Hyperdimensional Geometry, his chapter on the role of maths in science made a few things clear to me that hadn't been before (I actually got excited about maths while reading that chapter!! That never happened in class!), and showed me how some of those 'spooky theories' actually make a lot of sense, and satisfying sense to boot, once you know how the maths works out and why.

 

[Anonymous]

Science isn't meaningless and neither is it the domain of certanty. Scientific observation begins (as has already been said) from a position of openness and any results gained are peer reviewed and always open to uncertanty (you can't be sure what will happen given a spicific set of factors regardless of how meny times the same reaction has ocured.

As such science (in it's theoretical and formal basis) is perhaps more open that some of the things that are posted on this board.

 

[Alexius4]

I'm with Wittgenstein on this one (scary eyes & all): ''The World is all that is the case''.

Question is, can we meaningfully perceive, interact with & then communicate anything sensible about it?

Nope!

 

[Anonymous]

Science isn't meaningless and neither is it the domain of certanty.

That's a good point..to often in Forteana, we demonise science (sometimes rightly, sometimes not). It is clear that Science has not, does not and will not ever explain *everything* Not should it. All the endeavours of human history have been a ttempts to make understandable the world: mythological accounts of gods and demons, religious accounts of creation and redemption, philosophical explanations of substance and virtue, scientific theories of causation and creation, moral theories, social principles, pscyhological states, political relations..all of these are simply our varying efforts to order and organise our world, to make it understandable. Unfortunately, the world is too vast, and the human mind too small, for there ever to be any coherent explanation; ''all thought relates only to the local'' [BOTD p33]. We make our efforts to understand, but we do not accept fullwell that we shall not ever understand, because all of our systems ultimately try to explain the world by fixing it in place, holding it down, static, and drawing lines around it, that we may understand it. All organisation is generalisation, and if we generalise, then we lose specifics, and understanding is impossible. Fort knew this, when he detailed ''the damned'' and said that 'to define we must exclude.' Our human efforts at explanation lie in distinguishing one thing from another, and explaining its nature by its relations. Unfortunately, there can be no distinguishment, for all things merge and interconnect, and all things are one. Fort detailed this with carying descriptions of the ''underlying oneness'' of all things: in WT [p858] he said that '' the mind of no man is a unit, but is a community of mental states that influence one another.'' Nothing is anything in itself; only by interaction and interrelation with other things do we get apparencies of individuation and being; remember Forts comment that, ''all "things" are not things, but only relations, or expressions of relations'' [WT p52] because ''all phenomena are approximations one way or the other between realness and unrealness'' [BOTD p14]. In this sense, then, ''it is not possible to define. Nothing has ever been finally found out. Because there is nothing final to find out.'' [BOTD p14] If this last comment is true, then, that there is nothing final, then our current mindset that an explanation is final is impossible, for we cannot explain or make conclusions on a thing that has not ended, and especially not on a thing that never will. So long as the universe persists, there will always be questions, and so long as there are questions, there are always answers waiting. Forts warning, perhaps reassuring in its own way, that ''the fate of all explanation is to close one door only to have another fly wide open'' [WT p30]