fragments, 1/16/04

[novapsyche]

Is truth, like time, bound to our universe?

Comments

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

This word "truth" is more flexible than the world "reality". There is only one reality and the attributes of this reality is truth.

A ball exists. truth
A ball is blue. Perception
A ball exists within the matrix of reality. This is the sum of perception and truth.

Truth is bound to this universe, which is bound to reality. Perception is constantly changing like a river. The river is bound to this universe.

?

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Both truth and time are matters of perception. They are only bound as tightly as any individual sees them to be.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

A ball is dropped. In order to measure it we use time. If time did not exist or was a matter of perception you'd be arguing that the ball didn't move. time therefore cannot be a matter of perception. Although it helps understand matters of perception (we are only able to perceive the ball falling moment by moment not the entire fall of the ball but the ball's fall does not exist in entirely it exists only moment to moment.)

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Time mathematically is a rate of change. But time as we measure it in our minds is subject to the distortions of perception.

However, there has been a recent study that concluded that the brain's sense of time is rather standardized to clock time if that is what the person is most focused on. That is, the more attention you pay to time, the more time it is.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Every action changes the universe. A ball drops. Its current position is one with the current universe. The only "time" that actually exists is the present. All past is memory, a perception.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

So did the ball move at all or is that just an illusion? If the universe is constantly changing and only the present counts then on some level you're denying the reality of the movement of the ball. Dont' the laws of physics tell you that objects are bound by the previous moments so therefore time must be "bound to the universe" at the very least even if its not the entire picture of reality, just a part of it.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

I don't know if we're in disagreement here. The watched pot still takes the same amount of time as the unwatched pot to boil so even though our perception of time is distorted time as a universal aspect of the physical world remains constant.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

If the universe is constantly changing and only the present counts then on some level you're denying the reality of the movement of the ball.

Quite the contrary. Because the movement of the ball helped in part to create the present, the fact that the ball moved has potentially profound implications. That which has been is that which has created the "now." Attempts to act upon an object due to perceptions of its previous state of existence are completely ineffectual (as I find out almost everytime I need my keys).

I am not stating that I believe that which is now is all that has ever been. Nor do I believe that which is now is all that shall ever be. There is no sense in denying that which we percieve to have caused the present. At best it would silly. At worst, it would free us of any moral cupability. But the past is not real - it cannot be acted upon or interacted with, so in that sense it is only the present which counts.

Time is an artificial construct. Useful yes, but artificial nonetheless. It is that which allows us to synch our perceptions of the past and our wishes for the future when communicating with others.

Hmm, the question novapsyche posed read "bound to our universe" as opposed to "bound to the universe." For me, the change from 'our' to 'the' completely redefines the question, especially where with the word "truth" involved. "Our" truths lie solely on our perceptions. "The" truth, if it exists, is not fully knowable.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

But how is reality constituted?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I meant "our" as in the universe we inhabit. In this context, that universe is the same as the physical universe.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

So even though our perception is limited you're acknowledging that there is an objective reality that exists outside of our perception which we observe through a lens which restricts us from knowing objective reality in its entirety. If that's the case then we're back to where we started. truth is therefore not bound to perception otherwise you'd be able to find your keys everytime. I'm willing to acknowledge that time is an artificial construct created to help us understand the nature of the objective reality.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

Reality is made up of facts devoid of the distortions of perception. It is what is true, objectively. An event happens outside of perception, if a tree falls in the forrest does it make a sound kind of deal. Although we cannot know reality except through the lens of perception we must assume, based on various observations using that perception, that there is a reality that exists outside of our perception and that its attributes are comprised of facts that are true. So truth is bound to the universe in a similar way that time is bound to the universe. Both are artificial constructs created in order to grapple with the gap between perception and reality. We say something is true, even though we are limited in our ability to attain knowledge of objective reality, because that statement comes with the understanding that it is as close to reality as we can get. Reality EXISTS. It is the sum total of all existence without attributes.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm acknowledging that there MAY be an objective reality. But the humans, being very subjective in their modes of thought, are not likely to know much about it.

In your original response to this post you wrote:
"A ball exists: truth"

The way I understand things, it would be more along the lines of
"something physical exists: truth"

Whether or not that object is a ball, a floatation device, a chair, a weird curious object, or just another guest at the daily tea parties my neice throws for her teddy bear (or, for that matter, any or all of the above) is all a matter of context and learned expectations.

The "ball" only exists because of learned, culturally reinforced modes of thought that tell us roundish objects make good toys and are fun to play with.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

re-reading your first response I think you said something like this.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Ah, truth then is nothing more than perception and as such is bound only to the system which created the circumstances under which a thing could be described as true.

A truth would be bound to the universe only if the nature of the universe dictated that the truth must be. I don't know any of these truths. I suspect that most of them are of a quite simple nature and neither confirm nor abolish the truth systems under which most people live.

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

1. I'm using the term ball only as an indicator to help point towards what I'm talking about. If you say this is a ball you're not really saying anything about the object except using language to indicate what you're talking about. if you say this is a fun ball then you're adding a distortion of perception.

2. So back to the point if you ackowledge that [XYZ...] exists and the existence of existence then you must be acknowledging an objective reality. It's just pure logic in my mind. Existence is therefore a fact and is therefore a truth not dependent on perception which we acknowledge would refer to X as "ball" or "blue ball"

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

True calling the ball fun would be adding a perception on top of the perception that the matter in question is a ball.

The closest I can get to an arguement for an objective reality would be the law of Conservation of Energy and Matter - the fact that the sum of totality remains the same regardless of what the subjective state(s) of energy and matter are at any given point (at least as I understand this law. If I am wrong about this please state so. I have never devoted much time to the study of physics). So yes, I can go so far as to say that I believe Existence (in the grander scheme of that word) is truth.

Applying any particular definition to a piece of existence and labelling it as capital "THE" truth is a much different thing.

Closing Comments: The Rabbit Hole

[mrgodot.livejournal.com]

We will agree to disagree but I have some closing comments to make:

The problem here is that an discussion about metaphysics (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#mephy) always becomes a discussion of semantics. I don't know if you're familiar with it but perhaps the The Private Language Argument by Wittgenstein (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm#priv) would illuminate the problem of subjective experiences versus objective reality. But that's a whole rabbit hole of discussion. I did a paper on this a while ago. Here's a page about Wittgenstein (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/witt.htm)

Enjoy! I only scanned through these links but I did a class on him so I'm familiar with his thoughts. You'd probably find a good defense for your viewpoint with him. I'm going to have to investigate that Physics rule, I don't know much about Physics.

I'm going to add you. If you add me back you can tell me what you think of Wittegenstein whenever. It's nice to have a real conversation about philosophy instead of those fake show off ones you get in lj communities. =)