Something i wrote, today, at work: Objective Truth stuff.

[wolven7]

Objective Truth is Absolutely Subjective: An Outline

• That which is "Objectively True" is that which can be confirmed by repeated experiment by various agents.
  
  • Testing Process, laboratory conditions, et cetera.



• Many theories have been thus "Confirmed" and counted as "true," only to be rejected, at a later date.
  
  • Ptolemaic movements, Newtonian Physics, Phlogiston, et cetera.



• Rejection of a theory and adoption of a new hypothesis occurs when someone views a problem ot set of information in a new way, which seems to "better" explain the data, and proceeds to "confirm" this new point of view.
  
  • General and Special Relaativiy Vs. Newtonian Gravity, Round Earth Vs. Flat Earth, Copernicus Vs. Ptolemy, et cetera.



• After varying stages of confirmation and "proof," people in the concerned field, and in the world at large, begin to accept the new information as "The Way Things Are," and to question how they could have thought otherwise.
  
  • Flat Eart Refutaion, Evolution, Phlogiston, Quantum Theory, et cetera, ad nauseum.



• More examples of Confirming Evidence mount, as people perform more experiments, and search out explanations, thusly necessitating that the the individual pieces of Disconfirming Evidence are fewer, but more intrinsically damaging (Inverse Proportionality).
  
  • The lack of physical effect-bearing esperiments for String/M-Theory, in spite of the continually mounting Mathematical Evidence.



• Internal Works and External Effects are differently experienced, depending on the points of view, understandings, and expectations of the observer, ie Changing the results and Nature of an experiement simply by having observed them.


{
• The probability that there either is or is not an underlying "Objective Reality" is exactly 1. The possiblity that there is both or neither is also exactly one.
  
  • We may not know all of the factors of our current state, and are able only to wrok with what we are able to perceive, and as that changes and builds on itself, so should we adapt.
}


• The world (universe, sphere of experience), therefore, Mirrors the Beliefs and Attitudes (Underlying, "Common sense") of the majority of the experiencing entities within it (External Ramifications), and the "understandings," beliefs, and best guesses of those who Question, and direct observations (Underlying principles of the Universe).
  
  • Demons cause sickness, atoms make up matter, Magic, quanta, mind over matter, observation,p[erception, intention, God, et cetera.

Warren Zevon - [Hasten Down the Wind (Live)]--- Only problem is i feel like i'm missing something. Like there are a few steps missing... I know some of you think i'm completely wrong, from go. Whatever. That's not the point, here, so much (however, feel free to explain why you think I'm wrong. I want details.). I want to work through this, and build this into something. (Placebo - [Peeping Tom (w/ Bill Lloyd)]). I'm going to be talking to my professors and Dad, about this... Hm.

My Birthday is in two days. mech_angel is moving down here, in a month and a half. I have a paper due, in two weeks. I move in two and a half months. I need to find a house.

None of these things has properly had time to sink in, as they are all vying, loudly, for my Full Attention.

I need a drink, a smoke, and to do my godsdamned reading, for tomorrow.

Fuck.

I'm out.

{You could have a vision about your own future, WOLVEN. Maybe you will have a sudden moment of intuition. You could get a strong hunch about something that catches your full attention. Maybe you will look at your life from an entirely new vantage point after this revelation happens. Welcome those moments of insight, and then remember to act upon them. Your guardian angels might be trying to set you on the right path!

Warren Zevon - [Ourselves to Know]--- Uhm.. Kay....}

Comments

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Mrf. If I wasn't getting sleepy, due for bed Very soon, and overly excited despite both, I could probably help with those missing steps.

*bounces*

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Heheh. I would definately appreciate the help, when you have the brain space, ot spare... :)

[raoin.livejournal.com]

guess we'll just be meeting you at the vortex, seeing as how Das Bunker is only every second friday of the month.

see you for sushi?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yep. I have a present for you. :)

[missmeganmaude.livejournal.com]

I wish I had time to properly think out a contribution to that~
I need to make more time to think about things that aren't work...

mech_angel is moving here?
Does that mean that we can go on keen double dates? *lol*

As for a house, what happened to living with your mum?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's ok, i understand having too many things on one's plate :)

And yes, she is. Wouldn't that be awesome? ^_^

Well, i realised that with my lifestyle, my friends, and most importantly that mech_angel is moving down, it's better for me to continue to live with people. While rent won't be Free, it will be cheap, and i won't have to readjust to living with my mom. I love her, but i've been on my own, for 5 years now...

Theories aren't truth

[(Anonymous)]

The term theory, according to the tenets of the scientific method, can be defined as an assertion which has not yet been disproven. It is impossible to prove something conclusively true by means of the scientific method, only to disprove it through experimentation. A good scientist doesn't believe a theory to be incontrovertibly true, s/he only accepts that the theory has thus far not been disproven. A theory is more like a model than a truth, it explains a set of phenomena or observations in a way which cannot be disproven by a series of experiments. The more attempts at disproof a theory undergoes, the greater its truth value becomes, yet there is always the possibility that some future scientist will disprove a theory, as has so often occurred in the past. I would argue that no one who really understands the underlying implications of a theory would accept it as objective truth. Theories are subjective to the experiments which have thus far upheld them. This seems to be where philosophy and science collide in the great metaphysical trainwreck which is modern "Knowledge": philosophy wants objective truth, yet science can never give it to her. Sounds like a good paper topic, the first part is the only thing I saw beef with, because you seem to be asserting that science arrives at the truth, and then this truth changes. Whereas if anything, science demonstrates what something is not, but can never truly explain what it is. Parmenides was very ahead of his time, 2500 years later and we're still trying to do things backwards.
-Just my biannual two cents, take care,
-Patrick

Nice quote from the man himself:

[(Anonymous)]

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." Stephen Hawking,"A Brief History of Time"

Re: Nice quote from the man himself:

[wolven.livejournal.com]

An intrinsic part of my point.

I disagree, however, that one piece of disconfirming evidence negates the applicability of a theory.

Re: Theories aren't truth

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My point, mainly, is that the word "true" has very little meaning, in science, yet is still used and vehemently defended. That what we're describing, when we set forth a theory, is anything other than a description of the world as we all currently perceive it, and that said perception does not shape what we will perceive, in the future, is a more incomplete position than most others. Yet it is done, every day.

What i'm saying is that Nothing arrives at any more "truth" than anything else, but that some things seem to assert themselves as doing so, more than others. Philosophy and science being two of the biggest perpetrators.

Re: Theories aren't truth

[(Anonymous)]

There's no doubt that 500 years from now people will look back with bemused contempt at our science in much the same way we view the science of 500 years ago, however, you can hardly argue that any theory we can concieve has equal merit, regardless of its provability. If I wanted to subscribe to Tychonian geocentrism, would you argue that it has equal merit to modern explanations for the percieved movements of bodies in space? Science cannot arrive at the Truth, but it can certainly take steps towards that truth in a sort of aristotelian dichotomy of motion. We can't arrive at the philosopher's destination, but progress can be made. To ignore that progress, and to argue that the truth of knowledge is moot simply because we can never arrive at the absolute, objective truth, is counter productive.

Re: Theories aren't truth

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You should remember, that I hold with Sartre, quite a bit. My point, here, isn't that it's not worthy doing, at all. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that it's More worth doing, but also worth always remembering what we're really after, the whole time.

If one thinks they Can find absolute truth, more power to them, and good luck. I, necessarily, agree and disagree with them, in terms of its existence and what will be found, respectively.

Anything subjective is also objective, and vice versa.

Re: Theories aren't truth

[(Anonymous)]

Cool by me, happy birthday by the way, a little late. I hope it was everything you wanted it to be.
-Patrick

Re: Theories aren't truth

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Thank you, very much.