The truth shall set you free

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Jan 29, 2016.

  1. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Sure, but this isn't an absolute truth either. We don't know the why. Not saying what we know is wrong. It is incomplete.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Well actually we do: It's simply a result of the speed of light being a finite value.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Of course. I always get expert professional opinion to support what I claim.
    That of course is a bugbear and turn off for those lay people that think they can logically over ride these experts.
    It doesn't work that way and never will.
    No new physics or invalidation of accepted theories like SR and GR, will ever be over turned on a science forum such as this....fact.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Actually its not so much that you refer pad ; and you are a lay person . Its that in the end you think you understand science; and the progression of.

    Science is not about the Man or Women ; science is about knowledge ; and the ability to set aside preconceived ideas .
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    As obviously you are: My advantage is I have no ego or delusions of grandeur to uphold at all costs. And of course based on the evidence over the years, my knowledge is still far in advanced of yours...not withstanding your acceptance of non scientific issues such as ghosts, goblins, Aliens and UFO's and all things supernatural.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, science is based on evidence, of observations, experimentations, the scientific methodology and peer review: All that have confined your personal beliefs in the supernatural to the garbage bin. That eats at your craw.
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    This is a true of science but with an exception. Science based on statistical studies is an exception to the rule, because it uses black boxes and therefore adds UFO's and gods that can hide in the black boxes. You don't see them directly, but they are there. The emotions that such science can induce in the layman, reflects the magic in the black box.

    For example, today coffee can be bad for you and tomorrow coffee may be good for you. Both studies will run their experiments by the book, with both using a black box. The study looks at input and output, but does not look inside the box. One does not even try to open the black box or that can render the study invalid. It needs a mystery to link input and output.

    Inside that black box, is what amounts to the whims of the gods, since the statistical results can vary today and tomorrow. The black box keeps everyone in the dark, as to how and why. The black box conclusion, by being the dark, will induce emotions. If science says coffee is good, it is now safe to go outside because the gods of the black box be willing. But if science says it is bad, you better not go outside since the gods in the black box are not happy. Nobody can say why this is so, since you would need to open the black box. The layman gets to ponder the mystery of the black box, and may conclude we need to honor the whims of the gods, who live in the black box.

    How is this different from people seeing what appears to be a UFO? They can't fully explain the UFO anymore that why coffee can be good today but not tomorrow. They do what statistics does and place the phenomena in a black box. It is closed and you can't open the box, so people make fun. Next, if others see the same type of UFO thing, which is also placed in a black box, which defies rational proof and explanation, there is now statistical significance. The loop is the same just the starting point is different.

    Say we have a rational relationship like E=MC2. Based on the science knowledge of the audience, the emotions can via run from none; the most rational who understand, to puzzling by those who know this is equation is true but do know why, to maybe black box magic to those who are not science inclined.

    If we use a statistical association, the black box emotion shifts from the bottom, nearly all the way to the top. It sort of dumbs down even the intermediate level intellect by adding superstition via the black box. Why do you think black box statistics is used in politics, by people who make a living spinning in the truth in ways that lead to self benefit? The black box offers that possibility. People who place gods and UFO's in black boxes that cannot be opened; based on blind faith, should be called science since they use this schema. The dual standard has entered science and will pretend this is different due to another black box.
  10. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    And why is that?
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I don't understand what "truth is absolute" means. 'Absolute' how?

    Your "uncorrupted by opinion" and "never able to be questioned" suggests that in order for a proposition to be true, it would have to be a necessary truth, in the sense that it couldn't possibly be false.

    I think that's too strong. In my opinion, all of the propositions that we believe are true still retain some residual possibility of being false. There's always going to be some chance, however small, that we are mistaken. That's even the case with so-called logical truths (tautologies).
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
    zgmc likes this.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Good luck with that!
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    It's true that the mathematical physics takes a fairly elegant form if we accept Einstein's assumption. It's true that many experiments have produced results consistent with that assumption.

    But why is it true? Why is reality such that the speed of light is a physical constant across all reference frames?
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Either or both my links above give an answer to that.......
    I hope it is satisfactory.
    Let me add, that science obviously does not as yet have the answers to everything. We do not really know why when spacetime is curved, warped, twisted in the presence of mass, that we get gravity: We do know we get gravity obviously, but the deep and resounding why?
    The stretched trampolin with the bowling ball does help to explain though.

    Why the truth is the truth, any truth, I do not know.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    ? I find nothing strange in that. Science learns more and adds knowledge as its observations and experimentations improve. Things we may not know, may be known in the future, and hence change our view of things: That's why a scientific theory always remains a theory, in near all cases. Science knows that as technology improves, as we see further, as time progresses, more knowledge becomes available that may or may not change our perception of things or modify long held theories. That's why science has a distinct logical advantage over religion.
  16. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    The links do not answer the bigger why.
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    The first site says, "It should be noted that Einstein did not actually PROVE the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference. Rather, it's an axiom (an underlying assumption) from which he derived the rest of his theory."

    The second site says, "Can we explain why the universe is this way? In physics, explanations go deeper and deeper, but they have to stop somewhere: laws of nature are our basic building blocks."

    In other words, nobody really knows why reality is such that the speed of light appears to be constant in all reference frames.

    The first site recognizes that Einstein just assumed it and then worked out the implications of that assumption. The second site jumps to the conclusion that the assumption is a "law of nature" and hence should be accepted as an unexplained given in scientific thinking.

    Neither do I. I don't think that anybody does much of the time. That's just as true for the foundations of physics as in the rest of life.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not knowing the bigger why's does not invalidate though what we do know
    as fact. Gravity still exists....we can describe it accurately...we predict accurately what it will do....we send probes to research four planets accurately when we know conditions are right.
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    There is logical truth--whether some statement is true in a logical context.
    There is "telling the truth" as in being honest, or recounting what you saw or think you saw.

    Then there are universal kinds of truth, like Murphy's Law, or like say, that humans are observers of events (or more pedantically, humans are made out of particles, each of which can "observe" events).

    But, what is the truth that sets you free? Is it something about the human condition, our place in the grand scheme of things? Maybe there isn't any grand scheme, and the truth is that we are actually all nihilists? If you encountered this truth that sets you free, would you necessarily recognise it for what it is?
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You're misunderstanding the scientific process.

    Imagine Einstein lived a millennium before his time. Everyone seemed to think the Earth was flat. We saw storms that formed great spirals in the sky as they headed away from the tropics but we could not explain this behavior. Einstein came along and said 'Lets say Earth was a sphere. If that's true, those storms would make perfect sense, because of this thing called (well, I want to call the Einstein Force, but something is compelling me to call it the Coriolis Force instead).'

    It turned out, assuming Earth to be a sphere also happened to solve a whole pile of other nagging problems, well beyond the original one. It solved them perfectly, and made everything we observe about the Earth far simpler - beautiful, in fact. And we could measure how round it is, and every experiment we've ever done since then bears this out - even though we've never actually proven that the Earth is round. No experiment ever done since Einstein's first supposition has ever failed. And the more we look (such as the shadow cast upon the Moon during an eclipse) continues to bear this out.

    As far as any observation we have ever done, it seems that planets are spheres, not flat. We're not sure why yet (because we haven;t discovered gravity and planetary formation) but it seems to be a l aw of nature that celestial bodies are spherical.

    We have a model that predicts things with extreme accuracy virtually 100% of the time. It's a very good model, but it is just a model.
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Einstein's axiom that the speed of light is the same in all inertial references, came to him before all the experiments were run. He was able to come to that truth, using this mind and his power of reason, without the need of running experiments in all references, first. The use of the power of the mind, is why this was called the golden age of science. This age was wide open with ideas being generated faster than one could run experiments. Logic and reason can do the same thing as the lab. As the lab gained more control over science, the golden age became silver and now bronze.

    The lab is needed for those who can't follow the output of the bright mind. The irony is, the people, who need lab proof the most, get to lord over the thinkers, who are actually higher up the food chain; science has a bottom up hierarchy. If Einstein did not have math proof, he would have been mishandled by morons for decades, who will make decisions about truth, based on their limited ability to think. They would have foot dragged until enough resources were wasted, so they can see to believe. The math saved Einstein, grief.

    Consider this example. Say you need to move a large rock and you figure out the nature of mechanical advantage. From this theory, you invent a simple lever and fulcrum. If you try to explain the principles to others, because this is new, it may sound like magic to those who can't abstract and follow your logic. To make it easier for them, you may need to run a field test so they can see proof of concept. You use a long strong branch and a medium sized rock as fulcrum, and move the big stone; ooh and ahhhh!

    Since seeing is believing, and since verification will be needed in science, you also allow others to try, who now realize this is not a trick but they can do the same thing. Now the principle of levers is accepted. But that still does not mean they understand why this works. The dumbest guy in the crowd, can use the lever and also move the rock. He may not ever understand the theory, so he might try to explain it in another way, that makes more sense to him. Even if his explanation is not truth, in the formal sense, he can nevertheless run the same experiment and allow others to verify, and use this to verify his hypothesis; seeing is believing. This why there is often more than one truth; theory; for many phenomena in science.

    Interestingly, one of the first professions that helped drive the advancement of science and technology, was magic. Doing a magic trick, like levitation, requires knowledge in a wide range of sciences and technology principles, including physics, materials science, probability and behavior science, so you can fool the eyes. If seeing is believing, and seeing means more than abstract logic, then one can conceptually use magic in science, and appeal to the crowd that assuming seeing is believing.

    Using the working example of the dumbest guy in the room, who sees and the uses the lever. His personal theory of mechanical advantage may not be truth, but he can show the experiment and move the rock. He can even allow other to move the rock with his tools. He is essentially saying, I can levitate my lovely assistant. His theory is similarly detached from reality. He runs the experiment; lever moves the rock, and voila his lovely assistant levitates. This is good enough for bottom up. This allow more than one truth; relative truth. This is why I tend to approach science by looking at conceptual consistency to see if there are hidden wires.

    Leading from the bottom to top might be useful, since it makes sure science does not evolve so fast at the top, that the rest of the science herd loses touch. Einstein had to put on the brakes. He needed to waste good years until the least inclined, with the money and/or power, felt more comfortable. He may have gotten too far ahead and floated away. Science is not self sufficient in terms of resources, but depends on laymen with money, who need to feel safe to give up the resources.

    The statistical approach for life is a magic trick based on experiment first, using black boxes to hide hidden wires. Pay no heed to the black box. This will have popular appeal, but it will not be settling to those who work outside the bottom up, box.
  22. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Well written post, unfortunately it is wrong.
    There had been lots of work trying to explain why LAB experiments resulted in the speed of light being measured as constant, Einstein was able to take the mental leap to explain what was seen IN THE LAB with his theory of Special Relativity.
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    He, and countless other physicists along with him, were trying to come to terms with the experimental failure by Michelson and Morley and others to detect any differences in the perceived speed of light, due to the Earth's motion.–Morley_experiment

    Einstein made a speculative proposal that the speed of light remains the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. Then he worked out some of the implications of that speculation.

    Speculations are only speculations, until it's determined whether or not the universe behaves as speculated. Einstein's speculations are only remembered today because subsequent experiment produced results that conformed with Einstein's sometimes counter-intuitive predictions.

    Do you think that there is some purely rationalistic method of discovering the truth about physical reality, without bothering with prior or subsequent observations of that reality? Can you explain what you think that method is?

    Many historians of science would agree with that, as would I.

    Ancient religion and its miracles were about begging and petitioning spiritual beings who behaved as persons with their own wills. Magic was something very different and far more revolutionary. It imagined that there were hidden ('occult') principles governing events, cause-and-effect regularities that the wizard knew and could manipulate by ritual means. Hence, magicians believed that the universe's hidden forces could be compelled by the power of magic to serve the magician.

    Seen that way, magic was a half-way step on the way to science. Science was basically just magic that had somehow happened on a new set of hidden laws of the universe that could be verified and really did work.

    But that's the point: Science isn't just speculation. It's increasingly informed speculation (informed by things learned earlier) that's shown to really work. That last step can't be dismissed and it's where experiment is so necessary. It's where ancient and medieval magic ultimately failed.
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2016

Share This Page