Saturation
/These are the things that make wes's mind go round
like a hamster on a wheel.
Why you gotta liken it to a hamster? You calling me some kind of hamster-brain?
/
Part one: perfect observer
catchy.
/Truth, being an abstract quality, has no real meaning unless perceived. Right?
Well certainly perception precedes the recognition of truth. Truth can only be known via a POV for sure. Hehe, "takes one to know one" except not all smart-alec like.
/Let's assume first that the observer is beyond fault and is able to perceive the truth and comprehend it. The perfect observer.
So, for all intents and purposes, he's not important at the moment.
You calling me irrelevant? :bugeye:
/Now then. If any system could be known in entirety; every particle, force, and whatever other nuances it might contain, then certain truths would exist.
That makes me want to nitpick the word "exist" you know? Exist must be qualified? It what sense do you mean it?
If a scenerio exists in the objective world, separate from observation.. can it have truth? I think truth is a judgement, and thus cannot exist without something having been judged. Goddamnit. So there is no truth without someone to think of it as such ('being' the meaning of the judgement deemed true). Blah.
/Those being the truths of that system.
But without you to consider it true the system has no truth, it merely is. That doesn't mean it can't be perfect though.
In a sense this defines its perfection.
/Hmm...
Indeed.
/If the observer is separate from the system being observered in such a way that he does not influence it nor it he, and is capable of knowing and comprehending all of the above objectively, then the observer may know those truths.
Certainly but via cause and effect your scenario is logically impossible. (not meaning it IS impossible, just logically so).
/He will essentially be omniscient with reguards to that system.
I was thinking the same thing from your scenario - before reading that part. Cool, synergisticishnessish.
/However, if the observer is immersed in the system, then he will influence it and it he.
Exactly my point about the logically impossible and all, not having read this part again, cool.
/This naturally imposes limitations on how much the observer can know.
My analysis outputs that the necessary logical / reasonable result is a theoretical limit of "subjectivity" for assertions regarding knowledge of any kind. Of course the merit of each is to be weighted subjectively. Even religious folks do this, as to me 'faith' is a brand of hope associated with one's internally concluded probability of actuality of the likely objective truth regarding the questions of creation, etc.
/This lack of omniscience stops the observer from knowing the truths of the system.
I'll buy it.
/Thus ends the objective observer bit.
Exactly. Well put.
/
Part two: the limited subjective observer
/Wes, your question was aimed more at whether or not the truth is subjective. This is more along those lines.
Allright then sir.
/Here we assume that the observer is limited in sensory scope, ie not able to observe the system as a whole, as he is inside the system.
But ultimately we see that it is the same in the first case no?
/A system has certain truths to it. (see part one)
I don't agree that it does until judged.
/Any being immersed in a system influences that system and is influenced by it. This creates a influence loop. If the system has a maximum speed at which information can be transmitted, we can say that this is the speed of the influences.
... moving at the speed of mind .... (random thought, pardon)
/As each individual is separate from any other, no two influence loops will be the same. Also, as individuals are seperate, they may not claim to have the same observations as any other individual, as they cannot exactly duplicate the sensory imput of the one another.
I'm down.
/These factors create differences in perception among the individuals.
Have to, inherent, definition of POV, werd.
/The system may be described as unique to each individual via his/her unique influence loop and perceptions. This is the basis of subjectivity.
Sure sure.
/An individual may create a subsystem of all his/her perceived knowledge about the system.
Well if you persist in time and have the capacity for self-awareness it's inescapable to some degree.
/This becomes their subjective reality.
As it couldn't be anything else unless it were.
/As the individual observer has now created his own subsystem from his/her total knowledge, the observer may considered omniscient with reguards to his/her respective subsystem.
From the POV of the rest of the system yes, but to the POV of the individual, his information is just as suspect at the rest in given his understanding of this that or the other. In other words, this input is generally subjected to logic and reasoning to test reliability.
/The observer will then recognize certain truths about that subsystem. These truths will, however, be subjective.
That isn't to say that he can't be correct about
any system he could learn to fathom... it's only to say he can never be SURE (given the nature of time from the perspective of the present) that his theory is perfectly representative of the system it was devised to describe.
/
Part three: The whole thing.
/As an observer's knowledge about the system he is immersed in becomes more complete, his subsystem becomes closer in nature to that of the system proper.
However, as the observer may not remove himself from the system, his/her sibjective subsystem may never fully echo the system in which he/she is immersed.
/In a sense, this makes certain subjective truths 'more true' than others.
In a sense, sure. Dig it.
/So, i guess i would say you are both right and both wrong depending on what truth exactly you are talking about.
Well I did address a specific type of truth. What exactly to call it is probably questionable, but I thought my example sufficed to establish context... but yeah you're right expanding the context it's depending of the thing being judged as to how any type of truth associated with it is applied to maintain consistency with the... wait. Hmm.
So truth is consistency given context?
I'm spun around a bit at the moment but that seemed insightful.
