• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Is objective truth theoretical or actual?

Objective truth is actual. It exists. People may diasgree over what is true, which makes their beliefs subjective, but the objective truth is still there.
 
Does not believing in gravity make gravity go away? There's your answer.
 
Maybe I should give some context. What I know to be true, that an object can only move in one direction at a time is not true at the subatomic level. Wouldn't that make it subjective?
 
Wouldn't subjectivity be based in the knowledge of the known parameters of the object? At that time, and when given more information the subjective becomes theoretical when new information is discovered. Ad infinitum, as each new discovery changes the theory.
 
Mia said:
Wouldn't subjectivity be based in the knowledge of the known parameters of the object? At that time, and when given more information the subjective becomes theoretical when new information is discovered. Ad infinitum, as each new discovery changes the theory.
Click to expand...
Good answer, that's something I hadn't considered.
 
Schrödinger's cat everybody.

Funny how latest theories remind of the bible :
Seek and ye shall find.
Look for the light :

Excuse me Jesus : particle/wave duality.
 
celestialregale said:
What I know to be true, that an object can only move in one direction at a time is not true at the subatomic level.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you inflate a ballon or blow a bubble. It will move in all directions simultaneously and that's not just at the subatomic level.
 
I remembered seeing this... Its a cartoon, but honestly its very informative...
It seems there is a "debate" as such in Physics, over whether subatomic particles are matter, or energy.
In my messed up head they are "electrons" thus being both energy and matter, but thats just me.
These particles also seems to act very differently once observed in tests where options are given.

I read an article (I'm looking for it)... where they were doing subatomic testing...
If the person who designed the test was present, the test would always turn out as that person had pre-determined. Yet, if that person was gone, and not sure of the time of the experiment, the test would have differing or very random results.

Which basically says without thought, these particles sort of do there own thing, but with thought (or perception) they react as consciously or subconsciously determined. Saying that maybe we can even communicate on a subatomic level, and more than communicate, we can build thoughts into things (as far as tests can show).

So (not that I even have a right to an opinion) "truth" at this level is in the eye of the beholder, or should I say "creator." For this is where thoughts become things, or so they are saying.

This type stuff is super interesting to me. I don't care about the complicated language or theories so much as I do finding ways to simplify, and come up with, real world answers to some pretty wild questions.

However, it seems down at this level we can come up with any answer we want, so no one is right, and no one is wrong, its just in how it is seen. This makes any form of "truth," very fluid and hard to define.

 
At a pragmatic, physical level... yes there is an objective truth, the object can only move one direction.

I'll use a different example. We, humans, have generally agreed to a method of measuring temperature. That method results in a scale reading, of say 20 degrees Celsius. That is the objective truth, we can all look at the thermometer and see it's reading.

We could argue that "if we had decided to use a different method...", maybe we would be saying, "It's 15 Flurs outside, bring a jacket." But what we call it or the method or scale, doesn't change the fundamental objective reality of how much heat (energy) the local atmosphere has in it.
 
Chance said:
This type stuff is super interesting to me. I don't care about the complicated language or theories so much as I do finding ways to simplify, and come up with, real world answers to some pretty wild questions.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel, I was just reading a new book that's pretty much an small introduction to quantum physics and this is the kind of question that came to mind. I posted it on a science forum, in a questions forum.. didn't expect all the hostility that came along with asking it.
 
celestialregale said:
Maybe I should give some context. What I know to be true, that an object can only move in one direction at a time is not true at the subatomic level. Wouldn't that make it subjective?
Click to expand...
Chance said:
I remembered seeing this... Its a cartoon, but honestly its very informative...
It seems there is a "debate" as such in Physics, over whether subatomic particles are matter, or energy.
In my messed up head they are "electrons" thus being both energy and matter, but thats just me.
These particles also seems to act very differently once observed in tests where options are given.

I read an article (I'm looking for it)... where they were doing subatomic testing...
If the person who designed the test was present, the test would always turn out as that person had pre-determined. Yet, if that person was gone, and not sure of the time of the experiment, the test would have differing or very random results.

Which basically says without thought, these particles sort of do there own thing, but with thought (or perception) they react as consciously or subconsciously determined. Saying that maybe we can even communicate on a subatomic level, and more than communicate, we can build thoughts into things (as far as tests can show).

So (not that I even have a right to an opinion) "truth" at this level is in the eye of the beholder, or should I say "creator." For this is where thoughts become things, or so they are saying.

This type stuff is super interesting to me. I don't care about the complicated language or theories so much as I do finding ways to simplify, and come up with, real world answers to some pretty wild questions.

However, it seems down at this level we can come up with any answer we want, so no one is right, and no one is wrong, its just in how it is seen. This makes any form of "truth," very fluid and hard to define.

Click to expand...
That’s from the movie ‘What the bleep do we know?’ I liked it a lot. The part of the emotions, in particular, is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
.....And THIS is why Aspie Central is my favourite forum!! :)
 
Is objective truth theoretical or actual? I suspect the only way to be able to decisively answer such a question is to have all the answers in the first place. ;)



 
"
If this were in Philosophy, you might get different answers, but in the sciences truth and proof take a back seat to the preponderance of evidence. Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize opportunities to fool ourselves, so we are able to trust our explanations as being the best supported.

Also, in science a theory is the strongest form of "truth" there is. A theory has mountains of supportive evidence, but we don't call it truth because we want to keep testing it against what we observe, always."

My favorite answer thus far..this I can live with.
 
celestialregale said:
"
If this were in Philosophy, you might get different answers, but in the sciences truth and proof take a back seat to the preponderance of evidence. Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize opportunities to fool ourselves, so we are able to trust our explanations as being the best supported.

Also, in science a theory is the strongest form of "truth" there is. A theory has mountains of supportive evidence, but we don't call it truth because we want to keep testing it against what we observe, always."

My favorite answer thus far..this I can live with.
Click to expand...

To me science is just a logical, yet sometimes cursory understanding of something at a certain point in time and always potentially subject to revision. A tool, but not a means to an end, nor the end itself.

Though I admit, I'd relish discussing my paranormal experiences with Albert Einstein. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom