(April 19, 2012 at 4:49 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Einstein would disagree any day. What about his theory of relativity? Let me give you an example where event X and non-X are simultaneously true (sorry if you're already familiar enough with the theory, but just to make sure we stay on the same page). An observer is standing at a train station. A train passes in front of him and at the exact moment when the middle of the train is in front of him, bolts of lightning hit both the back and the front of the train. The observer sees that they struck at the same time because they are at an equal distance from each other and the observer is not moving. At this very instant, there was another observer on the train. Because of their velocity, they observe that the bolt at the front occured first, because they and the light source moved towards each other, as opposed to the bolt at the back having to catch up to the observer. Einstein's theory tells us they are both correct in their observations as to which one happened first. Therefore, the truth becomes relative.
This ties in with the red apple:
I'd have to say yes and no. Yes, I agree that we can identify something by using empirical evidence. No, the way it registers in our brain i.e. how we percieve it is actually not irrelevant, as the theory of relativity shows us. There are definitely conditions that could be in play that we're not aware of that change what we are percieving.
I think we are shifting from the topic here. Do you not consider reality to have an objective value?
(April 19, 2012 at 4:49 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So what is truth? Is it true for me to say that the sun hasn't imploded, given that my observation of it right now is light from the past, which has taken 8 minutes to reach me? For all I know it has but I haven't observed it yet. According to your argument I do know truth. This is impossible in the case of the sun imploding though. Ok, for the sake of argument let's fast forward to the last minute of the sun's life. Aaaand... it just imploded. This has become fact, yet the apparent truth is that it's still there, because I have yet to observe the implosion which I will observe after 8 minutes. Where does that leave me with knowing the truth?
I think we've gone on a tangent to the OP and now the discussion has shifted to what is true outside of our cognitive faculties.. But I guess this is because I'm sort of trying to make sense of the problem at hand.
Knowledge before observation? When you say the sun hasn't imploded, that statement refers to 8 minutes ago. Its like, looking at the newspaper and saying that what is written is happening now. Its not happening now, it happened yesterday. In case of the sun, you can get away with it under normal circumstances because what was true 8 minutes ago is also true now.
I guess we'll continue this in another thread.
