Mind's Eye Re: Different points of view are all true

Both square and cube disappear into a dot via the vanishing point.

On Aug 22, 7:24 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Heh yeah Rigsy, some would insist that a cube is a square, they would be
> wrong to do so, but i guess some would still try huh.
>
> All truths matter both absolute and relaitive.
>
> Some absolute truths are what we try to teach in schools, how would you
> feel if your wage packet was light?  I worked X hours at Y rate, therefore
> I should be paid Z.  Yes indeed I do not think many workers would be
> willing to suggest this truth be subjective.
>
> Most subjective truths only matter umm subjectivly.  Are, as I suspect,
> Leeds Utd the greatest footbal team in the world?
>
> Subjective truth, as it's name suggest has no ultimate authority and largly
> I would agree with Andrew and say that such truths are about as valid as
> each other(until they become objective). Objective truths owe there
> objectivity to evidance that anyone can see and make up their own minds on,
> so I would say that empirical facts are the ultmate authority.
>
> Yes indeed, I think that most of what we call truth can be called
> subjective, but there are some objective truths out there.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 13:03:24 UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote:
> > Some will insist a cube is a square or twiddle with perspective.
>
> > When does absolute truth matter? Is truth forever subject to
> > correction? Who is the final authority of truth?
>
> > Eye witnesses are a weak defense. Justice makes mistakes.
>
> > People change their minds and feelings over time. (Think of divorce as
> > an example. I love you can become I hate you, etc.) Then truth becomes
> > a matter of taste or fancy rather than an objective reality.
>
> > Scientific truths are constantly subjected to corrections.
>
> > Outside of a short list, everything is up for grabs.
>
> > On Aug 22, 5:05 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes yes I get this, I don't agree but I get it.
>
> > > Some truth is subjective, and some is objective.  Whether you see the
> > > elephant as just the leg, the tusk the ear or the trunk is irrelevant to
> > > what the objective truth of the elephant is.  So your position colours
> > your
> > > POV, this does not automaticaly make your POV valid.  It means only that
> > > you have not yet seen the thing from all angles.
>
> > > There is a problem with makeing statments of generalisations, they are
> > > inveriably wrong, as things really do not follow general principles.  To
> > > say for example 'I claim that all truths are subjective ONLY' is a
> > massive
> > > mistake.  It takes only one tiny bit of evidance, logic or counter
> > argument
> > > to show just one little objective truth, for that statement to be false.
> > > **
> > > I belive I have already shown that there exist objective truths, i.e. a
> > > square is made up of 4 equal lines.  Now feel free to counter that, good
> > > luck.
>
> > > On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 10:31:37 UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
> > > > I claim that all truths are subjective only. After all we only have
> > our
> > > > own eyes and our own minds to obtain our own POVs and to claim what is
> > true
> > > > and what is not. If your POV is from earth, then the sun goes around
> > the
> > > > earth rising in the east and setting in the west. If you look on
> > earth`s
> > > > motion from another POV, then the earth rotates around the sun. From
> > the
> > > > universe`s POV, then it moves still in a different way. All are true,
> > > > depending on the POV.
>
> > > > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:44:44 AM UTC+2, Lee Douglas wrote:
>
> > > >> But that make no sense at all.  Like the blind men and the elephant,
> > > >> better to say that differnt seemingly contradictory POV's  may appear
> > to be
> > > >> true.  However this is due to not having all of the data avaliable
> > from
> > > >> which to make your mind up.  If it is objective truth you are talking
> > about
> > > >> then a square cannot at the same time be discribed as a circle and
> > yet
> > > >> remain true.  If it is subjective truth then this is due to one
> > subjectivie
> > > >> position.
>
> > > >> On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 18:04:56 UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
>
> > > >>> The different paths of earth thru space is like the blind men
> > describing
> > > >>> the elephant.
> > > >>> The density of the vacuum is like negatives of photographs.
> > > >>> We are talking about examples of different points of views of one
> > thing
> > > >>> that give contradictory descriptions, and each description claiming
> > to be
> > > >>> the true description.
>
> > > >>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:49:38 PM UTC+2, Lee Douglas wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Or differant points of view can all claim to be true even though
> > > >>>> enivitably only one is?
>
> > > >>>> It's sorta like the 5 blind men and the one elephant isn't it?
>
> > > >>>> Meh!  Bedsies just what kind of truths are we talking now?
>
> > > >>>> On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 16:30:01 UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Different points of views can be all true. Comments and discussion
> > > >>>>> greatly appreciated
>
> > > >>>>> For example,
>
> > > >>>>>    - The earth does NOT rotate around sun.
> > > >>>>>    - The emptiness of a vacuum is more dense than the most dense
> > > >>>>>    matter.
> > > >>>>>    - atoms and their electrons have physical shapes that determine
> > > >>>>>    their characteristics.
>
> > > >>>>> In the essay below, it is argued that different points of view can
> > all
> > > >>>>> be true.
>
> > > >>>>>  *Universe** centric point of view*
> > > >>>>> From an earth centric point of view, the sun and universe rotate
> > > >>>>> around the earth.
> > > >>>>> From a sun centric point of view, the earth rotates around the
> > sun.
> > > >>>>> From a universe centric point of view, the earth does not rotate
> > > >>>>> around the sun but travels along with it in a sinusoidal swinging
> > from side
> > > >>>>> to side but always going in a forward path. It never actually
> > turns around
> > > >>>>> 360 degrees and goes the other way, like it does in the sun
> > centric view.This repetitive swinging from one side of the sun to the other
> > side appears
> > > >>>>> from the sun's point of view to be an orbital, but from a
> > universal point
> > > >>>>> of view, it is sinusoidal. The earth is always being pushed
> > towards the
> > > >>>>> sun. When it is on the front side of it, the push towards the sun
> > acts to
> > > >>>>> decelerate it. When it is at the sun's back side, the push towards
> > the sun
> > > >>>>> accelerates it forward. When it is on one side of the sun, the
> > push towards
> > > >>>>> the sun pushes it towards the other side. The earth follows the
> > sun like a
> > > >>>>> child running circles around his father as they are both walking.
> > The earth
> > > >>>>> spins at 463 m/s at its equator making it look from our stationary
> > earth
> > > >>>>> that the sun and the universe rotate around the earth.  The sun
> > and
> > > >>>>> the earth travel 250 km/s thru the galaxy. The earth travels at 30
> > km/s
> > > >>>>> around the sun. That makes the earth's path thru space non
> > orbital.
>
> > > >>>>> ***An inside-out point of view*
>
> > > >>>>> Everyday experience indicates that mass is denser than the space
> > it
> > > >>>>> moves in. We are accustomed and taught to think that the fabric of
> > our
> > > >>>>> space is a vacuum of nothing and the particles of mass in it are
> > made from
> > > >>>>> matter. We are used to seeing matter as black solid balls moving
> > in a white
> > > >>>>> empty space. This is analogous to solids and liquids in an
> > environment of
> > > >>>>> air. The observed behavior of light, gravity and inertia of mass
> > requires
> > > >>>>> that the surrounding fabric of space be much denser than the
> > masses that
> > > >>>>> move around in it. It requires that mass be much less dense than
> > space.
> > > >>>>> With an inside-out point of view, mass in space are like bubbles
> > in a
> > > >>>>> liquid. It is like looking at the negatives of photographs.
>
> > > >>>>> *A** Mechanistic point of view**
> > > >>>>> *
> > > >>>>> By proposing shapes and motion to atoms that reflect forms and
> > > >>>>> movements observed in our everyday reality, an understanding of
> > the
> > > >>>>> fundamental unobserved particles of our universe is attained. A
> > mechanism
> > > >>>>> is proposed for the forces of gravity, inertia and the EM fields
> > as well as
> > > >>>>> for electricity, magnetism and radiation, all reflecting
> > mechanisms that we
> > > >>>>> see in our everyday reality. By this, an understanding of the
> > fundamental
> > > >>>>> forces is attained.
>
> > > >>>>> For an animation of the earth`s motion thru space, see video at
> > the 6
> > > >>>>> minute mark of the following video at.
> > > >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnMQwPpbO74
>
> > > >>>>> "As you go away from your sun you will see that the sun is moving
> > thru
> > > >>>>> space ten times faster than the earth is moving around it. Then
> > you will
> > > >>>>> finally see that the earth does not rotate around the sun like
> > you once
> > > >>>>> thought it did but follows it with a wavering path going always
> > forward and
> > > >>>>> never backward."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--