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

We are right and wrong on 'relativity'. We don't know if the Earth is
at the centre of the universe - so Andrew is right. We don't know
what the universe is for that matter. This form of truth is broadly
irrelevant. In science we are really interested in explanatory and
predictive power - as rigsy points out, the truth is subject to
falsification. The truth at some deeper level is we don't need to
know whether the Earth is the centre of the universe, but do need to
know a few of Newton's equations to get to Mars, rather than a few
Bible verses.

The current Apple-Samsung farce has some logical absurdities. Should
the inventor of the car windshield be suing all manufacturers for
using them? Why are we so 'interested' in Apple toys anyway? By now
computer operating systems should be about $5.

A tiny piece of DNA can hold more information than all the DVDs the
group owns. One can at least imagine a time when the old chestnuts we
skirt round could be discussed with us all in full access to the
educational base. I'm struggling to fit new tap washers at the moment
because they have changed the standard - the same is true of the
upstairs toilet. The Internet has the answers. Most of us in here
subscribe to Spinoza's tolerant views whether we've read him
(excellent summary at Stanford EP) - but perhaps we are close to
something more radical in technology that will be a paradigm shift in
knowing how to share information that makes us all more individually
competent.

Spinoza leaves the fundamentalist with a conundrum - adherence to the
written word is also to worship the written word as idols. Relativity
is even important in how car batteries (lead-acid) work, which is
rather different to sitting out on a spiral arm of M31 watching the
Sun turn round the Earth. Hawkin has it biological evolution is over
(not literally), a statement a bit like Hegel's that we are the first
people with history. I doubt the individual brain has access to truth
- what we need is for our brains to be able to access modern knowledge
in less constrained ways.

On 25 Aug, 13:33, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually Rigsy the round edge rectangle does not belong to apple alone,
>  all a person has to do is show even a sketch I am sure I have one from my
> child hood and apple has lost,,  a private individual has an automatic
> copyright..  If apple pushes that one they can lose all their profits for
> years to come.
> Allan
> I can not see why anyone wants a fruit tablet anyway, that is unless you
> like being controled..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And a round edged rectangle belongs to Apple alone and is worth 1
> > billion! Amazing. It is interesting that Jobs was so self-centered
> > while Gates has given back. Who is the "hero"?
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:12 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > but Lee four equal sides do not always create a square, but it is always
> > a
> > > parallelogram.
> > > It is all in how you view it.  lol
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Yes that may be so, but if arranged into a square then it is a........
> > yes
> > > > that is right.......square.
>
> > > > On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:44:39 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
>
> > > >> if you have four equal straight lines   what you really have is a
> > > >> parallelogram. It is possible for a parallelogram to be a square..
> >  but not
> > > >> all parallelograms are are squares..  even though they have 4 equal
> > sides.
> > > >> My Box kite is a parallelogram...  it is much more efficient and flies
> > > >> easier has to do with lifting surfaces.
> > > >> Allan
>
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > >>> Haha yes indeed they do, but as Andrew tells us, this is due to ones
> > > >>> perspective.  A square is a square and a cube is a cube.  They may
> > appear
> > > >>> differantlyfrom time to time and place to place, but the truth is
> > still a
> > > >>> square is made up of 4 equal lines, and evermore shall this truth be.
>
> > > >>> On Wednesday, 22 August 2012 13:47:21 UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote:
>
> > > >>>> 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--