I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense.

It is common in mathematics to prove P because NOT P contains a contradiction. Likewise, you can prove NOT P if P is contradictory. So, there is truth to the statement that we don't understand something unless we understand the opposite to be false.

I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge

Can something be reality if you don't know what that something is about? Can something be claimed as existence if no one knows what the something is about?

What do you think? — Ayush Jain

I think there were trees in the forest before anyone saw them.

I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge

I believe that reality does not exist independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense.

I believe that reality does not exist independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Arne

:up:

Maybe it does or doesn't, but it is meaningless to say it does, when there is no knowledge available about the reality.

Maybe it does or doesn't — Corvus

exactly

If you say that reality exists only when we observe it, isn't that like saying that we're living in a video game where the map is loaded only whenever we try to look at it? It seems bizarre. Everything is so consistent in nature, and it behaves as if it's much older than humanity. It would seem to be very strange if it worked that way.

As we keep imagining and exploring, the universe unravels itself. In your day to day life, I don't think the black hole sitting in the center of our galaxy has any direct impact. you will be indifferent to its existence.
But its there now since somebody has observed it. If nobody would have, it might or might not have existed?

All of these thoughts intrigue me a lot. What do you think? — Ayush Jain

I have no real commitments either way here but it might also be said that the universe doesn't so much unravel itself as we co-create or even invent it. Everything we see and experience is subject to our cognitive apparatus, our arbitrary language and our frames of reference which may not (and in my view are unlikely to) map directly onto reality. 'Reality' itself is a human construct, the ultimately real, the foundation, the prime mover, whatever conceptual frame you wish to insert.

There's a whole thread on this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14685/the-mind-created-world

Great example of the video game. Even the unseen territories of the video game are consistent with the seen territories and as a whole, because they were designed that way. It's only that we observed a part of it, which does not impact the creation. But, we derive our understandings only from the things we have observed or imagined. For example, anti-matter was always in existence, but we found it later. Before the discovery, all our theories did not account for anti-matter. After the discovery, some theories would still be consistent and some might be proven false which were yet considered to be true. (Everything is true until proven false).

I like to think from the direction of nothingness. How can you arrive at the universe (or reality) as we know it today, from the state of nothingness. Everything makes a lot of sense with this POV.

I agree. If you keep extending this theory and keep asking, "why this exists", you end up at, "the universe is nothing but a particle which got curious"

If you say that reality exists only when we observe it, isn't that like saying that we're living in a video game where the map is loaded only whenever we try to look at it? It seems bizarre. Everything is so consistent in nature, and it behaves as if it's much older than humanity. It would seem to be very strange if it worked that way. — Brendan Golledge

We are not saying reality only exists when we observe it. But we are saying we have the parts of the universe we can observe and know them as existing. But there are also the parts we cannot see or observe, which we don't know if existing or not.

To say, everything exists, and everything is consistent and the world works perfectly sounds misleading. Because it doesn't. Some parts seems it does, but some parts are in chaos and uncertain.

We need to say that there are parts of the universe which we don't know for certain, and there are parts we do know because we can observe and experience. This is the truth.

What is known could be the foundation for trying to observe and know the unknown. What is unknown is possibility for knowing.

You're making a classic mistake in conflating two separate labels. "Knowledge" and "Truth". What is known is determined through a series of logical deductions that leads to one outcome. What is true is 'what is'. Knowledge is a logical attempt to understand 'what is' in a way that we can use to accomplish our goals.

Suddenly knowing that black holes exist doesn't mean that it wasn't true that they existed before. Suddenly knowing you're sick when you cough doesn't mean you weren't sick prior to your coughing. We do not determine reality, we interpret reality in an attempt to understand it in a meaningful way.

Isn't truth property of our judgement on the world? We cannot call what was unknown as truth when it is hidden. Truth reveals itself aftermath of knowing. There is no meaning in truth unknown.

Truth reveals in the dialectical manner. First it is unknown, then it is observed and verified. And lastly it becomes Truth with the verification. Existence without this dialectical process of Epistemology is not truth.

Isn't truth property of our judgement on the world? — Corvus

No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. Again, you're confusing truth with knowledge. Knowledge is a tool; a logical process by which we encapsulate what is into something meaningful and useable. We do not determine truth, we determine knowledge. And what can hold as knowledge is that which is logically determined to not contradicted by the truth.

Throw a ball in the air, and it returns to the Earth. Knowing gravity is irrelevant. Knowing some languages call it 'a ball' is irrelevant. Believing it won't come back to Earth is irrelevant. Reality, or truth, is that the ball comes back to Earth. It doesn't matter if you're there to witness it or not. Truth is what is, and it is what is regardless of what you know or believe.

No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. — Philosophim

What is the point of saying something is truth, when you don't know anything about it? Isn't it a senseless absurdity?

Throw a ball in the air, and it returns to the Earth. Knowing gravity is irrelevant. Knowing some languages call it 'a ball' is irrelevant. Believing it won't come back to Earth is irrelevant. Reality, or truth, is that the ball comes back to Earth. It doesn't matter if you're there to witness it or not. Truth is what is, and it is what is regardless of what you know or believe. — Philosophim

You seemed to be confusing some mundane unobserved events with truth. Unobserved events or existence are not in the category of truth. They are just unobserved events or entities. Some folks happened to see the events or entities would take them as truths, but the other folks who have not been in the vicinity to see the events or existence would have no idea what they are about.

Truth means statements or propositions which corresponds to the existence or events in reality.

What is the point of saying something is truth, when you don't know anything about it? Isn't it a senseless absurdity? — Corvus

No, its simply noting that things exist apart from what we know or believe.

You seemed to be confusing some mundane unobserved events with truth. — Corvus

Truth is what is whether its observed or not. Whether its mundane or not.

Unobserved events or existence is not in the category of truth. — Corvus

Unobserved events or existence is not in the category of what is known, or knowledge. Unobserved events are true existences despite our knowledge of them.

Truth means statements or propositions which corresponds to the existence or events in reality. — Corvus

We can ascribe statements as being true, but truth is not only ascribed to the realm of statements. Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements.

Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements. — Philosophim

It sounds like a real tautology here. Saying truth is what is, doesn't say anything meaningful at all.
Imagine when someone says to you, I am going to tell you a truth, but I have no idea what it is about.
Or truth is truth. Truth is what it is. They are just empty words.

Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to the reality, which all intelligent folks can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.

Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to the reality, which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds. — Corvus

Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality. Let me fix this for you:

"A true statement is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality." But that is not the definition of the word 'truth'. Truth is, 'what is'. "A statement about something concrete and corresponds with reality is true, or accruately captures 'what is'.

Truth applied to statements is not the full meaning of truth. Truth does not require statements. Truth does not require your observation. Truth is what is.

(True Statements) are those which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.

Let me refine this as well. What is true may not necessarily be intelligible. Generally we call these statements "Knowledge". What is known is that which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share, and agree in their minds. Even then, there are some things such as subjective experience which can only be known to the individual.

Let me refine this as well. What is true may not necessarily be intelligible. Generally we call these statements "Knowledge". What is known is that which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share, and agree in their minds. Even then, there are some things such as subjective experience which can only be known to the individual. — Philosophim

It seems to be getting more unclear. One thing clear with truth is, if one doesn't know what he is talking about, then he cannot be telling truth.

I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge

Yes. Any number of people, none of whom know each other, can, all at different times, be rendered unconscious and taken to the same place, a place which none of them had ever heard of before, and take photographs, draw pictures, or write down descriptions of whatever objects they see. What would it mean if all of the photos, drawings, and descriptions matched?

It seems to be getting more unclear. One thing clear with truth is, if one doesn't know what he is talking about, then he cannot be telling truth. — Corvus

What specifically is unclear? Let us say that I tell a young kid, "1+1=2". The kid doesn't know what any of it means. They go up to an adult and say, "1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue?

"1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue? — Philosophim

You shouldn't expect kids with no education and no development in the intelligence to the adult level to be able to tell the analytic truth.

You shouldn't expect kids with no education and no development in the intelligence to the adult level to be able to tell the analytic truth. — Corvus

That didn't answer my question. Which means you know the answer, but were unwilling to admit it. Of course what the kid states is true, even if they don't know what they're talking about. But if you're starting to avoid direct answers and coming up with odd asides, we've probably reached the end of a decent conversation. Have a good day.

But if you're starting to avoid direct answers and coming up with odd asides, we've probably reached the end of a decent conversation. — Philosophim

I don't agree. My point is that you seem to be confusing, claiming that facts and existence are identical to truths. They are not truths themselves. Truth is our judgement from reasoning on the facts, existence and events, and also statements and propositions regarding those entities.

You are saying Eiffel tower is truth, because it is what is. No. Eiffel tower is an object. It is not a truth. Eiffel tower is in Paris. This statement is truth.

Have a good day. — Philosophim

Thanks. You too.

There was once a guy in a war and the bullet killed him. He didn't see it coming...

Very belated response here . . .

I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” or “truth” they have one of two different meanings.

"A true statement is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality." — Philosophim

That is one of the meanings I use. When a person in a USA court swears to tell the truth they are saying that their sentences will correspond to reality. An important corollary to this is that the words “true” and “truth” require the words “false” and “falsehood” (or similar). We need some semantic way to express that a statement about something concrete is not true.

"1+1=2" — Philosophim

At the risk of going on a tangent, this statement is true - but the context is different. If I have one apple in my left hand and one in my right I have two apples. If I have an apple in one hand and an orange in the other I have two pieces of fruit. Etc. But once we say “1+1=2” we are no longer talking about something concrete - we are doing math - we are manipulating symbols. “1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. And - as previously - we need some method to state that a particular mathematical statement is not true.

So far, so good.

Truth is what simply is. — Philosophim

Ii could be mistaken but I don’t think you’re saying that “what simply is” is simply another definition/synonym for the word “truth" (or visa-versa). I don’t think you’re saying that we can use the word “truth” in place of using the phrase “what simply is”. If that were the case then there are much better words - “reality”, “the universe”, existence”, etc - which do not have any additional implication.

So from my perspective it seems that you are trying to create a third context in which the words “truth” and “false” have specific meanings - but how this works is not clear to me. Just e.g., how does “falsehood” work in your context? Would you say “Falsehood is what simply is not”?”

I’m guessing (and again I could be wrong) that you are trying to express a more encompassing philosophical concept. You may be onto something here (not me to judge). But your usage strikes me more as poetry. Here I’ll compose a short poem:

What Is - by EricH

Truth is the sky is blue
Truth is my love for you
Truth is not a miss
Truth is what simply is.

Not a particularly good poem - pretty pathetic actually.

What Is - by EricH

Truth is the sky is blue
Truth is my love for you
Truth is not a miss
Truth is what simply is.

Not a particularly good poem - pretty pathetic actually. — EricH

Pathetic your poem? No way. It is actually good if we interpret truth through a poetic context. I see the point you raised there; philosophy is very important, but we can gaze at the world with different perspectives. I know I could look a bit intrusive here, but since you felt you did something flat in your poem, I just wanted to let you know that you showed creative and artistic vibes in your post. Don't ever say again your poems are pathetic! :up:

You haven't changed my mind about the quality of that particular poem, but I'll take the praise. Thanks!