Truth
PAGE IN PROGRESS
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. Initially empty, it will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. See this post to better understand my creative process. Thank you for your interest and patience! :)
What you see here is a page of my hypertext book Me, Looking for Meaning. Initially empty, it will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. See this post to better understand my creative process. Thank you for your interest and patience! :)
Walt Whitman: "All truths wait in all things."
from “we have no idea”:
” The quest to find a Theory of Everything is an attempt to do something we have never before accomplished in science: reveal the deepest, most basic truth of our universe.”
what does it mean to reveal the truth about the universe?
Do we even have tools for that (including language, which has not been very helpful)
the authors continue:
” So far, we have proven ourselves to be pretty good at building useful descriptions of the world around us. From chemistry to economics to monkey psychology, we’ve put a lot these descriptions to work improving our lives and helping us build societies, cure diseases, and get faster Internet speeds. That these descriptions are not fundamental and describe only emergent phenomena doesn’t make them any less useful or effective.“
there might be a difference between building useful descriptions and reaching the truth
we can have an explanation that the god of sun has the day begin when he starts crossing the sky in his fiery carriage. This will help us predict that every morning the sun will come up, but will it really be the truth?
By the same token, we can see particles as moving points in space or as excitation if the fabric of space or as vibrations of tiny strings. Which one us truth?
Does this page tell the truth about truth? More like, a bunch of opinions, and it will not even cover all the opinions about truth.
A shared understanding of truth is important for the functioning of society. Examples: science and the justice system. We need to have this shared understanding for practical purposes. Having it does not mean that we cannot see its limitations.
Grannies from Bluey (fluidity/relativity of truth)
we live in the same physical reality, but interpretations differ
is the truth about physical reality or interpretations
Even simple facts: I own my clothes or do my clothes “own” me?
Information: infodemic (quote Yonty Routlege book section). Is the problem that somebody is trying to deceive others by fronting false information? Or is it that, because more voices can be heard, more information can be accessed, truth has become more contested, it’s more obvious that there is no one subjective truth?
We say "she is saying the truth" as if truth is something monolithic. Whatever a person is saying is made up of a combination of statements, some of them more or less factual, more or less colored by this person's opinions. I was thinking about this as I was listing to the interview by the Russian actress Natalya Bondarchuk about the film Solaris by Andrey Tarkovsky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmKpWk_5Ps&ab_channel=CharlesM). I started paying attention to how some of the things she was saying can be described as "truth" (e.g., Tarkovsky was the film director of Solaris), while others were difficult to describe as facts or opinions (e.g., intended interpretation of the film, Bondarchuk's relationship with Tarkovsky, Tarkovsky's relationship with his wife, and some specific situations - how they met, how they were filming certain movie scenes, etc.). As it often happens when people tell things to each other, Bondarchuk was presenting as truth things they may or may not have been her opinion. For example, she said that Tarkovsky's wife left him in the hospital (details were unclear) when her was dying of cancer. I caught myself thinking that the whole interview cannot be described as "fact", "lie" or "opinion" - it was probably a mix of them. For example, I have read somewhere else (but then, what kind of mixture did that source present) that Bondarchuk and Tarkovsky had an affair, something that in the interview she did not mention (she said they were friends). When we read a book, see a film, listen to news, or talk to another person, we similarly encounter a mix of the three (facts, lie, opinion) or at least of the first two (admittedly, some people lie less than others). [scene from Inside Out where they say that facts and opinions get mixed up all the time].
Salaris and truth:
” What is simulated and what is real are, in Tarkovsky’s eyes, identical. As long as we believe something exists, everything else is lost in the ether.” From: https://lwlies.com/articles/solaris-andrei-tarkovsky-greatest-science-fiction-film/
Concerns about ChatGPT: it will make it even harder to get to the truth https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ezra-klein-show-2/episode/a-skeptical-take-on-the-a-i-revolution-210560921?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzKAAFMTcwtTM2MA&sseid=MzKAASMTI1MjAA&jobid=f3a7a616-9736-4693-9252-276da5a9d884
three blind men and the elephant (quote from my book)
About this project: Start page
from “we have no idea”:
” The quest to find a Theory of Everything is an attempt to do something we have never before accomplished in science: reveal the deepest, most basic truth of our universe.”
what does it mean to reveal the truth about the universe?
Do we even have tools for that (including language, which has not been very helpful)
the authors continue:
” So far, we have proven ourselves to be pretty good at building useful descriptions of the world around us. From chemistry to economics to monkey psychology, we’ve put a lot these descriptions to work improving our lives and helping us build societies, cure diseases, and get faster Internet speeds. That these descriptions are not fundamental and describe only emergent phenomena doesn’t make them any less useful or effective.“
there might be a difference between building useful descriptions and reaching the truth
we can have an explanation that the god of sun has the day begin when he starts crossing the sky in his fiery carriage. This will help us predict that every morning the sun will come up, but will it really be the truth?
By the same token, we can see particles as moving points in space or as excitation if the fabric of space or as vibrations of tiny strings. Which one us truth?
Does this page tell the truth about truth? More like, a bunch of opinions, and it will not even cover all the opinions about truth.
A shared understanding of truth is important for the functioning of society. Examples: science and the justice system. We need to have this shared understanding for practical purposes. Having it does not mean that we cannot see its limitations.
Grannies from Bluey (fluidity/relativity of truth)
we live in the same physical reality, but interpretations differ
is the truth about physical reality or interpretations
Even simple facts: I own my clothes or do my clothes “own” me?
Information: infodemic (quote Yonty Routlege book section). Is the problem that somebody is trying to deceive others by fronting false information? Or is it that, because more voices can be heard, more information can be accessed, truth has become more contested, it’s more obvious that there is no one subjective truth?
We say "she is saying the truth" as if truth is something monolithic. Whatever a person is saying is made up of a combination of statements, some of them more or less factual, more or less colored by this person's opinions. I was thinking about this as I was listing to the interview by the Russian actress Natalya Bondarchuk about the film Solaris by Andrey Tarkovsky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmKpWk_5Ps&ab_channel=CharlesM). I started paying attention to how some of the things she was saying can be described as "truth" (e.g., Tarkovsky was the film director of Solaris), while others were difficult to describe as facts or opinions (e.g., intended interpretation of the film, Bondarchuk's relationship with Tarkovsky, Tarkovsky's relationship with his wife, and some specific situations - how they met, how they were filming certain movie scenes, etc.). As it often happens when people tell things to each other, Bondarchuk was presenting as truth things they may or may not have been her opinion. For example, she said that Tarkovsky's wife left him in the hospital (details were unclear) when her was dying of cancer. I caught myself thinking that the whole interview cannot be described as "fact", "lie" or "opinion" - it was probably a mix of them. For example, I have read somewhere else (but then, what kind of mixture did that source present) that Bondarchuk and Tarkovsky had an affair, something that in the interview she did not mention (she said they were friends). When we read a book, see a film, listen to news, or talk to another person, we similarly encounter a mix of the three (facts, lie, opinion) or at least of the first two (admittedly, some people lie less than others). [scene from Inside Out where they say that facts and opinions get mixed up all the time].
Salaris and truth:
” What is simulated and what is real are, in Tarkovsky’s eyes, identical. As long as we believe something exists, everything else is lost in the ether.” From: https://lwlies.com/articles/solaris-andrei-tarkovsky-greatest-science-fiction-film/
Concerns about ChatGPT: it will make it even harder to get to the truth https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-ezra-klein-show-2/episode/a-skeptical-take-on-the-a-i-revolution-210560921?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sharpspring&sslid=MzKAAFMTcwtTM2MA&sseid=MzKAASMTI1MjAA&jobid=f3a7a616-9736-4693-9252-276da5a9d884
three blind men and the elephant (quote from my book)
About this project: Start page
