missing apples

[AntonioLao]

The history of science had thrown a curve ball to Newton’s discovery of gravity. If the apple had landed on Newton’s toe, he would have discovered the theory of everything (TOE). Moreover, it would have been a big deal, if the apple landed on the big toe instead of the little toe. In a many worlds scenario, one Newton was hit on the head and discovered gravity. One Newton was hit on the toe and discovered TOE. One Newton was hit both on the head and the toe and discovered both gravity and TOE. One Newton was hit by a 2-ton apple and died on the spot and discovered a theory of nothing (TON).

In a world played by the strict rules of probability all these different scenarios are equally likely to happen. On the other hand, each probability of each scenario is weighted by moments of relative truth. The farther the moment of a relative truth from the absolute truth, the less likely it will be given the chance of becoming absolute truth. In physics, all these relative truths are replaced by theories, hypotheses, and conjectures. To be able to reduce their moments is simply to perform experiments to test the validity of each truth. The more experiments the better and the faster the moments move away or move toward absolute truth. Eventually, after many repeated experiments, there will be a final moment of truth and subsequently the birth of a physical law becomes imminence. Applying these moments to the whole universe, the universal accelerated expansion shows that all relative truths are moving away from the absolute truth of the big bang singularity. Ultimately, the universal moment of truth is the absolute zero of gravity and the TOE becomes useless and meaningless at the absolute zero of temperature. But only the TON makes sense.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Probability logic/math__Possibility scenarios are only true as stated here(your post), iff using ergodicity foundations of statistical machancis probability foundations created by Boltzman's ergodicity(fallacies transferred to Gibbs foundations, also...), which have never been proven, neither has his H theorem. Honest probability, based on Huygens, Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce and Keynes are much more sound, as they contain real ground in actual historical statistics numbers, and not the fleeting unsoundness of Boltzmann's ergodicity myth, based in his mind, and never discovered by anyone but him(the great probability dellusions...)

Antonio, there's no such animal as relative truth__Only relative measure, of a less than .5% correction to absolute truths...

The #1 conjecture problem plaguing the modern world is 'ergodicity'(Boltzmann's never proved probability foundation...), both in physics and economics, but truly everywhere it's used__No true ground from Boltzmann__Poincare' also used a true ground probability math and logic system, but not entirely...

The history of science had thrown a curve ball to Newton’s discovery of gravity. If the apple had landed on Newton’s toe, he would have discovered the theory of everything (TOE). Moreover, it would have been a big deal, if the apple landed on the big toe instead of the little toe. In a many worlds scenario, one Newton was hit on the head and discovered gravity. One Newton was hit on the toe and discovered TOE. One Newton was hit both on the head and the toe and discovered both gravity and TOE. One Newton was hit by a 2-ton apple and died on the spot and discovered a theory of nothing (TON).

In a world played by the strict rules of probability all these different scenarios are equally likely to happen. On the other hand, each probability of each scenario is weighted by moments of relative truth. The farther the moment of a relative truth from the absolute truth, the less likely it will be given the chance of becoming absolute truth. In physics, all these relative truths are replaced by theories, hypotheses, and conjectures. To be able to reduce their moments is simply to perform experiments to test the validity of each truth. The more experiments the better and the faster the moments move away or move toward absolute truth. Eventually, after many repeated experiments, there will be a final moment of truth and subsequently the birth of a physical law becomes imminence. Applying these moments to the whole universe, the universal accelerated expansion shows that all relative truths are moving away from the absolute truth of the big bang singularity. Ultimately, the universal moment of truth is the absolute zero of gravity and the TOE becomes useless and meaningless at the absolute zero of temperature. But only the TON makes sense.

[AntonioLao]

Could we then replace relative truth as personal truth or subjective truth?

[labelwench]

'Truth', from my understanding, is an 'absolute'.

No variations allowed.

It must hold universally.

The 'relative' would seem to come from our individual perceptions, as each of us views the world from a framework of our own experiencing.

Some of the frameworks are able to interact well and enable growth in understanding and directions for further contemplation.

Other frameworks seem to be in such contradiction that gridlock results, and movement through mutual understanding is hampered.

In my youth, I was certain of many truths.

Now, I would be reluctant to state even one......
.....for if not all agree.....
......can it be 'true'?
......even if it appears so to me.....

[AntonioLao]

Then there are two kinds of truth: objective truth and subjective truth. Both can become absolute truth within an absolute space-time reference frame called the ether. Unfortunately, it could not be detected by Michelson and Morley's interferometers.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Could we then replace relative truth as personal truth or subjective truth?

As long as it is not confused and conflated with what the modern world has created, called the Boogie-Man of "relative truth". There's nothing wrong with subjective truth, as we know it's of our infinite emotional essence agency, underlying all rational logics of the sciences. The problem arises for all science and metaphysics when the two are conflated__i.e., tis impossible to make sense of our infinite essence agents, mixing with our finite essence agents, without qualifiers and quantifiers, within the greater linguistic confines of open communications__and imo, here lies all the linguistic confusions, whether scientific or meta-physical. When we mash these together, niether one makes sense. In order to create a proper linguistic dialoguing capacity for all, we must recognize what is possible, and what is not possible__of our language and subject systems...

Here's how I related it on Greg's "Design Without A Designer" thread:

No spectral evidence is allowed in science...!

You're still dismissing the capacity of the human mind to overcome its false and inane teleological theological beginnings, and evolve to its true and intelligent teleological scientific goals/ends__Never can creative scientific intelligence be dismissed...

This must be considered, in the teleological evolutionary equation, to allow it to be fully scientific, otherwise, we are simply locked into the old meta-physical/physical debate, now called, theological scientifics__The severe linguistic problem...

Reason the teleological classification system is needed: Without a system to classify human evolution of scientific intelligence, from theological and other meta-physical arguments, is the mind falls back into the soup of non-distinctions__which only confuse and conflate the possible scientific dialogue of being completed, and separated from the mysticisms of dialogue, that are sure to creep into all possible debates of evolutions' scientific truths, against the over-whelming majority of human desires to participate in such dialogues. This is the real reason philosophy created the four main scientific classifications of mind__teleology__ontology__epistemology__mereology . Throw any one of them under the bus, and science herself is being destroyed. It's the general public dialogue of information distinctions, especially of mixed interests of subjects, where these classifications are necessary to maintain science's integrities...

Just think how ridiculous any public meeting of mixed interest minds would truly be, if it weren't for the classifications of minds' communications in public meetings, if we had no classification systems at all__and one quickly sees the value of clearly distincted mental classification systems. Teleology isn't anything but a classification system, and all must realize its necessity to separate the old theo-meta-physical, from the new-phisio-scientific__Otherwise, we are all locked in the big soup-bowl of linguistic confusion and conflation__totally un-necessarily__as this category classification has been offered our species for millenia...

"Creative logic to dialogue the two opposite sides of logic - Truths to natural law!"
The problem of infinite verses finite communication - The academic community has failed to frame a proper dialogue to discuss social/scientific problems successfully without too many infinities linked to present dialogue - A new dialogue of political communication simplicity is needed. [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]
The almost impossibility of logical discussion in the present dialogical academic environment and framework of a too cluttered basis, leading to too many infinite possibilities, therefore; a simpler conceptual finite dialogical language is needed! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]
Godel's incompleteness theorem as applied to language - A separation of finite and infinite language possibilities is absolutely necessary to dialogue successfully!

No spectral evidence is allowed in science...!

Hope that helps Antonio,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What is needed:
The Simplifications of Linguistic Systemology...

Example:
He's right in one respect__We are hard-wired by ratio-logic of self-interest, which just happens to interpret, to any rationally logical person as__to treat others fairly, to be treated fairly__Oneself... I find nothing but a ratio logic spirit soul, from birth on, which not only is the main governor of our intellects, but our emotions as well__as it's basically our self-interest instinct at work__if we but pay close attention to it. It's the exact ratio logic actions, that run the entire Universe__the difference is the Universe's galaxies have no choice but to chance gobble other entire galaxies of "possibly" good human-like creatures__and we have both chance, and more importantly, choice, to treat others fairly, to be treated fairly, ourselves__The Universal Ratio-Logic system still in play__Yet, with an intellect and emotions, capable of rationally recognizing an-other's worth, to benefit self and other/s...

It's a simple mechanical chance and choice system... Take a chance, and be a jerk. Take a choice, and be a human...

[labelwench]

Re: missing apples

Could we then replace relative truth as personal truth or subjective truth?

An image just came to mind, as I often think in pictures.

If 'Truth' is depicted as an apple tree, what then should we make of the apple?

Even before 'apple', we have the new growth of leaves, the apple blossom, and the pollinators.

The fruit of the tree of truth is nourishing in itself, for all creatures, and also replenishes the earth.

From apple, which we may enjoy in it's natural state, we can also make applesauce, applejack, apple cider vinegar, dried apple, and by the addition of other ingredients, we may carry apple beyond it's wildest imaginings.

All of these things have some of the apple tree in them, but they are not the apple tree.

The only one among them that can become the apple tree, given time, is the seed of the apple.

Even before the apple tree, there was apple seed.

So, perhaps, the apple tree is not 'Truth' after all, and I must search elsewhere for the origin of 'Truth'.

Are the other bits relevant to 'Truth'?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Then there are two kinds of truth: objective truth and subjective truth. Both can become absolute truth within an absolute space-time reference frame called the ether. Unfortunately, it could not be detected by Michelson and Morley's interferometers.

M & M were looking for more than was there__Aether is the em field space, itself__eternally in motion...

I kinda look at the subjective truth as the internal continuum, within the greater objective space and time continuum__It's easier to picture that way... Fields within fields, to infinity__Kinda makes the Universe go round better...

We can deal with the absolute truth much better, if we but intepret all motion, within classical Newtonian mechanics__All GRT, STR, QED and QCD, as Bohr advised at Cohenhagen, and Ehrenfest sided with, against Einstein...

[AntonioLao]

Objective truth seems to be equivalent to the substantivalists' view of realistic space-time. The apple occupies space and it ripen in time suggesting that the origin of matter is the changing dynamic of both space and time. Therefore, a TOE must describes this space-time dynamics more precisely and more accurately than any other physical theories in order to be truly called a TOE.