Concensus reality

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 72
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
No, it is an objective fact. 
This universe is actually Cogito-centric. No one realizes it though. The equations do tend to simplify when you think of the sun as being in the center of our system, but that doesnt make it true. There is the galactic center, around which our star orbits. And all galaxies in this universe are pulling away from the center. The true center of the universe would be the ideal place to base ones observations on, for a true, non-perspective-based understanding (in my opinion, that seems reasonable). But then plotting the position of the Moon around the Earth would be the most complicated equation imaginable. By pretending that the Sun is the center, the equations simplify and we can more easily compute the position of the moon around the Earth. And its easier yet if you pretend the Earth is the center. That doesnt mean you have any idea where the Earth or the Moon or the Sun actually are in this galaxy or in this universe, but you know where it is in relation to one another: observer and that which is being observed. Science has nothing to do with "truth"; its intent is actually to develop a set of codes that allow us to make accurate predictions about observations. Regardless of any external, objective truth. [LINK]
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Corroboration is de facto consensus.
You're using semantics to make a rather sophistic argument. Once again, replication of the results is intended to reduce variables, namely demonstrating that results can be reproduced independent of the experiment's conductor. Agreement doesn't matter; Reproducing the result does. 
FAILURE TO REPRODUCE RESULTS IS DE FACTO DISAGREEMENT.

YOU ARE MAKING A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.

INDEPENDENT REPRODUCTION IS DE FACTO CONSENSUS.
#33
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
there is one reality
#34
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
FAILURE TO REPRODUCE RESULTS IS DE FACTO DISAGREEMENT.
No it isn't. Disagreement may occur after the fact. But it's not the fact.



#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
INDEPENDENT REPRODUCTION IS DE FACTO CONSENSUS.
#36
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
INDEPENDENT REPRODUCTION IS DE FACTO CONSENSUS.
I didn't address this part of your comment because the logic is the same. Agreement may occur after the fact. But it's not the fact.


#37
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Science has nothing to do with "truth"; its intent is actually to develop a set of codes that allow us to make accurate predictions about observations.
That might be what it ends up doing, but it's intent is to discover the truth.  But (to quote Pilate), what is truth?


#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
That might be what it ends up doing, but it's intent is to discover the truth.  But (to quote Pilate), what is truth?
(IFF) truth = reliable, durable, replicable, verifiable Quanta (and or logical necessity) (THEN) the result of science = truth.

Science has no intent.
#39
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Science has no intent.

You used the word first!  In #31.




#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Science has no intent.
You used the word first!  In #31.
That was a quote.  I would prefer something like, "Science has nothing to do with "truth"; its [practical value] is actually to develop a set of codes that allow us to make accurate predictions about observations.
#41
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I was not suggesting that the Earth's revolution around the Sun provides a complete description of its movement through space. But the fact is, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. Just because that revolution does not fully account for all the Earth's movement does not make it a relative truth.
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
I was not suggesting that the Earth's revolution around the Sun provides a complete description of its movement through space.
Ok,

But the fact is, the Earth does revolve around the Sun.
This is simply not true.

If you have two identical objects in undifferentiated space, with no third reference point and they are orbiting each other, if you stand on Object A, then Object B appears to be orbiting you, but if you stand on Object B, then Object A appears to be orbiting you.

One of the key revelations of Relativity is that there is no objective universal reference framework.

All observations are Relative to the Observer and or the specified reference point.

Just because that revolution does not fully account for all the Earth's movement does not make it a relative truth.
That's not the crux of my objection.
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
It's actually quite beautiful, [LINK]
#44
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Actually, to be precise, the Earth and Sun each revolve around their common center of mass. Because the Sun is so much more massive than the Earth, the Earth-Sun barycenter is actually inside the Sun, very close to the center.
#45
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
I'd say the real difference is that the earth-centred view is just that - it's a worldview that places the Earth in a very special and privileged position in the cosmos.  The sun-centred view is a step (but the most important step) towards a worldview that de-thrones the Earth from being the centre and focus of 'creation'.  

In that light, the earth-centred view is certainly not correct - our planet (and we on it) are not the hub around which everything revolves (literally and figuatively).  Neither is the sun-centred view wholly correct, but merely by saying we are not the centre of attention it is less wrong.  Psychologically, philosophically and theologically that is a huge step forward.

#46
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@janesix
Concensus reality
Is it the only valid reality?
A general agreement?? no, that is not a valid reality per say. A valid reality exists despite a general agreement. An agreement is irrelevant to an objective reality. The only thing an agreement could do is support the notion of that reality, not make it valid, it already exists. 


#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Actually, to be precise, the Earth and Sun each revolve around their common center of mass. Because the Sun is so much more massive than the Earth, the Earth-Sun barycenter is actually inside the Sun, very close to the center.
Here's another example.

Imagine that you're in a park and you throw a ball to your friend.

The ball appears to follow a fairly simple arc through the air, never exceeding 60 to 90 kph, giving your friend a fair chance to catch it.

HoWevER,

From another perspective, the thrown ball is actually spiraling wildly through space at over 1,667 kph (relative to the Earth's core) and over 110,000 kph (relative to the Sun's core) and over 828,000 kph around our galactic core and over 1,324,800 kph relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and over 400,000 kph relative to the rapidly approaching Andromeda galaxy.

So which one of these is the one true objective reality?
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
A valid reality exists despite a general agreement.
How can you possibly know this?
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
In that light, the earth-centred view is certainly not correct - our planet (and we on it) are not the hub around which everything revolves (literally and figuatively).  
The observer is necessarily "the center of the universe".  All measurements are necessarily relative to the observer.
#50
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
It is objectively true from any frame of reference that you threw the ball to your fried.

Back to the revolution example. I would argue that the frame of reference is implicit in the definition of revolve, which means to orbit. Object A and object B orbit each other if they move in an elliptical path around their common center of mass. Implicit in this definition is that the elliptical path is relative to the common center of mass; The center of mass itself may of course be bobbing and weaving through space relative to other objects, but even if your frame of reference was one of those objects, you would still observe object A and object B orbiting each other.

#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
It is objectively true from any frame of reference that you threw the ball to your fried.

Back to the revolution example. I would argue that the frame of reference is implicit in the definition of revolve, which means to orbit. Object A and object B orbit each other if they move in an elliptical path around their common center of mass. Implicit in this definition is that the elliptical path is relative to the common center of mass; The center of mass itself may of course be bobbing and weaving through space relative to other objects, but even if your frame of reference was one of those objects, you would still observe object A and object B orbiting each other.
How far and how fast did the ball travel (objectively) between the time that you threw it and the time that your friend caught it?
#52
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, breaking with the Earth-centered view was a major paradigm shift that met heavy resistance from those who saw it as a challenge to their philosophical and religious worldview. If something is objectively true, it can overcome even the most deeply held objections.
#53
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Depends on the frame of reference, of course. But the speed and trajectory relative to a frame of reference is an objective fact. For insance, anyone in any frame of reference would say that, from your friend's point of view, the ball took such-and-such trajectory.

Often the frame of reference is implied. For instance, if you hear that Randy Johnson threw a 100 mph fastball, it is implied that this is relative to the baseball field. Same with you and your friend.








#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Depends on the frame of reference, of course.
Bingo.

But the speed and trajectory relative to a frame of reference is an objective fact.
Wrong.

A shifting frame of reference is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE.

Without a "view from nowhere" you are forced to pick a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint.

And if your viewpoint is SUBJECTIVE, then your data is SAMPLE BIASED.

OBJECTIVITY has zero tolerance for BIAS.

In the framework of a Ptolemaic solar system model, the Sun makes a perfect circle (orbit) around the planet Earth.

The Ptolemaic model is not "wrong" or "false" any more than Newton's Principia is "wrong" or "false".

Certainly there are arguably "better" models to choose from, depending on your (personal subjective) desired level of accuracy, but for many things, like figuring out when Mars is going to be closest to the Earth, the Ptolemaic model seems particularly well suited.
#55
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
IA shifting frame of reference is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE.

No, subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If has nothing to do with a frame of reference. Your frame of reference, in the Einsteinian sense, is not a matter of opinion.

Without a "view from nowhere" you are forced to pick a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint.
No, you don't need a view from nowhere. All you need to know is the frame of reference. That is why I was careful to say that, given a frame of reference, the trajectory of an object relative to that frame of reference is objective. Any observer in any frame of reference will observe the trajectory, when calculated relative to the given frame of reference, will come up with the same answer.

In the framework of a Ptolemaic solar system model, the Sun makes a perfect circle (orbit) around the planet Earth.

The Ptolemaic model is not "wrong" or "false" any more than Newton's Principia is "wrong" or "false".
The Ptolomeic model was shown to be wrong by, among other things, the fact that planets like Venus go through a full set of phases. These phases could only be accounted for a a heliocentric solar system. It's not a matter of opinion. The solar system turned not to work like the model said.

Certainly there are arguably "better" models to choose from, depending on your (personal subjective) desired level of accuracy, but for many things, like figuring out when Mars is going to be closest to the Earth, the Ptolemaic model seems particularly well suited.
Just because a model provides close approximations in the short term does not mean it matches reality, most especially if there is another model that makes better estimates. The Copernican model make much better estimates.

#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
No, subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If has nothing to do with a frame of reference. Your frame of reference, in the Einsteinian sense, is not a matter of opinion.
In the "Einsteinian sense" your frame of reference is only measurable RELATIVE to other arbitrary nearby objects and temporal context.

Your frame of reference is necessarily RELATIVE (subjective, context sensitive) because there is no ABSOLUTE (objective, comprehensive) frame of reference.

And as far as "subjective" being exclusively "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." THIS BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY ANYONE IS MEASURING ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.  PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY PERSONAL FEELINGS (DESIRE FOR MONEY FOR EXAMPLE) TASTES (PERHAPS THEY ARE DRIVEN BY SOME INNATE FEELING OF CURIOSITY) OR OPINIONS (MAYBE THEY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING CERTAIN THINGS).

Basically, if humans are doing it, it is definitely "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" (SUBJECTIVE).

And of course you are side-stepping the fact that "objective" also stipulates "free of bias" and that the terms "objective" and "subjective" are mutually exclusive.
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
the trajectory of an object relative to that frame of reference is objective.
It's (EITHER) relative (OR) objective.  It can't be BOTH.

Any observer in any frame of reference will observe the trajectory,
Even Helen Keller?  What if the observer was a kitten?
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Just because a model provides close approximations in the short term does not mean it matches reality,
No model perfectly matches reality.

Newton's Principia is not perfect, but it is generally accurate enough for general usefulness.

The same it true for Ptolemy's Almagest.

most especially if there is another model that makes better estimates.
Depending on your personal subjective goal.  Different models are sometimes more and sometimes less useful for different applications.

The Copernican model make much better estimates.
Aesthetically, the Ptolemaic model is vastly superior.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
And just for fun, [LINK]
#60
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
@3RU7AL

If you are in space and a bucket of water flies by then it makes no difference if you take 'you' as stationary and the bucket moving or vice versa.

But now put a bucket of water on a turntable and spin it.  The water surface will take on a concave shape.

But if you keep bucket stationary and you go round and round it then the surface will stay flat (and you will get dizzy!).

The point is that if the bucket is moving linearly then you can't tell if it the bucket or you that is moving, but in the case of rotation you can tell if it is the bucket or you that is moving.  If it's the bucket moving then the surface is concave, if its you moving then you get dizzy.