debate

A lot of Professors perfected their crafts for decades. It is only logical that they can outsmart you in their respective field. With enough study. I can comprehend the most difficult abstract subjects. It just takes time. I know individuals that completely skipped high school and went straight into college. The speed at which they pick up concepts is truly amazing.

Let me ask you this. What is truth? Define truth @frozenxheavens I gotta go, I'll be back :P

well given a whole bunch of axioms about the precise nature of our existence, like that the past is a thing that's valid and to some informational extent only ONE set of actions transpired, i think the answer that you're looking for is: any truth is a recounting of past space-time, or acknowledging present space-time, either way, in a manner that can't be contradicted by another statement that also claims to be truthful. hate using it in it's definition but i'm too lazy to think around it. that being said, and to answer in a way i don't think you're looking for, i think that people develop honest "personal" truths as they have their life experiences. human memories aren't always perfect, people are generally delusional and selfish, as a result of evolutionary psychology and the need for those traits to be an optimally-reproductive sapient animal. basically any number of people can have honest personal 'truths' that some or all of might contradict what actually transpired in our previous spacetime. also to an extent, my inner sociopath tells me that the truth is whatever you can convince people to believe. i could say more and whine about how i've been burned by crazy manipulative ppl but yeah, the truth is pretty malleable at this point, to me. idk if that helps at all or if you'd like to share your thoughts on what truth is! lmk ^_^

^_^ just trying to get my karma back to neutral. maybe once i get more comfy with erryone and trick ppl into being vulnerable around me i'll be more socially violent! =p hopefully not tho! i don't like being like that but i've lost control before, ngl

looking to debate veganism on the stance of ethics~ https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DisastrousMemorableClownanemonefish-size_restricted.gif

What is truth? I define truth on a range of certainties. A range of probable truths. Truths set from 0 to 1. Where 1 is 100% certainty and 0 is 0% certainty. Depending on their level of certainty. One can subdivide different levels of truths. 1.Mathematical truths These are absolute truths. It is an undeniable truth that 1+1=2. God himself could not change that fact. Insofar that math is logically consistent. All proven mathematical truths are 100% certain. Such as the simple truth that the sum of angles of a triangle in Euclidean space equals 180 deg. There are irreducible truths called axioms. Axioms are trivial truths that do not require proofs. From which all other mathematical proofs can be deduced or induced. 2. Scientific truths Scientific truths are the near absolute truths, but not absolute. Why are they not absolute? Science is based of experiments and observation. A theoretical prediction is made. That prediction is tested in the lab. Within error of uncertainty in a reported measurement. A positive prediction. The experiment is repeated multiple times. Then within a high degree of certainty. The prediction becomes a scientific fact. Such as when the subatomic Higgs Boson was discovered. The discovery of the Higgs Boson was labeled a scientific discovery at 5-sigma or a 99.9999% certainty. Notice the high level of certainty. At 99.9999% certainty, it is only 0.00001% certainty that it is not true. But is still a nonzero chance not to be true. Repeated experiments will increase the certainty closer to 1, but never actually reach 1. Unlike mathematical truths, which are true at 1(e.g. sum of angles of a triangle in Euclidean space) . Scientific truths will always be less then 1. Scientific truths are still for all intent and purposes functionally true. 3. Less certain empirical and reasonable truths Scientific truths are empirical truths. Scientific truths are the highest form of empirical truths. There are also less certain empirical truths. Let us take Psychology as an example. Though many may argue otherwise. Psychology is not a hard science. Psychology deploys tools from the scientific method. But psychological results are somewhat uncertain. Such as the definition/measurement of happiness. What is happiness? Perhaps define happiness from a scale from 1-10? But what is the objective difference between someone being happy at 6 vs 7? They are just numbers used to measure the subjective feelings of a person. What about the scale? Why not use 1-3, 1-100, or some other scale? With what degree degree of certainty can one measure someone's subjective happy state? It is uncertainties build on top of uncertainties, build on top of uncertainties. Psychology cannot define happiness with 99.9999% certainty. If Psychology could define happiness with 99.9999% certainty. Then we could know with only a only 0.00001% certainty how not to be unhappy. But alas, subjective feelings are difficult to measure. I would put most if not all of the soft sciences as less certain empirical truths. I would put some philosophical reasonings as rational truths. Such as René Descartes "I think, therefore I am". A person cannot be absolutely certain that everyone else exist. But I at the very least know that I exist. Sounds good on paper. But how do you assign a probability to that being true? Let us first reason that nature follows the laws of physics. The laws of physics is nothing more then some set of equations. One could in principle with enough computing power simulate those equations. Ergo simulate the universe. For all we know. A 5th dimensional being could be simulating our 4 dimensional universe. Within that universe is our brains. Within that simulation governed by some set of equations. My I (self) existing is no more different then a different I existing in someone else. All assuming that the universe is a simulation. Which could be a completely nonsensical yet reasonable philosophical truth. 4. Other 5. Other . . . n . Personal Truths There could be other truths in between empirical, reasonable and personal truths. To conclude and to keep it simple. The lowest form of truth is the personal truth. Someone could say "blue is the best color." Stating that blue is the best color. Is a personal truth. It is not an objective reality that blue is the best color. It is solely based off humanistic subjective standards. @frozenxheavens

not that i don't think you're a nuts smartypants after reading that and deserving of my fully narcissistic linguistic tomfoolery, but i am nuts stoned atm so i'm gonna weave in my conversational tone, hopefully that's alright! ^_^ math truths are only undeniable given our human-but-powerful cognitive/logical ability! like yes to the ultimate logical god of our universe they would have that truth value of '1', but there are probably other phase shifts or instances of existence outside of our own and shit that have totally different laws of logic and physics with DIFFERENT math truths where that shit ISN'T '1', is where i'm at in that regard. but yeah absolutely, given what we can observe math-wise, i'd be crazy to disagree. and yeee any facts we derive with our limited observation of existence are obvi subject to that probabilistic discretion, trivially! we only have 5 senses ya know? on top of those senses being limited in their respective ways, there are probably scientific phenomena which we straight up cannot perceive without some kind of technological assistance/emulation. and yeah obvi i'm still vibing with your definition of less-than-precisely scientific empirical truths, something i'd like to bring up here: but what if those uncertain sciences and phenomena like psychology DID have some objective/precise way of being measured and observed? we just don't have the right way to parameterize it because of our romanticized/poetic views with those non-mathematical sciences. or at least we are biased to think they're non-mathematical. like if it's happening in this universe, it can probably be described by a compooty with zeros and ones, is my line of thought there. and yeah all those non-mathematical existential truths and possibilities are annoying. like we may as well just assume we all exist and shits not a solipsist simulation, but who knows, ya know? and hey, that's totally you're opinion about personal truths, mannn *tommy chong voice*. but yeah i can see that. totally malleable, even given the crazy amount of assumptions one makes about their existence to observe and possess personal truths just make em a bit less potent when talking about all the other rigid shit we have going on, for sure ^_^ @alephy hopefully that gives you more insight into my very skeptical and questioning nature! i definitely learned that you are qualified to be my smartypants math daddy, so yay =p

@alephy "1. Unlike mathematical truths, which are true at 1(e.g. sum of angles of a triangle in Euclidean space) . Scientific truths will always be less then 1. Scientific truths are still for all intent and purposes functionally true." Only experimental scientific truths (facts) will be less than 1. Theoretical scientific truths have to be equal to 1, cause within the specified system/set of rules that the laws assume, the given statements are 100% true. Eg. Newton's laws of motion are 100% true in a set of newtonian physics and this is cause those laws are directly linked to the mathematics of that system. Now our real world does not follow newtonian physics, and similarly it doesn't necessarily follow Euclidean geometry either, but despite that it is undeniable that within the system of "Euclidean geometry" your statement about angles is 100% true and within the system of "newtonian physics" newton's laws will be 100% true. But, I noticed you only talked about experimental/empirical science, so you were already assuming theoretical science as part of mathematical truth?

"But, I noticed you only talked about experimental/empirical science, so you were already assuming theoretical science as part of mathematical truth?" Newtonian physics is basically build upon algebra, vectors, calculus and probably some other math that I forget.. The math of Newtonian physics is one thing. The actual science of Newtonian physics is another thing. I agree that the mathematical laws underneath Newtonian laws will be 100% true. The science underneath Newtonian laws will not be 100% true. Remember that physics is nothing more then building a mathematical model that best describes the world around us. Experiments then check the accuracy of that mathematical model. Scientist then conclude that the mathematical model is X% accurate to the real world. Though the mathematical model is 100% concise within the laws on mathematics. The mathematical model is not 100% concise to the world around us. That is the distinction. @laughingman_ddd