The flame of truth

Imagine we were standing in a room and I lit a match. You could see the flame, maybe feel the heat and as I blew it out, smell the smoke. As far as your experience is concerned, the match had been lit. It happened.

Now, what if you entered the room just after I blew the match out? Had the match been lit at all? You might smell the smoke but does that mean there was fire?

If you entered the room a day, week or year after the match being lit, is there any evidence left at all? I could tell you I lit a match in the room a year ago but, you'd have to take my word for it or not, regardless of the truth of the matter. If you believe me or not, you are being subjective and since there is no evidence, does it mean it didn't happen?

Can the truth of the event be known?

In Sweden as I talked to the environmental archeologist at the train station, I asked about this and he said it is a very interesting point and gave an example. He mentioned that until quite recently and aided through the help of better testing equipment, archeologists believed that humans didn't live in Northern Sweden even though the ice had already withdrawn, because they never found any remains.

According to new research however, they did in fact live there earlier than previously thought, but the soil was so acidic that it destroyed evidence of life very quickly, in the matter of a few hundred years. He noted that there have been Neanderthal remains found in Finland that date back something like 200,000 years.

What he mentioned is that most sciences use the evidence to piece together a story the best they can but they are influenced by the culture and social conditions of the time. Most end up trying to prove that they are better in some way than some other group for whatever reason and construct a supporting narrative, essentially an echo chamber of confirmation bias.

Some people like to argue that they are able to provide an objective view of a situation but even if they can take all of their subjective personal bias away (approaching impossible), what they fail to recognise is all of the information that they cannot factor in. What this means is that they tell a story based on what is known but that doesn't mean it is the truth.

The truth is singular. Always.

Yet, how each person views that truth is through perspective of experience, understanding, thought ability, preference, genetics, social structure... The list goes on. This is why there are different versions of the truth based on the same events across individuals. None of them are likely objective and none of them can ever know the full course of events as to know all, the event cannot be viewed from a vantage point (that would be perspective) the entirety of the event must be viewed from all points simultaneously, an impossibility for any human or, any AI at this point.

To be able to process that level of information one would have to have the powers of well, a God. That means that anyone who truly believes that what they speak is objective truth must consider themselves the equivalent of a god as to do so would require an all-knowingness. Sounds far-fetched.

The next problem is the timeline of events as for example with the case in Sweden, the truth was no one lives up north, but once testing equipment improved, they realised they had been mistaken.

Mistake is a funny word because it literally means "carried in error" and that is what happened with the knowledge carried based on the lack of forensic evidence. The scientists carried past information until that information was superseded by more precise knowledge. However, they lived and acted up until that point as if it was the truth.

No... It was their truth which was actually a - belief system. The truth of the matter is that while there is a truth, none likely know it, they just hold their version as if it was true and believe that the versions that others hold are untrue or less true.

There is also an alignment problem when it comes to the truth as what is not possible today might be possible tomorrow. For example, a person could have created a complete working computer in 1750 but, without all of the infrastructure and technology of the last decades, it would have been useless.

The doctor who first described germs as little animals that live on the skin and the reason why doctors should wash hands between touching dead bodies and delivering babies, was ridiculed by peers. Why? There was no evidence, they couldn't see the germs as at the time as there were no microscopes available. Does not having an observer mean that something isn't true? Obviously not, germs truly existed before they were seen by human eyes... Probably.

Even that is a belief isn't it. Someone else could argue that at the point the first person looked through that microscope with the power to see germs, a god or the simulation created germs and distributed them back through time where archeologists would find them to confirm their bias.

The alignment problem is similar for a lot of things when it comes to what people believe is possible and impossible because under some conditions something is impossible but under others it is possible. While the conditions might be hostile today, things are always changing and could evolve into a welcoming environment tomorrow, next year or in 1,000,000 years.

Future truths, But without knowledge of that future and all of the conditions, there is no way to know. Humans are always belief based and while real events do take place, none can ever know if they took place at all. You might feel you know but, you also could be part of the simulation and your feelings of knowing fact from fiction is a fed delusion. There is no way to prove otherwise and, you could be the only person in existence or, just a system programmed to believe you exist.

What is the objective truth? If you do not know if you are alive or not objectively, how can one claim to know other truths objectively?

Oh, all the evidence points to you being a living, breathing human? What evidence? Your feelings about experience? A friend of mine took mushrooms and thought he was small enough to get under the painted lines on the road too. It was his truth at the time and he acted accordingly trying to get under that line - which was amusing to watch.

Maybe life is a hallucinagenic trip - for some a bad one.

Truth is a funny little animal I think as everyone believes that they know it, but what they have is a subjective view of the world based on limited perspective, experience and knowledge. It doesn't stop them thinking they are right of course - as they believe themselves objective.

The truth is in the action, not the observation of the action.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
_{(posted from phone at home waiting for her to awake from a dream she may believe is real while she lives it in sleep)}