Fact and Truth
Below is a MRR and PLR article in category Reference Education -> subcategory Philosophy.
Fact and Truth
Exploring the Relationship Between Fact and Truth
Summary
Thought experiments, known as Gedankenexperimenten, are considered "facts" due to their correlation with real-life brain activity. However, they often don't align with external facts and may not be true statements.
Article Body
Thought experiments, or Gedankenexperimenten, represent "facts" through their correlation with electrochemical brain activity, yet they often don't connect with external realities, posing a challenge to their truthfulness.
The Interplay of Fact and Truth
How do truth and fact interrelate? Truth refers to the possibility of an event occurring. In a binary world, if something is true, it must happen; if false, it cannot. But do all possible events need to occur to be true? Must statements have real-life correlates to be considered true?
We instinctively answer yes. We struggle to separate thought from brainwaves. A potential statement seems to exist in limbo, becoming true only when it materializes. If we could prove it will never occur, we'd likely deem it false. This follows concrete, Aristotelian logic. Statements must relate to the world to be true.
However, this view is based on certain assumptions:
1. Finite Worldview: Assuming the world is finite, saying something that hasn’t happened cannot be true implies it will never happen. Time and space are seen as finite and ending.
2. Exclusivity of Truth and Falsity: Quantum and fuzzy logics challenge this by presenting real-world situations where something can be both true and false. Particles can exist in two places simultaneously, contradicting daily experiences. Physics shows us that the world defies everyday logic.
3. Material vs. Psychic Realm: Assuming the psychic is a subset of the material realm overlooks complexities. Our senses are evolutionarily biased and limited. We are subjective observers, and the notion of an objective observer is debatable, as seen in both modern physics and Eastern philosophy.
A Thought Experiment: The Hallucinogenic Scenario
Imagine a mad scientist infuses the world’s water with a hallucinogen. Everyone sees a huge flying saucer. Does it exist? Is it "real"?
Though the saucer is likely nonexistent, who can say for sure? If no one states its non-existence, does it mean it cannot exist and is untrue? With the hallucinatory saucer, the unsaid statement is true, while that declared by millions is false.
Existence and Hallucination
Could the flying saucer exist only in the minds of those affected? What form of existence is this? In which sense does a hallucination "exist"? The psychophysical problem is that no causal link exists between a thought and its real-life correlate?"brainwaves. If brainwaves create thought, what causes them? Who is it that thinks?
The topic is complex. To say mental is a subset of material is speculative.
Separating Ontological from Epistemological
Facts are established epistemologically and statistically by conscious, intelligent observers. Their existence is observer-independent. Facts persist without observation.
Truth, however, relies on solid ontological foundations. Something is true in reality regardless of perception, yet it's also determined psychically, and thus vulnerable to hallucinations. The blurring lines in quantum logic imply truth and falsehood might be in our heads or that our understanding of the world is flawed. If the latter is true, then truth and falsehood are real-world entities, but our detection mechanism (the brain) is faulty.
Truth and Reality
Can something be true in reality but false in our minds? Definitely. Conversely, the reverse can also be true, as seen in optical illusions. Even solidity is an illusion; no truly solid objects exist.
Reconciling the Concepts
To reconcile these ideas, we must abandon the belief that we can fully understand the world. We probably cannot, and this confusion stems from our limitations. The world may contain "true" and "false" things independently of our perception. However, we can only know about the mental events within us. We mistake our representations?"concepts, images, language?"as the world itself. Without direct knowledge of the world, we cannot differentiate when a representation aligns with reality and when it does not. Images might result from objective reality or internal processes like dreams or illusions.
Conclusion
Asking if something is true is meaningful only concerning our mental world and our role as observers. When we say something is "true," we mean it exists, has existed, or will exist. Existence is confirmed only in our minds through observing and comparing. The resulting world view may correlate with reality?"or it may not.
---
You can find the original non-AI version of this article here: Fact and Truth.
You can browse and read all the articles for free. If you want to use them and get PLR and MRR rights, you need to buy the pack. Learn more about this pack of over 100 000 MRR and PLR articles.