What do you believe?

[OldTrees]

Dude, you can deny everything else, but you cannot deny an already established principle of relativity. You're trying to refute a fact here.

Just read a little into relativity and you'll see what I mean.

BTW, I never said motion is impossible. I simply said your own velocity in your own perspective with nothing to compare to is 0. Thus, you didn't move.

I was pointing out that if motion occurs then you have a velocity with respect to the location of your self at a different point in time. (You even have a velocity in the 4th dimension although I do not know how to represent that with units. Maybe 1sec/sec?) I did not claim that your subjective point of view would be able to perceive the objective truth in fact I believe that you cannot perceive the objective truth. However the lack of perception does not prevent reality from existing and effecting you.

From my readings of relativity using Wikipedia (not the best source) I have noticed that relativity only claims that the observations are observer dependent.

[Bloodshadow]

I was pointing out that if motion occurs then you have a velocity with respect to the location of your self at a different point in time.

In your frame of reference, you yourself don't move. If you "move toward" a tree, the tree actually moves toward you. In your frame of reference, you are the center of existence, and you are stationary; the rest of the universe moves around you. That's why if you are inside a great white void with nothing to relate to, you aren't moving.

Not to mention you could have him put something in a box that was a different colour and he would be allowed to mix the boxes up. and then you can consistently pick the one with the thing in it because of the colour

Do colors exist if every single human in existence is born blind? The concept of color wouldn't even exist.

[theloconate]

the concept of colour wouldn't exist but colour still would

[OldTrees]

I was pointing out that if motion occurs then you have a velocity with respect to the location of your self at a different point in time.

In your frame of reference, you yourself don't move. If you "move toward" a tree, the tree actually moves toward you. In your frame of reference, you are the center of existence, and you are stationary; the rest of the universe moves around you. That's why if you are inside a great white void with nothing to relate to, you aren't moving.

"As Galilean relativity is today considered an approximation of special relativity, valid for low speeds, special relativity is nowadays considered an approximation of the theory of general relativity (developed by Einstein in 1915), valid for weak gravitational fields. General relativity postulates that physical laws should appear the same to all observers (an accelerating frame of reference being equivalent to one in which a gravitational field acts), and that gravitation is the effect of the curvature of spacetime caused by energy (including mass)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity)

This passage in particular, along with my understanding of Galilean relativity, makes me believe that what relativity says is that the calculations of expected observations can be done accurately under any frame of reference not just inertial frames of reference like Galilean relativity claimed. If I am accurate on this, then I do not see how this would indicate that reality is relative to the beliefs or observations of its members.

[QuantumT]

Basically, in special relativity, you have a velocity with respect to other things, there is no one defining stationary frame.

This idea of relative velocity is generally true in Galilean relativity as well. When you describe something's velocity, you're describing its motion with respect to something else.

So in the great white void, you have no way of defining your velocity, as you don't have anything to move in respect to.

[Bloodshadow]

This passage in particular, along with my understanding of Galilean relativity, makes me believe that what relativity says is that the calculations of expected observations can be done accurately under any frame of reference not just inertial frames of reference like Galilean relativity claimed. If I am accurate on this, then I do not see how this would indicate that reality is relative to the beliefs or observations of its members.

To me it seems that you don't understand the basic "idea" of relativity. The most basic principle of relativity states that all motion is relative. For an object to move, it must have a point of reference. In the great white void, you don't have any points to refer to, so your displacement and velocity are both zero.

the concept of colour wouldn't exist but colour still would

There is no objective reality, only subjective perception. What if our entire universe is simply a virtual reality simulation program in the "real" universe? What if the laws of physics in this "real" universe are completely different? How do you know that universe isn't yet another simulation inside a third universe? How can you be sure that you're not some sort of subconsciously omnipotent god, and everything in existence are not just figments of your imagination?

The thing is, everything you have known, learned, and discovered since you were born could be completely false. Everything. So how can you be so sure about yourself, so sure that you would state something based on your perceptions as an objective truth?

[OldTrees]

This passage in particular, along with my understanding of Galilean relativity, makes me believe that what relativity says is that the calculations of expected observations can be done accurately under any frame of reference not just inertial frames of reference like Galilean relativity claimed. If I am accurate on this, then I do not see how this would indicate that reality is relative to the beliefs or observations of its members.

To me it seems that you don't understand the basic "idea" of relativity. The most basic principle of relativity states that all motion is relative. For an object to move, it must have a point of reference. In the great white void, you don't have any points to refer to, so your displacement and velocity are both zero.

You'll note that I referred to your velocity relative to yourself. All velocity needs is displacement (the distance between an object and a fixed point) In my example I use a you from a different point on the temporal axis.

In the blank white void you have a displacement relative to yourself 1 second ago [X,Y,Z,1sec]. This displacement took 1sec to achieve. Therefore you have a velocity of SQRT(X^2+Y^2+Z^2+1sec^2)/1sec. Will you be able to measure that in the white void? No, but that velocity will still exist.

There is no objective reality, only subjective perception. What if our entire universe is simply a virtual reality simulation program in the "real" universe? What if the laws of physics in this "real" universe are completely different? How do you know that universe isn't yet another simulation inside a third universe? How can you be sure that you're not some sort of subconsciously omnipotent god, and everything in existence are not just figments of your imagination?

The thing is, everything you have known, learned, and discovered since you were born could be completely false. Everything. So how can you be so sure about yourself, so sure that you would state something based on your perceptions as an objective truth?

What reason do you have for making the intuitive leap from: Knowing the objective truth is impossible -> Objective truth doesn't exist?

[Bloodshadow]

You'll note that I referred to your velocity relative to yourself. All velocity needs is displacement (the distance between an object and a fixed point) In my example I use a you from a different point on the temporal axis.

In the blank white void you have a displacement relative to yourself 1 second ago [X,Y,Z,1sec]. This displacement took 1sec to achieve. Therefore you have a velocity of SQRT(X^2+Y^2+Z^2+1sec^2)/1sec. Will you be able to measure that in the white void? No, but that velocity will still exist.

Velocity is equal to spatial displacement divided by time. Since you have no point in space to relate to, your spatial displacement is 0. Thus, your velocity is 0.

What gave you the impression that passage through time can be treated the same way as passage in space? It doesn't work like that. Passage in time can be dilated by velocity.

Although you did raise an interesting point. Is movement in time relative? Is there some sort of "velocity" for moving in time? I'll ask my physics teacher about it.

What reason do you have for making the intuitive leap from: Knowing the objective truth is impossible -> Objective truth doesn't exist?

Mainly cynicism. If something is impossible for us to ever know, then it might as well not exist.

[QuantumT]

There is no objective reality, only subjective perception. What if our entire universe is simply a virtual reality simulation program in the "real" universe? What if the laws of physics in this "real" universe are completely different? How do you know that universe isn't yet another simulation inside a third universe? How can you be sure that you're not some sort of subconsciously omnipotent god, and everything in existence are not just figments of your imagination?

You show one issue with this argument when you keep putting each universe inside another one. Since this regression can be done infinitely, it becomes scientifically useless.

But more importantly, what use does making that supposition have?

The thing is, everything you have known, learned, and discovered since you were born could be completely false. Everything. So how can you be so sure about yourself, so sure that you would state something based on your perceptions as an objective truth?

It could be, but as far as I (and everyone else) can tell it's self-consistent. So it's more useful to act like it's true than to act like everything is false.

Generally, I agree that it's impossible to show something to be true using anything other that induction, which requires some starting point. However, that doesn't mean that it's all completely useless and should be discarded.

Although you did raise an interesting point. Is movement in time relative? Is there some sort of "velocity" for moving in time? I'll ask my physics teacher about it.

Back into the world of physics, which is fine by me. You talk about time dilation, which is basically the idea that the rate you measure for my passage through time is dependent on your velocity with respect to me. The magnitude of this "four-velocity" is SQRT(vx^2+vy^2+vz^2+(c*t)^2). This magnitude works out such that it is always equal to c.

The consequence of this is that anyone moving with respect to me measures my passage through time as slower than I measure my own passage through time.

[Bloodshadow]

But more importantly, what use does making that supposition have?

All that argument does is to show that it's impossible for us to perceive the objective truth. It is the reason why I don't believe that objective truth exists. Existence is probably just infinite layers of lies.

It could be, but as far as I (and everyone else) can tell it's self-consistent. So it's more useful to act like it's true than to act like everything is false.

Generally, I agree that it's impossible to show something to be true using anything other that induction, which requires some starting point. However, that doesn't mean that it's all completely useless and should be discarded.

Of course. Everything we know could be a lie, but they're equally likely to be true. I'm cynical, but you optimists should assume that our knowledge are true and trust our perceptions.

...this thread has gone WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off-topic.

[OldTrees]

But more importantly, what use does making that supposition have?

All that argument does is to show that it's impossible for us to perceive the objective truth. It is the reason why I don't believe that objective truth exists. Existence is probably just infinite layers of lies.

Would the infinite layers of lies not be an objective reality?

Also we are still kinda on topic. We have been talking about beliefs about existence with a sprinkle of epistemology for spice both are philosophic topics just like morality/ethics.

Since you feel that is off topic lets move back to the topic of Morality/Ethics?
I am curious Bloodshadow, if reality is relative/one big lie then what do you base your ethics off of?
(Note: I am not claiming that you do not have a basis, I expect you do and that is what makes me curious.)

[Bloodshadow]

Would the infinite layers of lies not be an objective reality?

Also we are still kinda on topic. We have been talking about beliefs about existence with a sprinkle of epistemology for spice both are philosophic topics just like morality/ethics.

Since you feel that is off topic lets move back to the topic of Morality/Ethics?
I am curious Bloodshadow, if reality is relative/one big lie then what do you base your ethics off of?
(Note: I am not claiming that you do not have a basis, I expect you do and that is what makes me curious.)

The infinite layers of lies could also be fake. There is no objective truth, because anything can be fake.

My ethics are based on selfishness and greed. I believe that those two traits make humans evil.