npts2020

Isn't that what change is, falsifying (changing) the present to make it past? I fail to see how that means one must reject absolute truth, especially if this is considered to be one of the (or the only) absolute truths.

I am not so sure being helpful to others generally runs against our instincts. It seems to me that unwillingness to help is because of a perception of privation to self from doing so. In my opinion, this stems in large part from the seemingly predominant ethos of "you can never have enough", which places the individual's "needs" over those of society. If true, how can that sort of cooperation be promoted over competition? (don't take that to mean that I place no value on competition, just that it needs to be appropriate)

Appreciate all of the responses, definitely good ones and given some thought. IMO one of the biggest reasons every person on the planet doesn't have a minimum standard of living is because actual solutions, aside from apparently not being easy, are so frequently not discussed in reasonable terms. In virtually any other forum, every proposal I am aware of would immediately be dismissed as the boogieman (communism, socialism, fascism etc whatever the favorite something to hate is) rather than actually discussing the effects of any specific policy proposals. Combine that with widespread ignorance of how other people live and the capabilities of modern technology and we have the current status quo. I like the idea of Universal Basic Income but wonder if it can ever be enough to cover the cost of living in a system where seemingly the more successful at price gouging you are, the higher your status in society. I don't think people not working is that great an issue because few want to live a minimal existence. Almost everyone Ikes eating out on occasion, drinking beer or soda, and going on vacations. What I think will happen, is a lot of menial jobs will either pay substantially more, taken over by AI or decided they didn't really have to be done after all. The problem I see with it for the worst off of citizens, is that you are in many cases giving money to people who have shown they can't manage their own affairs and saying "here, go manage you own affairs". However, it might be made to work if one has to give up their UBI to live in government housing with cafeterias, libraries, vocational training, medical and psychological care. The specifics of all that could run into a very long post but the goal should be to get such people back (or up) to being contributing members of society where they can be on their own and once again collect UBI. I believe that is covered by "crazies who will want to live in a tent or refuse health care" in the OP, even if the specific cause(s) of that craziness is not specified.

In general, the people on this forum are among the smartest humans I interact with on a regular basis so am asking opinions on the following; Humans have had the ability to satisfy every person's basic needs for at least a century. Furthermore, a large plurality (if not the vast majority) follow religions or philosophical systems that claim (and in some cases, demand) that helping your fellow beings is one of the highest "goods". So why is there still people homeless, starving and dying of curable diseases anywhere, especially in places like the US or Europe? Is there some secret plan by Democrats or Republicans (or any other party in charge around the world) to solve those things? What would it take to reduce deaths in the world from homelessness, starvation and lack of health care as close to zero as the number of insane people in the populace allows (meaning there will always be some number of crazies who will want to live in a tent or refuse health care) and is it even possible to do under any of the current political/economics systems?l

This points to the fact that truth and facts can be time dependent. There could have been an ammonite named Joe at some point and that would have made the statement that he IS an ammonite both true and a fact. However, it is no longer either so the statement has to be changed to Joe WAS an ammonite to be true and a fact. Has this really changed anything regarding facts or truth, tho? Appreciate the discussion, even if it is splitting hairs at times.

I don't see how there could be any fewer goals in futbol. It seems to me it would open up the field to allow more space to operate. I could see someone like Mbappe or Haaland scoring hat tricks on a regular basis if allowed to lounge on the offensive side of the field where all they need to do is get to the space ahead of the defender rather than being required to give them a head start.

I would disagree with this. Unless one wants to argue that the difference between life and non-life has no meaning in this debate (is that just semantics or not?), I would say that when Joe the ammonite dies, he ceases being Joe the ammonite. Corpses/fossils/memories all tell of a former creature, Joe the ammonite, but none are actually Joe.

I think the games would be much Improved if they cracked down on the amount of clutching and grabbing that goes on. I find it hard to believe that teams haven't switched to skin-tight shirts since so much goes on. Oh, yeah Why is there even an "offsides" rule?

I wonder if people started referring to him as Pete Hogsbreath SoW, if anything would change?

I could recite facts, like we're having this discussion on a science forum, ad infinitum. Whether any of those facts are germane to any particular discussion or valid for describing reality is a different matter. One thing I would call a fact is that no two humans think exactly alike in every situation. It seems to me that this makes everyone's reality slightly (or even pretty radically) different.

That's SoW, and very appropriate I might add.

Which is why I completely agree with Mr. Havel's statement below.

The "nonsense" AFAICT is the notion that anyone can know EVERY SINGLE FACT to be able to discern "TRUTH". I would like to know which scientists think we will ever be on the verge of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt what truth is and when that might happen? It seems to me, the more we learn the more disagreements scientists end up with. When one matter is resolved other areas of disagreement pop up. Science is about resolving exactly what a fact is and using those facts to attempt discerning what is true or truth. Since we, as humans, are all missing an innumerable number of those facts we each have different truths. Assembling a bunch of facts (truths as you call them) doesn't necessarily mean one has found truth. Some people do exactly that. Not sure why you think I was claiming it ought to be done by anyone here.

IMO "truth"is ultimately unattainable and is therefore reduced to a personal outlook, so discussions about whether it changes or not are moot. That is why people have different "truths", even when having all of the same facts. The best humans can do is use our inventive and reasoning skills to come up with an approximation and it is that approximation that really changes, (hopefully to become more like) instead of "truth".

Since there is change in the universe, some facts are time dependent, as pointed out by TheVat. Every one of those is still a fact for the time considered and that has not changed, nor has the "truth" from any of those times. Facts are immutable because they are based on a yes/no proposition, whereas truth is a narration that changes with the accumulation of more and better facts.

It seems to me we have had "AI" in movies almost as long as there has been movies. The only difference I see between today and the first Mickey Mouse or Betty Boop cartoons is ease of generation and characters being more lifelike.

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

Sounds like something Maxwell Smart would go to Control HQ to use. 😀

Great song, pretty much describes what is being discussed. As Albert Einstein may (or may not) have said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand the subject." I would agree, such is the beauty of language. Apparently, I am not a member of your species. Ever since beginning to question the nature of reality as a preteen I have never believed I knew the "true" shape of it because there are just too many unknowns. When you can envision several different versions of the same thing, it is possible that all, some, or none are true. The more I learn about various scientific debates, the less sure I am that I "know reality".

IMO facts are objective while truth is subjective, that is the reason people see "truth" differently. Anyone's "truth" is limited by their knowledge of facts (unfortunately what some call facts, aren't, and is probably the biggest reason for differences) and ability to construct them into a logical framework.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/nasa-races-to-save-aging-swift-telescope-from-falling-back-to-earth-with-daring-rescue-mission A pretty interesting undertaking. The rocket is being launched from an airplane and the 3 armed robot that is supposed to grab the telescope and move it to higher orbit is pretty amazing. Hubble could be next.

I'm not interested in what an LLM "thinks", I am interested in what facts humans have accumulated in reference to the subject. I strongly disagree that thought is a product of language. It takes a relatively long time to learn a language but even babies are capable of some thought, even if they lack the language necessary to communicate that thought.

I would be very interested in reading about any research comparing symbolic thought in humans to other species. Do you have any links?

It seems to me "facts" are the same to any sane observer, whereas, "truth" is more subjective and limited by one's experiences and knowledge (and perhaps ability to use those to reason in a logical manner).

How do you know this is true?