2 + 2 = 4 is not true if the "+" operator is from a Grassmann algebra.
Grassmann number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In fact in the case of things being Grassmann, 2 + 2 = 0.
Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
2 + 2 = 4 is not true if the "+" operator is from a Grassmann algebra.
Grassmann number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In fact in the case of things being Grassmann, 2 + 2 = 0.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Umbran,
If you are not familiar with Ludwik Fleck's excellent Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, I recommend the book to you. He does a far better job of demonstrating that "scientifically objective observation" is, in fact, heavily influenced by the subjective fads of the day, and creates perforce a subjective dataset whose conclusions must be greeted with skepticism.
Myself, I believe that the problem arises from the false dichotomy which divides observation into "objective" and "subjective" modes, and which would then cause all statements of belief to be either "objective" or "subjective". I use the term "axiomatic" to refer to a third set of statements of belief, as well as a third classification of phenomenon.
For the purposes of discussion, I will limit myself to the statement "Objective truth cannot be known". The statement derives from axioms both about the nature of "truth" and the nature of "knowledge". One could write a book-length treatment about "truth" and "knowledge" (and in fact many hundreds or thousands of books have been written on just this topic), but for simplicity's sake, I will turn my attention to Descarte.
Descarte made a valiant effort to found a system of knowledge from "first principles", but was unable to find anything other than "Cogito ergo sum" to be directly observable. Later philosophy and modern science have, of course, questioned even the validity of this statement. To move beyond the cogito, Descarte had to accept as axiomatic truth that his observations of an external world are valid. As later philosophy/science have demonstrated, even the cogito requires the acceptance of internal observation as an axiomatic truth.
Again, with David Hume, one comes across the stark truth that, to move from observation of correllation to belief in causation, something is required beyond observation itself. The problem that Hume highlights, and believes worth exploration, is that rational systems cannot be devised through rationality alone. Everything which appears to be objective is, in fact, based upon subjective belief, unless one also accepts that there is something else involved. What that something else is, Hume is not prepared to say -- but he is prepared to say that it is reliable, and that humans believe automatically in its reliablility. Indeed, they seem unable to avoid doing so.
The post-modern dilemma is based upon the concept that (1) only objective observation is of value in determing truth, and (2) there is no such thing as objective observation, therefore (3) nothing is true. Or, worse (1) only objective observation is of value, and (2) there is no such thing as objective observation, therefore (3) nothing is of value.
The modernist viewpoint can demonstrate quite well that there is no such thing as objective observation. What it has not (and cannot) demonstrate is that only objective observation is of value in determing truth. It cannot do so because, when examined closely enough, all systems of thought can be seen to rely upon axioms that are taken as true, which can be neither confirmed nor denied through direct observation.
It is the post-modernest view that the universe consists of nothing more than matter (objects), and has no qualities that are not objective, which is problematical when looked at carefully.
The idea that there is a non-material superstructure (what I am calling axiomatic) that is expressed in the material universe is not, perhaps, a popular one in the post-modern age, but it is a necessity for scientific observation -- indeed, for any observation -- to be anything other than subjective.
Only when something in the makeup of consciousness bridges the gap between subjectivity and objectivity, because it partakes of the same axiomatic structure, do any observations become meaningful in any real sense.
RC
If you are not familiar with Ludwik Fleck's excellent Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, I recommend the book to you. He does a far better job of demonstrating that "scientifically objective observation" is, in fact, heavily influenced by the subjective fads of the day, and creates perforce a subjective dataset whose conclusions must be greeted with skepticism.
Myself, I believe that the problem arises from the false dichotomy which divides observation into "objective" and "subjective" modes, and which would then cause all statements of belief to be either "objective" or "subjective". I use the term "axiomatic" to refer to a third set of statements of belief, as well as a third classification of phenomenon.
For the purposes of discussion, I will limit myself to the statement "Objective truth cannot be known". The statement derives from axioms both about the nature of "truth" and the nature of "knowledge". One could write a book-length treatment about "truth" and "knowledge" (and in fact many hundreds or thousands of books have been written on just this topic), but for simplicity's sake, I will turn my attention to Descarte.
Descarte made a valiant effort to found a system of knowledge from "first principles", but was unable to find anything other than "Cogito ergo sum" to be directly observable. Later philosophy and modern science have, of course, questioned even the validity of this statement. To move beyond the cogito, Descarte had to accept as axiomatic truth that his observations of an external world are valid. As later philosophy/science have demonstrated, even the cogito requires the acceptance of internal observation as an axiomatic truth.
Again, with David Hume, one comes across the stark truth that, to move from observation of correllation to belief in causation, something is required beyond observation itself. The problem that Hume highlights, and believes worth exploration, is that rational systems cannot be devised through rationality alone. Everything which appears to be objective is, in fact, based upon subjective belief, unless one also accepts that there is something else involved. What that something else is, Hume is not prepared to say -- but he is prepared to say that it is reliable, and that humans believe automatically in its reliablility. Indeed, they seem unable to avoid doing so.
The post-modern dilemma is based upon the concept that (1) only objective observation is of value in determing truth, and (2) there is no such thing as objective observation, therefore (3) nothing is true. Or, worse (1) only objective observation is of value, and (2) there is no such thing as objective observation, therefore (3) nothing is of value.
The modernist viewpoint can demonstrate quite well that there is no such thing as objective observation. What it has not (and cannot) demonstrate is that only objective observation is of value in determing truth. It cannot do so because, when examined closely enough, all systems of thought can be seen to rely upon axioms that are taken as true, which can be neither confirmed nor denied through direct observation.
It is the post-modernest view that the universe consists of nothing more than matter (objects), and has no qualities that are not objective, which is problematical when looked at carefully.
The idea that there is a non-material superstructure (what I am calling axiomatic) that is expressed in the material universe is not, perhaps, a popular one in the post-modern age, but it is a necessity for scientific observation -- indeed, for any observation -- to be anything other than subjective.
Only when something in the makeup of consciousness bridges the gap between subjectivity and objectivity, because it partakes of the same axiomatic structure, do any observations become meaningful in any real sense.
RC
Noted.
Right. This, and what follows, suggests that either I am doing so badly at expressing myself that I might as well be speaking Romanian, or that you are reading too far beyond my statements for us to be communicating effectively, or something.
It would take a very long time for me to go into how and where what you're talking about has little to do with what I have meant - and I simply don't have the time today, I'm afraid.
I agree with umbran.
Way back in high school chemistry, my teacher would teach us a basic chemistry rule, and always tell us "now I'm lying here, but for this far in understanding how this works, this is true enough"
The concept of true enough, stuck with me. I may or may not be able to know an absolute truth (or be able to verify it), but there are a number of things that are true enough to get the job done and function in the world.
Thus, when talking to people who have this idea that the universe may actually be some Matrix-like existance, I say, does it matter? If you can't access it (oberserve it, interact with it), does it matter if it exists? Objective truth to me is what can be reasonably verified in the world that I exist and observe. Whether more exists or not is merely an academic matter, not a functional matter.
Perhaps there should be a "functional truth" as in true enough to get the job done.
I'm not a studier of philosophy, though I may philosophize things. I am also not one to cite and quote, nor am I impressed by those who do. It tends to feel as though one is trying to win a game of academic one-upsmanship, rather than conveying a new idea and counter-point. The message gets lost in the transmission.
Celebrim
Legend
At some point, you ought to admit to yourself that you are not as omniscient in understanding as you would like to believe and that there are many matters and perhaps every matter that will escape your full comprehension.
Generally, the more you learn, the more quickly you hit upon this revelation whether the thing you are learning about is physics or theology.
Yet, for every manner of learning, I think we can aspire to 'functional truths' - that is, we know first how little we can know, but we can still hope to know something sufficiently for it to be useful to us.
Functional truths may be all that we can ever grasp, but in my opinion, the very existance of functional truths means that not everything is subjective and over some horizon we may never reach there is something objective.
I think where the absolutist side tends to go astray is asserting that they have encompassed objective truth completely, and that they therefore may be a reliable fount of it. This is supremely arrogant, as it doesn't take much study of anything to realize that a lifetime isn't enough to understand anything fully.
Conversely, I think where relativist side goes astray is making the claim that since all truth is percieved by insufficient minds and faculties of perception, that it must true that there is no truth except that which we've created in our mind. It's not merely that this denies the existance of objective truth, but if you take that position seriously you find that it ought to be the case that there is no functional truth either. Yet there is a remarkable amount that we actually agree upon, starting with the fact that everyone seems to agree that these words we are writing to one another - however relative that they might be - still have sufficient functional truth to be useful to communicate.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I see this discussion on the nature of truth relating to roleplaying because roleplaying itself was debunked in the late 70's-early 80's. That occurred, perhaps wholly, as a result of RPGs, which focused on fantasy rather than reality - a big no-no up until that point.
For example, if Umbran's PC attempts to drop an apple on my PC's head, then there is no "right way" for the apple to behave. It doesn't need to fall or hit or cause damage to a predictable extent or whatever. It is simply the rules behind the screen as enforced by the DM. This is often called DM fiat.
An interactive pattern finding game means a rule (or more than one rule) is being enforced repeatedly with every attempted action in a game. Discovering those underlying rules is what allows an exploration of the unknown into the game. It brings to bear all the things requiring such an exploration into the game: mystery, magic, horror, suspense, and, above all, discovery of something other than one's self desires. Exploration of the unknown is something definitive of the human condition in my opinion. An interactive PFG is a game where one searches for the truth rather than determining the truth for oneself. It is in the nature of pattern finding that no answer can ever be known to be absolutely true, but statistical regularity allows players to accept certain results as pragmatically true and then to reason from them in future situations.
Whether or not objective truth is used to denote reality or shared agreement of truth between people is not something I think will be settled here. IMO, it is one of the defining questions of our current age, an age still grappling with the end of the Age of Reason.
For example, if Umbran's PC attempts to drop an apple on my PC's head, then there is no "right way" for the apple to behave. It doesn't need to fall or hit or cause damage to a predictable extent or whatever. It is simply the rules behind the screen as enforced by the DM. This is often called DM fiat.
An interactive pattern finding game means a rule (or more than one rule) is being enforced repeatedly with every attempted action in a game. Discovering those underlying rules is what allows an exploration of the unknown into the game. It brings to bear all the things requiring such an exploration into the game: mystery, magic, horror, suspense, and, above all, discovery of something other than one's self desires. Exploration of the unknown is something definitive of the human condition in my opinion. An interactive PFG is a game where one searches for the truth rather than determining the truth for oneself. It is in the nature of pattern finding that no answer can ever be known to be absolutely true, but statistical regularity allows players to accept certain results as pragmatically true and then to reason from them in future situations.
Whether or not objective truth is used to denote reality or shared agreement of truth between people is not something I think will be settled here. IMO, it is one of the defining questions of our current age, an age still grappling with the end of the Age of Reason.
Raven Crowking
First Post
All the old chestnuts come out in a row. Forgive me if I don't reply to "Thought = Elitist!" or "You must not understand me" posts.
Janx, when you say "I may or may not be able to know an absolute truth (or be able to verify it), but there are a number of things that are true enough to get the job done and function in the world." you are absolutely correct. One doesn't need a map that shows everything for it to be valuable as a map. In some ways, that the map abstracts meaning (i.e., limits and renders meaning subjective so as to be comprehensible) is its value.
However, how valuable is a map that is mistaken for the area is represents? As a map, it retains its entire value, and can be demonstrated to be (within certain bounds) correct. It can also be demonstrated, quite often, to be experientially incorrect.
Modifying the map is, of course, the key, and is a foundation of the philosophy of science. However, the subjective nature of observation causes limitations as to how the map can be modified, which do not require that the universe be the Matrix.
More in another post, when I have more time to write carefully.
RC
Janx, when you say "I may or may not be able to know an absolute truth (or be able to verify it), but there are a number of things that are true enough to get the job done and function in the world." you are absolutely correct. One doesn't need a map that shows everything for it to be valuable as a map. In some ways, that the map abstracts meaning (i.e., limits and renders meaning subjective so as to be comprehensible) is its value.
However, how valuable is a map that is mistaken for the area is represents? As a map, it retains its entire value, and can be demonstrated to be (within certain bounds) correct. It can also be demonstrated, quite often, to be experientially incorrect.
Modifying the map is, of course, the key, and is a foundation of the philosophy of science. However, the subjective nature of observation causes limitations as to how the map can be modified, which do not require that the universe be the Matrix.
More in another post, when I have more time to write carefully.
RC
Similar Threads
