Dear david f,

>>"What do you mean by truth?”<<

I think, after all, the best answer is obtained by replacing “time” with “truth” in the following quote from Augustin’s Confessions:

“What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not.”

Whenever something is stationary or moving, it has to be with respect to something else, as George says.

So, Magritte’s painting is both moving and not moving, with respect to the sun and the wall, respectively!

There are thus multiple truths about whether it is moving or not.

Einstein's notion that if you are in free-fall, you could be considered to not be moving, while everything else around you is moving with respect to you, is very simple and logical.

In just the same way, I often feel as though I am not moving while driving down the highway at 100kmh, while it is the landscape that is moving past me.

<< …there are not multiple truths merely multiple frames of reference which can be chosen >>

David f, there is only one truth for each fully defined frame of reference, or parameter as I have referred to it. But there can be multiple truths if you don’t define the parameters.

Thus, there are multiple truths as to whether Magritte’s work of art is moving or not, but only one truth as to whether it is moving with respect to the wall that it is hanging on.

<< …truth is a word with many meanings >>

I can’t see how this could be true! What we have been pursuing in this discussion is the absolute truth. And in order to do that, we must have a crystal clear understanding of truth itself is, yes?

So again I would say that there is only one meaning of ‘truth’, only one truth for each set of parameters and often multiple truths for simple statements in which the parameters are left undefined.

Hmmm, there is only one truth for any set of parameters? Maybe there could be multiple truths if the parameters are not defined enough to lead to only one truth??

For example; Magritte’s artwork is probably moving relative to the wall, if you consider the probability that the wall vibrates to some extent due to the hustle and bustle of the city around it, and the artwork vibrates differently as a result of the same forces.

For that matter, there is surely some movement at the atomic level when comparing atoms in the wall to atoms in the painting. And then there are electrons within atoms which are apparently constantly moving!

So, with the parameter of ‘with respect to the wall’, we could say that there are still multiple truths as to whether old Rene Magritte’s pipe is moving or not!!

So then, there is only one truth for each fully defined set of parameters but there could be multiple truths for partly defined parameters!

.

Dear David, George and Ludwig,

.

Many living species are capable of truth and deceit. Nature appears to have developed this capacity in them as a defense or ruse in their struggle for survival.

However, not all living species have this capacity. Innate objects are not capable of truth or deceit either. They are not capable of deforming the image they project of reality. They are neither truthful nor deceitful.

Nor is there any morality in nature - no good nor bad. - just whatever is the most efficient for survival and development.

Truth is not reality, nor is it synonymous with reality. The two notions are different but, regrettably, all too often, confused.

Reality is objective. Truth is subjective. There can be only one reality. There are as many truths as there are observers, though some may be identical.

I should also have liked to have been able to participate in your discussions on the application of Einstein's general and special theories of relativity.

Unfortunately, my very limited formal education does not grant me unfettered access to a proper understanding of these theories.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate if they apply independently of all forms of life as we know them here on earth? Or is it necessary for there to be an "observer" for them to have application?

Do Einstein's theories concern the application of the laws of physics of reality or simply our vision of that application?

Does Einstein consider that where there is life, there is applicatiuon of his theories of relativity. And where there is no life, there is no application of his theories?

Or does he employ the term "observer" figuratively? In other words, does he consider that his theory is valid even if the "observer" were an innate object.

.

.

To all and sundry,

.

The pope's recent resignation raises serious questions concerning his "true" motivations.

He declared on Sunday 24 February, to a crowd of about 100 000 people amassed on the place Saint Pierre in front of the Vatican to receive his final blessing:

"God asks me to continue to serve with the same dedication and love as previously but more suited to my age and strength. The Lord asks me to climb the mountain and devote myself more to prayer and meditation."

The pope did not offer any details regarding the means of communication., i.e., if he had a vision or if his god spoke to him. Nor does anybody seem to have asked him to provide any further details since he made that amazing declaration.

As it stands, the declaration states that his god told him he is too old and feeble to carry on as pope so he must climb a mountain and devote himself to more prayer and meditation.

The message seems quite confused. If he is too weak to be pope, how on earth could he climb a mountain?

It certainly leaves sufficient room for doubt for us to legitimately request further details in order to be in a better position to judge whether the pope is telling the truth or simply attempting to justify an arbitrary and unilateral decision on his part to abandon the mission conferred upon him by his peers just eight years ago ( his predecessor remained in office for nearly 27 years until he died).

Any request for further details should not be a problem for him as he was, himself, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the "Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the historical Roman Inquisition.

Also, if any further justification should be necessary, it would suffice to recall the motto Benoît XVI chose to adopt on his ordination as Archbishop, which was "Cooperatores Veritatis" ("Co-workers of the Truth").

.

Dear Banjo,

“The language of physics is mathematics, and it cannot be done honestly without mathematics. That makes it inaccessible. The language of literature is English or Chinese or whatever, and that makes it accessible. And literature is about the human condition. Physics is about the non-human condition. It's not a taste that all human beings have.” (Leonard Suskind, the founder of string theory in http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729040.300-into-the-impossible-with-a-father-of-string-theory.html?page=1; you have to be registered to read this interviewcompletely).

Indeed, “It's not a taste that all human beings have.”, The same about the language of - and taste for - (Christian) religion.

Although I am sure there are many more people who can properly understand what the Pope meant, than those who can understand Einstein’s theories (although many use e.g. a GPS in their cars that would not work without Einstein’s theory of gravitation).

Sorry for not being able to answer your questions about Einstein in a language more accessible than what I tried in the preceding couple of posts. david f is more successful. He is a better popularizer than I, and I shall read his responses with great interest. ,