this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
163 points (96.0% liked)
Science Memes
20383 readers
2236 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming "gravity is false for me". Because guess what, odds are they know it's bullshit.
I doubt you've come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn't an example of subjective truth, it's an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn't the same thing.
I also doubt you've met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It's entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
I wish I could say I've never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You're right they aren't the same thing, but they're clearly tied.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth's gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn't mean gravity stopped existing for them.
I wish I could say I've never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah...
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You're right they aren't the same thing, but they're clearly tied.
Not really....to any of that.
There's no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I'm not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that's within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it's not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth's gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn't mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that's why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement "there's a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies" epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be "true" or "false" depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is "false", this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they'd have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say "it's now true for me" and fall, or "it's now false for me" and stop falling.
Let me put it this way: is the statement "there's a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies" epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that's what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let's assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be "true" or "false" depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is "false", this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That's a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they'd have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say "it's now true for me" and fall, or "it's now false for me" and stop falling.
There's a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn't have to be binary.
It doesn't even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let's say it's magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
Truth
Subjectively?
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
In Einstein's general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don't violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
If you jump out of a bridge, you will still break your face on the ground for every reference frame outside of a black hole.
I believe that's true, yes. Your point?
[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]
And yet, gravity is still there.
Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can't really claim it didn't fall. And you can't claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they're stationary for you, so it's less of a "truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!" and more of a "truth is relative to that speed". It's still an objective matter, not a subjective one.
so it's less of a "truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!"
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only. An excellent example of relativity, if I'm being honest.
I don't understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don't get it.
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only.
This is blatantly false. The argument exists in the comment I wrote. If it existed only "inside my head", you wouldn't access it. Because nobody knows what's "inside someone else's head", nor we (people in general) should lie = assume = bullshit otherwise.
An excellent example of relativity [SIC - subjectivity], if I’m being honest.
Also false. While I believe my argument is correct, there's also the chance it's incorrect. If it is correct, my belief is true. But if it is incorrect, it won't magically become "true for ME! ME! ME!"; I'd be simply holding a false belief. But either way, that depends on the argument itself, not on the fact I'm the one voicing it or analysing it or whatever. The subject here (me) still doesn't fucking matter. And that's bloody common sense.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. [implied* by context: "relativity makes lvxferre uncomfortable".]
Okay… first off, let me address the most pressing matter: in no moment you showed that this "truth is subjective" babble would be even remotely true.
Secondly. You're making a bloody mess of "relativity" and "subjectivity", as if both were synonymous. Get shit right dammit — subjectivity is a specific type of relativity regarding the subject. Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject, i.e. "gravity is false for me lol I'm jumping from the building!".
Thirdly. Why are you bullshitting = assuming = lying about what I'm comfortable or not with? You have no way to know it, don't lie you do. I'm not uncomfortable with subjectivity. I simply consider it such inane bullshit, that I'm outright mocking it. Just like I'd mock flat Earth, souls, zodiacal signs, aliens visiting Earth on weekends, et cetera.
Finally, drop off the Reddit style sealion: "I dun unrrurstand" followed by bullshit? Seriously, keep this shit in Reddit.
Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
Gotta love assumptions…
Not wasting my time further with you.
*see Gricean maxims, specially the one of relevance.
I wonder if belief has anything to do with reality. Hmm.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter that spontaneously and randomly fell into place with only the barest of coincidences we can try to grasp as objective truths with which to define our sensationally complex environment.
Although . . . it is just as possible that matter arises from something more fundamental to something like a universal order, such as consciousness.
I dunno though, they never told me.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter
This, but unironically.
Spoilers: we're riding some weird rock in the middle of the empty space.
truth isn't subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Some say we live in a post-truth world. I say we live in a post-realism world. It's not that objective reality vanished once this massive scale in ideological separation happened, it's just that people stopped giving a fuck once it happened. Objective truth didn't vanish though, most people just live without letting it inconvinience them.
We live in a post-world world
Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it's not the complete truth.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
It’s only a lie if there’s intent to deceive. Mistakes are not lies and false memories are not lies.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
Can an incomplete truth be not a lie if it's incomplete, because the speaking person just doesn't know the whole truth?
When you say something fully believing it, it is not a lie, regardless of factual/objective correctness.
Therefore lies are subjective
It's not a lie, it's a projection.
Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).
Some other languages have different words for these "truths". You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named "truth", which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.
Truth opinion and belief
I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word "law" has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be "belief," as it is what you hold inside you. Religion call their beliefs "truth" to push their agenda.
The obsession to have dedicated words when one would rarely bother to specify and just use the generic term anyway will forever elude me.
There is very little difference to me between saying two 1 syllable words and one two syllable words. And English is a very packed language. Most english wordy things already have meaning and reserving a 1 syllable thing that is sufficiently different to be distinguishable is just not realistic.
English is a dogshit creole that also lacks distinction between libre and gratis and "cultural artist" and "visual artist" (Turkish : sanatkar v ressam)
English is not a creole language.
To keep it simple, a creole language originates from children learning a pidgin (a contact "language" with barely any grammar), and "gluing" the lexicon with features on the spot. To the point its grammar doesn't resemble any of the parent languages over the course of, like, a single generation.
In the meantime English is simply a West Germanic language that got a bunch of borrowings from Old Norse and then Norman+French. Those borrowings don't change affiliation.
Regarding the distinction between "libre" and "gratis": it's simply that "free" displaced "costless". That sort of semantic shift happens, it's most of the time internal (i.e. not caused by interference of other languages).
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
Oh yeah. I remember attempting that. Lotta words in there.
Depending on the light source or sources, there should be a gradient on the top and bottom parts of the first projection.
I'm sure you can work out the kinks with right lenses.
Now do that with non-commutative (quantum) geometry and try to make the same claim.
I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don't understand the work they're reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they're trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it's kind of a null position to argue.
It's more recent idealogy, namely postmodernism. They genuinely deny the existence of universals in all respects. But I am yet to see a legitimate (philosophical) argument supporting that 🤷 seems more like a pop culture thing than real philosophy.
The product? so the projections created the product?