vinney on Nostr: Changing the definition of "truth" to be anything OTHER than synonymous with "fact" ...
Changing the definition of "truth" to be anything OTHER than synonymous with "fact" is bullshit. the temperature at which pure H2O freezes is a fact and that fact is the truth of the situation.
the rub, though, is that at when you move up a few levels of abstraction and complexity from "water's freezing point", the truth of a given situation is so incomprehensibly complex (due to many many many simple facts all interacting) that it's essentially impossible to capture in a reasonable representation.
that does NOT, however, mean that "different people can have different truths" - there is only ever one truth and it does not play nicely with impostors. it just means that at the level of abstraction where one might want to use that awful phrase, what you're actually dealing with is *interpretation* of a complex system of facts. and opinions. and sorry, but they're _all_ wrong - with some being much wronger than others (capturing fewer facts accurately, or inaccurately interpreting more facts).
(case in point: try having "your truth" (different than mine - the correct one, reading from the chain) for a Bitcoin transaction and see if it makes you richer. we might have different _opinions_ about the way the transaction interacts with the complex world around it, but not about the incontrovertible fact of which sats went where.)
...all that said, subjectivity, freedom and private property are the greatest rights and thus everyone should be able to freely associate along the lines of shared opinion and interpretation, no matter how wrong they are (wikifreedia, webs of trust, peer to peer, etc). and they should do that by using tools that operate at the level of fact (cryptography, functional programming, blockhains, etc.)
#voluntaryism #anarchy #WoT #freespeech
the rub, though, is that at when you move up a few levels of abstraction and complexity from "water's freezing point", the truth of a given situation is so incomprehensibly complex (due to many many many simple facts all interacting) that it's essentially impossible to capture in a reasonable representation.
that does NOT, however, mean that "different people can have different truths" - there is only ever one truth and it does not play nicely with impostors. it just means that at the level of abstraction where one might want to use that awful phrase, what you're actually dealing with is *interpretation* of a complex system of facts. and opinions. and sorry, but they're _all_ wrong - with some being much wronger than others (capturing fewer facts accurately, or inaccurately interpreting more facts).
(case in point: try having "your truth" (different than mine - the correct one, reading from the chain) for a Bitcoin transaction and see if it makes you richer. we might have different _opinions_ about the way the transaction interacts with the complex world around it, but not about the incontrovertible fact of which sats went where.)
...all that said, subjectivity, freedom and private property are the greatest rights and thus everyone should be able to freely associate along the lines of shared opinion and interpretation, no matter how wrong they are (wikifreedia, webs of trust, peer to peer, etc). and they should do that by using tools that operate at the level of fact (cryptography, functional programming, blockhains, etc.)
#voluntaryism #anarchy #WoT #freespeech
quoting note1kd7…6hfqCurrent NPR CEO and former Executive Director of Wikipedia on the “Truth”™️
A great reminder of why projects like https://wikifreedia.xyz by PABLOF7z (npub1l2v…ajft) are so important…