3 ms·

To build off of that, I think what we're really in is "hyper-truth." A lot of people say we're moving away from facts, and that may be the case sometimes. But m

To build off of that, I think what we're really in is "hyper-truth." A lot of people say we're moving away from facts, and that may be the case sometimes. But most of the time, I just think that there are so many facts now, and you can easily grab all of the ones that support your side.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
I second that. Facts aren't binary. Just because we have a lot of data doesn't mean that we automatically are able to derive truth from it. IMO any kind of system should be viewed through it's edge-cases & statistical outliers. It's where usually the truth gets questioned and often breaks down. Look at any system (social, political, etc) and the truth becomes unfortunately very fuzzy. GEB has a lot of good points that should make one question the truth in every waking moment. If one were to attempt finding the truth (whether it's the ultimate theory of everything in physics, or why a person is the way they are in psychology) then you're always dealing with infinite complexity. We're all Strange Loops
- agumonkey 8y ago
  And we change. Nowadays everything is a goddamn statement.. I say A today, and it's over, I can never say B tomorrow. Except that we do all the time and I think it's absurd to turn people into walking theorems.
agumonkey 8y ago
It's the paradoxical side of internet, you have more and faster, and it's actually too much for the vast majority of people. It's my theory but before things relied on a curating system of people, that inherently kept things integrated and sensical to a point. Even if you couldn't source, check .. there was a natural amount of trust to the system that was valuable for it to exist. even for information, dosage is the poison. I tried to educate myself about medicine, and I felt like drowning, if you actually want to stay mathematically objective, you're faced with an enormous sea of 'potentially..' and theories that can come and go. Most people don't want this they just want to vent so selection occurs and group forms, faster and larger now that we have the web. Also I'd say your hyper-truth title reminds me of a sensation that I have since computers/internet became ubiquitous. We're trying to logify the whole world, everything is engineered, stored facts, backed by statistics. And it seems it became a culture, if not a cult. Nowadays most discussions will end up with 'what is your source' I'm not sure it was the same before. People would discuss, as a human relationship thing, they would try to express their views, and share, not try to make a provable thesis. I think that humans don't need 100% veracity to function, just a good amount of 'true enough' so people can get on with their daily lives, even if that mean local reality distortion, at the end of the day most of it is not life critical. And you can sense that with the news.. 24/7, many many channels, and this information is mostly noise, hoping from crysis to crysis.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

I second that. Facts aren't binary. Just because we have a lot of data doesn't mean that we automatically are able to derive truth from it. IMO any kind of system should be viewed through it's edge-cases & statistical outliers. It's where usually the truth gets questioned and often breaks down. Look at any system (social, political, etc) and the truth becomes unfortunately very fuzzy. GEB has a lot of good points that should make one question the truth in every waking moment. If one were to attempt finding the truth (whether it's the ultimate theory of everything in physics, or why a person is the way they are in psychology) then you're always dealing with infinite complexity. We're all Strange Loops

agumonkey 8y ago
And we change. Nowadays everything is a goddamn statement.. I say A today, and it's over, I can never say B tomorrow. Except that we do all the time and I think it's absurd to turn people into walking theorems.

agumonkey 8y ago

It's the paradoxical side of internet, you have more and faster, and it's actually too much for the vast majority of people. It's my theory but before things relied on a curating system of people, that inherently kept things integrated and sensical to a point. Even if you couldn't source, check .. there was a natural amount of trust to the system that was valuable for it to exist. even for information, dosage is the poison. I tried to educate myself about medicine, and I felt like drowning, if you actually want to stay mathematically objective, you're faced with an enormous sea of 'potentially..' and theories that can come and go. Most people don't want this they just want to vent so selection occurs and group forms, faster and larger now that we have the web. Also I'd say your hyper-truth title reminds me of a sensation that I have since computers/internet became ubiquitous. We're trying to logify the whole world, everything is engineered, stored facts, backed by statistics. And it seems it became a culture, if not a cult. Nowadays most discussions will end up with 'what is your source' I'm not sure it was the same before. People would discuss, as a human relationship thing, they would try to express their views, and share, not try to make a provable thesis. I think that humans don't need 100% veracity to function, just a good amount of 'true enough' so people can get on with their daily lives, even if that mean local reality distortion, at the end of the day most of it is not life critical. And you can sense that with the news.. 24/7, many many channels, and this information is mostly noise, hoping from crysis to crysis.