this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026

454 points (96.3% liked)

Science Memes

20720 readers

1791 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.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net

LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone

454

The Projected Truth (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 month ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[+] lvxferre@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 fully.

In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.

Which brings me back to:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

Emphasis mine.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn't make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You're just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.

That's why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see you have cleverly noticed there is a 3D object in the meme image that is casting both projections.

This argument is one that is very, very difficult to have because it veers too closely to people's first principles.

On one side, we have people who know they are forced by reason to believe in all truths that appear before them.

And on the other, we have people who have decided they will choose to believe in all truths that appear before them.

Like, it's just a semantic difference. Nobody on the subjectivity side, nobody rational anyway, disagrees with the concept of gravity, we are just simply aware of our power as fallible human beings to destructively choose not to.

That said, there is something very dangerous about being in the second group of people, but thinking you're among the first. And frequently, it becomes a problem when science brushes up against cultural fields it has more trouble explaining.

It is not always possible to see the 3D object. The ability to recognize that two groups can both be 'correct', like in a Newtonian way, even when they disagree with each other is a very useful skill.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, let's not try to apply the scientific method to social problems, that can only end badly!

But let's not apply absolute relativism to science unless we want to end up with climate denialism.

Cheers!

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.

I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.

Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I'll be specific though so it's clear.

The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn't necessarily be a binary on/off.

in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.

in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.

The systems I'm talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.

Which , again, brings me back to:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth

For completeness, I should have probably said:

There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )

That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!

Agreed

As an aside:

You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.

What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.

[–] i_love_FFT@jlai.lu 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.

You know, reading the thread I had the completely opposite understanding of the topic that was being discussed. Even now, I believe the other user was talking about the concept of gravity at large.

When having this type if discussion in academic situations, almost half of the time will be spent on defining terms to prevent misunderstanding.

Just using the word "gravity" is not specific enough. I'd recommend to talk about "gravitational pull" or "force" for the general concept, the one that applies the same everywhere. Then there could be the gravitational acceleration near the surface of Earth (or Gee's for short), which is subjective to the location of an object.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Honestly, my argument here isn't even about the science, gravity was just the example that was used in the response to which I was originally replying.

My point was theoretical was possible in both subjective and objective variations of .