Senal

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.

Subjectively?

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.

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.

They came in hot, you go at it, zero problems with that from me.

All I meant is that you should go at it with actual arguments.

Even if they are objectively incorrect, responding with deflection and fallacy makes your position look weak, like you don't have an actual point.

Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.

I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.

That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.

A single article doesn't define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).

A papers' reputation doesn't give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.

Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.

Fucking what?

A Piranesi stop motion film? Based on the book?

Not necessarily mutually exclusive

Labels don't matter, be happy

Anyone else seeing an older, rounder Michael Cera?

I wasnt suggesting it would be easy, in fact i think it would be rather difficult on both fronts.

My comment was more about the method by which this kind of thing was intended to be addressed.

I imagine this is a controversial opinion....but isn't the idiomatic solution to this to either:

petition the mods to get this rule added and enforced

or

To start a community that enforces this rule and let it compete with this one.

Isn't that the whole idea of federation?