A Loaded Question ...

Does Truth exist devoid of observation, or is observation not a pre-requisite of measuring truth?

It sort of expands on the old question: "If a tree falls, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?"

But, seriously:

Does Truth exist seperate from any measure of observation?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Does Truth exist devoid of observation, or is observation not a pre-requisite of measuring truth?

It sort of expands on the old question: "If a tree falls, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?"

This is the question:

Is the tree lying down or does it still stand?

Only the tree truly knows it has been felled or not.

But, seriously:

Does Truth exist seperate from any measure of observation?

My current understandings and perspectives lead me to the answer that Truth can ONLY exist separate from measured or casual observation--it must stand at the center of the forest--and its position depends not at all on whether or not other trees surround it or if only scrub oak are its neighbors...

It is the essence, not the image, that defines the reflection.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Does Truth exist devoid of observation, or is observation not a pre-requisite of measuring truth?

It sort of expands on the old question: "If a tree falls, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?"

But, seriously:

Does Truth exist seperate from any measure of observation?

I think you might have multiple questions here.

Does Truth exist devoid of observation is somewhat different from whether observation is necessary for measuring truth. We would also need to ask what it means to measure truth. Certainly some truths can be measured, (whether a person is 6' or 6'1" for example) whereas others are more difficult to measure, (whether I really love my wife, for example.)

As to the famous question of the tree falling, that was posed by Bishop Berkeley as a way to get at the question of whether sensory data like sound needs an observer in order for it to exist. He came down on the side that yes, that was the case. There needs to be a sentient mind that is capable of translating the sound waves produced by the falling tree in order for that phenomena to be translated as sound.

Then there are thornier questions, such as whether basic mathematical or physical truths exist independent of intelligent sentience. For example, if there were no human beings or otherwise intelligent beings in the universe, would 2+2=4 or the basic law of gravity still exist as truth? The most basic definition of truth is the correspondance theory that states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world. This seems easy for observable truths, such as stating the White House is white. We can easily verify if that truth corresponds to our observed reality of the White House. But when we say 2+2=4, is there some sort of non-physical equation floating around such that we can say, a ha!, our statement that 2+2=4 does correspond to something real.

I don't have any answers to these, just elucidating the questions. Forgive my reflections if they appear somewhat obtuse. I spent the first decade of my adult life studying philosophy in the university. I thought it might help with our talk.

We are assuming Truth requires human intervention to prove itself.

Truth does not require Humanity, nor human interpretation to exist. Truth exists on several levels simultaneously and meshes accordingly. That we cannot see it ( Quantum Physics) does not infer it does not exist. That we can See it
( macro universe) does not infer that we need to define it. It is there if we are not.

The Quantum world exists independant and seems to conflict with the macro universe, yet Truth exists in both those worlds and meshes to create what we interpret around ourselves.

Truth cannot by definition change, yet it will be many things to many people, based on their perspectives and interpretations. That is the fascinating aspect.