I was reading an article online and they were talking about how the universe was holographic etc, but I thought to myself, I understand theoretically what they were saying. Perhaps 'they' actually understood how and why it was holographic, but to my level of understanding and experience, that just wasn't true for me.

To me when I touched that solid brick wall of my house it seemed very real and solid and not at holographic, and there was no way for me to see how it could be holographic.

What was true to them, wasn't necessarily true for me, from that I infered truth is relative. Accepting where your actually at, not just believing what somebody has said.

truth isn't subjectice or objective.

truth is truth.

either it is or it isnt.

if it is subjective, it isnt truth.

there is such thing as absolute truth.

The truth will set you free, are we in the Matrix,

ur wall would feel real to you because ur a hologram as well...if u believe in that theory...I was once driven insane by someone who thought that if you feel in ur heart and u believe its true then its true...its either true or its not just like clf30 stated....however absolute truth does exist...like you will die for example...there seems to be this weird social adherence to the idea that if u think its true then it is...no support by fact or reality just simply if its true in ur mind then its the truth...there's this thing called "emotional truth"...or as I call it... insanity

Truth is relative.
Reality is not.

Reality exists whether someone calls it true or not.
Reality will always be truth but truth may not be reality.

The thing about the hologram universe theory is that holograms are made up of light. Light is a reality. If everything were a hologram how then could it be projected without light?

For two holograms to interact with each other by manifesting physical properties (touching the brick wall) would require that the light that makes up your hand and the light that makes up the wall would need to interact and repel each other. It would be like shining a flashlight at another shining flash light and a barrier forming.
Another inconsistency is the fact that we see colors. Colors are produced from the light spectrum. Colored light results because material absorbs and reflects different wavelengths of the spectrum. There is something there that changes the wavelengths. Mixing the beams of two flashlights will not produce colors.

As for truth...

Truths are formed by consensus. It is truth that a $1 bill represents 100 pennies, 10 dimes, 4 quarters, 20 nickles and 2 half dollars. In reality, the $1 bill is only a piece of manufactured paper. Let that sink in for a moment.

Take that dollar out of your pocket and look at it. It is not pennies is it? It is paper. That paper represents value but in reality is is not valuable without the truths that are established.

I've seen a bit here and there about this "holo universe" concept. I think it's a very bad choice of labels for it's promoters to use.

What I understand of it, is that they do NOT actually think that everything is a projected hologram. That's why it's a bad idea to use that name for what they are actually talking about.

What the ones I have read about actually mean, is something along the lines that LIKE a hologram, the world is not made of completely independent discrete components, but rather must be taken as an entirety, in order to deal with it effectively. It's a conceptual, rather than a physical idea.

As for your ideas about "truth," there is a lot of semantic concerns I recommend you address with yourself, in order to be clear to yourself, about what you really think.

There are lots of different and incompatible meanings that people commonly attribute to the word truth, in particular. In a basic sense, there is 'truth,' the word meaning that someone said something that they believed to be factual; and there is 'Truth,' the word meaning something like "fundamental Universally Applicable System Of Belief," which has NOTHING to do with someone "telling the truth" about what they had for lunch, or whatever.

No, neither Truth, nor 'the truth' are RELATIVE things. Either you did or did not have a sandwich for lunch; and something either is, or is not, Universally Applicable.

However, some people choose to define "telling the truth" in ways that allow them to avoid personal responsibility, or even to flat out lie to your face (see certain politicians). Even for people like that, neither truth, nor Truth, is relative. Instead, what they are willing to admit, might well be different from what YOU think, after you hear them say whatever.

So, Truth IS relative.

Person A, Gets up at 3am and has a sandwich at noon. Goes home at 3pm and and is in bed by 6pm. He had his sandwich for dinner, not lunch.
Person B, sees person A eat that sandwich at noon. Tells person C that person A had a sandwich for lunch. Person C asks person A before he leaves what he had for lunch. Person A responds by telling person C that he had a can of soup.

Just because truth is relative does not mean I have no moral fortitude to be truthful. Your statement of concern about my clarity shows what you believe to be the truth about my understanding of the truth. Otherwise, you wouldn't have written it. The truth that you believe may not be the truth as it actually is. What you made was an assumption based on relativity. Relative to how you understand my nature. To you, it is truth. Subjective to interpretation.
Truth is relative to how it is defined.
The Sun is a hot ball of gas. It is the truth. It is also a proven reality.
We would die without the Sun. This is also truth but is not proven in reality. What if we didn't?

I always tell the truth. Sometimes I lie. A subjective truth.
If I say a dollar is the same as 100 pennies I am telling the truth but I am also lying. It is not the same. Relative to reality it is not the same as 100 pennies.

I know what the holo-universe is about. Similar to the concept from the Matrix movie. Reality only exists because of our senses. The flaw is that senses are learned.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound. I didn't hear it but I saw a fallen tree. But...I have heard something fall and went to investigate and found a tree fallen. I have watched a tree fall and it made the same sound. I have learned that when a tree falls, it makes a sound.
The holo-universe excludes the natural chaos of the universe. It ignores the butterfly effect.

the truth is in the eye of the beholder

i am not made of light, what you see is the reflection
of light bouncing off of the truth...be it my moving body or
a solid immobile mountain...truth is truth

I again disagree with this kind of explanation. This instance doesn't show TRUTH being relative,it shows different people using reference words differently, and failing to properly define their terms. There's HUGE difference. And in fact, saying this IS an example of truth being relative, is itself an example of the reverse.

Absolute Truth
Absolute Truth - Inflexible Reality
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!


allaboutphilosophy.org

one source ..but then again there are many ivariable sources.
authors and so on. the point is we all have our own truth.

Truth is either true and universal or it isn't true!
Can't have your Cake and eat it too,and bake it tomorrow besides!

I agree and said this



Reality is not subject to relativity.
Reality requires no justification to be reality.
Science confirms reality but reality is reality whether science proves it or not. That's why science constantly reaffirms itself, adjusts itself as it learns more about reality.

At one time, relative to our understanding of science, the Earth was the center of the Universe. That was the truth.
As science started to understand the reality of our Solar System, that truth faded and reality confirmed a new truth. As far as science can understand the Earth is not the center of the Universe. That truth is also relative because science does not have a perfect reference base (doesn't understand everything about everything). We accept or deny that truth depending on how we (science)understands it.

The chaotic nature of the Universe means reality mutates. The Universe is not static. If reality can change then any truths based on that changing reality also change, relative to the current state.

Truth is a human concept. Relative to someones reasoning capacity. When someone is deluded the illusions they create so they can deal with reality is truth to them. They 'see' reality in the delusions they create and accept them as truth. If the illusion is lifted, they realize their truth was not true. When more than one person has the same delusion, by consensus, that delusion becomes truth in that society.

“History is always written by the winners."
If we base our truth on what we are told and not by what we really witness the truth can be anything. Since we are not privy to all factors influencing our experiences even our own wisdom is relative to our own understanding.
If you touch a sandstone, it feels like a sandstone because you have felt one before and someone or something told you it was a sandstone. You recognize it as a truth based on reality. If you blindfold yourself and touch it, it feels the same unless it is cut and highly polished. Then, it feels like glass.
If nobody tells you it was a polished sandstone and it is removed from you before you can see it, you will think that in truth, you touched glass. The truth is relative to your understanding. Truth not based on reality.
Since sandstone, when super-heated can form glass and erosion can polish a surface, glass could be sandstone and sandstone could be glass. Truth based on reality.

Nobody sees reality. We 'see' things as they were in the past.
Light takes time to progress. It leaves the source, travels to an object. Is partially absorbed and reflected and then travels to your eye. The light then activates the receptors in your eye and that sensation is transmitted to your brain for processing.
Granted, light is very fast. You brain is very good at processing. But in reality, you are experiencing the past. Reflections of reality.

If the Sun went dark right now. Truth would tell you it is shining, reality would not be revealed until its influence is stopped. For 7 minutes or so, the Sun would continue to shine. To you, it would be truth because to you, it would still be shining. Relative to your position on Earth and the time it takes for the last ray to reach your eye, your truth would be accurate but not a reality. In reality, the Sun is no longer shining, you just don't know that yet.


But...Truth is not always reality.

"Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object. The ancients called such a circle in explanation a diallelon. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man." - Immanuel Kant

I dunno if anybody is familiar with Kant but when I was deep into philosophy he was certainly my favorite...

Are you living in a parallel universe?

I think that the question is subjective reality vs objective reality is best defined by the accuracy of perception.

Reality is not subjective or objective it is reality.
Perceptions change but reality remains.
That is what makes it reality.

We understand H2O is water.
That is reality.
We may see it as a lubricant, a coolant or an environment.
No matter what we define it as, the reality is that it is water.
Steam and Ice?, Still water.

As soon as you add or subtract from the H2O it becomes a different reality.
Flavoring changes its reality to be flavored water.

You can't change water with opinion, justification or reasoning. If it is H2O it is water no matter what you say or how you see it.

Truth is always reality...

the perception of reality is not always the truth

the blind man unable to see light reflected from
the mountain perceives there is nothing blocking his way
that is his individual perception of reality, until he learns
by some other method that the mountain is in fact the truth and
the mountain blocks his way so he must climb over or go around it...

truth does not change...
perception of what is or is not real does

Reality is always Truth...

the perception of the truth is not always reality

the blind man unable to see light reflected from
the mountain perceives there is nothing blocking his way
that is his individual perception of truth, until he learns
by some other method that the mountain is in fact reality and
the mountain blocks his way so he must climb over or go around it...

Reality does not change...
perception of what is or is not truth does.

There, I fixed it for you.