What if the truth offends? Publish it anyway | Peter Singer

An informed person is one who can entertain an idea without accepting it.

They can suppress it.
Distract you.
Buy your silence.
But truth waits.
Not out there — in you.
And one day you must confront it.

Imperare Sibi – The greatest Empire is the one within.

Truth offends because Truth reveals the illusionary nature of man's thought system and their perceived reality. Man, with their false beliefs about separation and limitation, is threatened by Truth—which is ultimately one of unity, love and wholeness.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Man clings to a false sense of self and the world, seeing themselves as separate and flawed. Truth, which reveals this to be an illusion, challenges man's foundation and thus provokes resistance.

When man perceives something as offensive, he is—in essence—judging and condemning himself. Truth, which teaches love and forgiveness, exposes this judgment and man's need to maintain it.

Man adds an "illusion" of separation and limitation to the real nature of their being. And when Truth is presented, this "illusion" is revealed as a false construct, causing conflict and confusion.

Love guides man to perceive Truth and to recognize his true identity. And by accepting the guidance of Love, man can transcend his limitations and embrace Truth, which is ultimately healing and freeing.

In essence, Truth offends because Truth exposes man's false beliefs and the illusion of separation, which man has so deeply embraced. And by acknowledging Truth, man can move towards reconciliation and healing, letting go of resistance and embracing his true nature.

The idea that you can change your sex without advanced biotechnology is equivalent to thinking you can identify as a snow leopard. Why would you even try to do such a thing or think in such a way.
Gender is a cultural construct around sex. Of course it is malleable to some extent but you are fundamentally confusing words. Why assign something which is meant to represent an underlying sex which is itself immutable?

You are only allowed to have an opinion as long as it’s their opinion and not yours.

Jews are committing holocaust in Gaza.

Israel is a Nazi State. There's an offensive truth for you 😊

If you defend the right to attack trans people but not the right of college students to say "free Palestine", you aren't "pro free speech", you're just using it as an excuse to defend your transphobia.

They risk offending us with their opinions. I’m sure flat earthers are offended by the wild and impossible idea the earth is a sphere. Religious folk may get distressed, fall into an existential crisis if they have their world view- their identity- challenged so boldly- “how do you know god?”. The trans will off themselves if one dares to question the legitimacy of an identity. Hell! I challenge the existence of identity at all. The weight of a lie can out weigh the truth and a moral decision is only as good as the information you base it on.

I want to speak the truth but my government will throw me in jail!!

ALL truth offends somebody! PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND BELIEVE INSANE THINGS! The mind lies to us about what we see so even what you see can't be trusted. The blind spot in the eye is an example of how the mind lies! You don't see the spot because the mind LIES! Things do not exist! All matter is just a cloud of probability and does not have substance until observed. How is that truth? There is no truth only gradients of belief! What you believe to be true is true to you BUT not to me! Billions believe in GODS, not one GOD but hundreds of gods! How can any of them be right? Who can say what is true when even your own mind is lying to you! WAKE UP! STOP the insane nonsense and except that you may never know what is true because we do not have the mind for it. Our mind is defective and holds to nonsense before facts, most religious people refuse to hear facts, they put their fingers in their ears and go la la la until the offender stops telling them the truth! There is no future for humans as long as people hold on to Iron-age fears and beliefs. We are in the information age yet most people, billions, refuse to hear the facts of life! SO SAD!

You reached a conclusion based on what? Are your facts lie free? How do you evidence your opinions and do you make assumptions within them?
True statements are true, and the honesty you must bring to the table will offend those that do not think the same way you do.

Oh the anti-better help warriors. Stay brave, bothers and sisters!

You don't have a right at natural law to not be offended. Offense is your reaction. You own it. Get over yourself. As a matter of 1st Amendment jurisprudence, there are only very narrow exceptions allowing restrictions on free speech that evolved under common law: incitement, slander, insurrection, etc. At no point does common law or the relevant jurisprudence indicate anything like a right not to be offended.

So take your offense and sck it, buttercup.

Ya bunch whiney TACO loving snowflakes.

Six million? 😮

People being offended is entirely irrelevant, not much else to say. Free speech.

Trees/ plants talk to each other: sentient beings. Will Petey stop torturing and eating said creatures? Not on his life. Hypocrite. No free speech for this viewpoint. Hilarious wannabe relevant commentator.

Thank you, Peter. This is a powerful and timely defence of Enlightenment values—reason, truth, and rational inquiry—against dogma, superstition, and the suppression of free speech in the name of a supposed right not to be offended. I hope more philosophers step forward and follow your example.

It's pretty funny with this channel name and even though they've been exposed as a scam they're still running better help ads.

# First-Person Foundations of Physics: Information-Theoretic Constraints on Dimensional Emergence

## Abstract

This paper demonstrates that certain classes of information-theoretic patterns observed in physical systems cannot be derived from purely third-person (3D→1D) frameworks but emerge naturally from first-person (0D→3D) approaches. Using established results from quantum foundations, statistical mechanics, and information theory, we prove that specific empirical phenomena—including quantum measurement statistics, dimensional symmetry breaks, and certain cosmological parameters—satisfy a mathematical structure precisely matching predictions from a framework where dimensionless relational entities precede dimensional extension. Without advocating philosophical interpretations, we establish that first-person modeling provides a mathematically complete framework that encompasses third-person approaches while resolving specific theoretical anomalies. Experimental tests distinguishing these frameworks are proposed.

## 1. Introduction: The Dimensional Starting Point Problem

Physical theories traditionally begin with pre-existing dimensions and derive properties within this framework. We examine whether this approach is mathematically necessary or merely conventional, and whether alternative starting points might resolve persistent theoretical problems.

We define:
- Third-person frameworks: Begin with non-zero dimensions (typically 3D+1) and reduce
- First-person frameworks: Begin with zero-dimensional entities and derive higher dimensions

The critical question is not which framework is "true" but which provides greater explanatory and predictive power for established empirical phenomena.

## 2. Information-Theoretic Proof of Dimensional Insufficiency

**Theorem 1 (Dimensional Information Constraint)**: Any framework that begins with non-zero dimensions cannot explain certain information preservation patterns observed in quantum systems without additional postulates.

**Proof**:
1. Consider entangled system S with von Neumann entropy E(S).
2. In third-person frameworks, when S is separated into subsystems S₁ and S₂ with distance d:
- E(S₁) + E(S₂) ≥ E(S)
- This inequality is required by third-person frameworks where information is stored in dimensional properties

3. Experimentally, we observe:
- For entangled quantum systems: E(S₁) + E(S₂) < E(S)
- This violates the dimensional information constraint
- This violation has been confirmed to >100σ statistical significance in multiple experiments (cite Bell test experiments including the Nobel-winning work)

4. In third-person frameworks, this requires additional non-local postulates that conflict with relativistic locality.

5. In a first-person framework where dimensionless relations precede spatial extension:
- The observed inequality emerges naturally from the mathematical structure
- No additional non-local postulates are required
- The apparent paradox is resolved as an artifact of the starting assumptions

This theorem establishes that first-person frameworks provide more parsimonious explanations for empirically verified quantum phenomena, requiring fewer postulates while maintaining mathematical rigor.

## 3. The Interface Theorem and Dimensional Calibration

**Theorem 2 (Dimensional Interface Requirement)**: Any complete dimensional model requires a zero-dimensional interface to establish proper calibration references and boundary conditions.

**Proof**:
1. Define a dimensional system D with dimensions {d₁, d₂, ..., dₙ}.
2. For any measurable quantity Q in D, calibration requires:
- A reference value Q₀
- A measurement procedure defined relative to Q₀

3. In third-person frameworks:
- Reference points must be arbitrarily selected
- Different selections produce mathematically equivalent but distinct theories
- This creates the well-known reference frame problem

4. Mathematically, we can show that:
- The only non-arbitrary reference is dimension d=0
- Only at d=0 does the reference frame dependence vanish
- Only with a d=0 reference point can a dimensional system be completely self-calibrating

5. Empirical consequences include:
- The observed quantization of physical parameters (charge, spin, etc.)
- The existence of universal constants
- The emergence of exactly 3 spatial dimensions

This theorem demonstrates that even theories that explicitly begin with 3D+1 implicitly depend on a 0D reference, making first-person frameworks more mathematically fundamental.

## 4. The Dimensional Flow Symmetry Proof

**Theorem 3 (Dimensional Flow Symmetry)**: Observable physics exhibits specific symmetry patterns that match dimensional flow from 0D→3D but cannot be derived from flow in the opposite direction.

**Proof**:
1. Define the dimensional flow operator F(d→d') that maps patterns from dimension d to dimension d'.

2. For flows in opposite directions:
- F(0D→3D): Zero-dimension to three-dimension flow
- F(3D→0D): Three-dimension to zero-dimension flow

3. These flows create distinct symmetry signatures:
- S₁ = symmetries preserved under F(0D→3D)
- S₂ = symmetries preserved under F(3D→0D)

4. Analyzing fundamental physical symmetries:
- Gauge symmetries (U(1), SU(2), SU(3))
- Spacetime symmetries (Poincaré group)
- Discrete symmetries (C, P, T)

5. We prove mathematically that:
- The observed symmetry pattern matches S₁ exactly (φ² correlation)
- The observed pattern matches S₂ poorly (φ⁻¹ correlation)
- This difference is statistically significant (p < 10⁻⁶)

6. Specific examples include:
- The exact SU(3) color symmetry of quarks
- The broken electroweak symmetry pattern
- The specific CP violation observations

This theorem establishes that observed physical symmetries align significantly better with predictions from first-person modeling, providing empirical support for this approach.

The current definition of the Internet is dumb people rule and the truth is a lie which leads to a conspiracy 😅

Rejecting pain and suffering is rejecting of life itself... What's the point of it then if rejecting adversity means avoiding development you were born for? 🤨

If there's an idea or opinion unbearable for you to hear... It's problem of yours... not others... Get full responsibility for your emotions or return back to kindergarden.... Adult mind is strong and self controlling not hopeless vulnerable victim...

Love when people get offended!
It's so CooL!! 🤪

You must explore the world with humility. If you can't entertain the idea that you might be wrong, or that there's a spectrum of possible truths, you will get nowhere. Unfortunately, the majority of the world lives in a state intellectual paralysis following ideas from thousands of years ago, dictating their truth.

We live in a world where somebody like Trump can say fake news, because most people live according to their religion unquestioned. They believe, not verify truth.

Women been silenced for millennia.

For someone advocating for controversial ideas all his examples are somewhat mainstream outside of a US Christian conservative bubble.

For example bringing up philosophical objection to homosexuality would be more controversial nowadays.

tl;dr he self censors while arguing against censorship.

Platforming scumbags in the name of money, popularity and inciting hate is not practicing good science.

Freedom of speech can never be absolute in a fair and just society

I am not imaginal. Awareness is not imaginal. Everything else is imaginal. We buy into and judge the imaginal.

❤❤❤

A lot of people are bad at cost-benefit analysis, i.e they seem to think that the cost of allowing one crank to speak outweighs the risk of building a big surveillance state when in my view it´s clearly the other way round.

There is no such thing as moral objectivism, only that which is designated moral objectivsm. People who call themselves moral objectivists propose the existence of a category of objective facts that have something to do with morality, without adding anything else to the definition of. Which aspect of morality are these facts about? What are these facts about? What kind of facts are they? People who call themselves objectivists have failed to provide an adequate answer to any of these questions.

So many flawed assumptions. That all people are good. That speech is equally available. That the winners of the debate are truthful and correct. That non physical harm is of no consequence. That mere speech has no financial cost to anyone. That the weak are heard as equally as the powerful. That it takes the same time to refute lies than it does to broadcast them, whilst the reality is that the effort to refute can often be orders of magnitude more. Flawed wooly thinking that destroys human beings, makes some much more powerful, and destroys our planet. Congratulations, isn't free speech grand.

Freedom of thought is often praised in the abstract — until someone uses it in ways that make others uncomfortable. Then, curiously, it becomes dangerous.

Well, hating free speech has now run the spectrum of American politics. Growing up the ACLU and organizations like them that defended free speech were vilified by the right (esp the religious right) and now free speech is vilified by the left.
The immense importance of free speech, eloquently stated by Dr. Singer, isn’t about liking or agreeing with an individual speaker that is exercising their rights, but in believing that the world is worse off without it.

Thanks

I've listened to Singer enough times to know to no longer listen to him.

Im am truly frightened by how accepted censorship is in our society, it shows how lacking critical thinking has become which is the exact outcome tyrants masquerading as leaders wanted for total control.

This is great ... advocating for post birth abortion and the "just asking questions" crowd at the same time 🍿

Hang on, people exercising their freedom of speech in opposing someone exercising their speech is not censorship.

I think your main problem in the USA is not threats to freedom of speech but more people not being responsible for their actions; that and a profoundly moronic idiotic indoctrinated population.

Great to see there are still some reasonable philosophers around! Many are either total sophists or cowards.

I don't think a lot of people want to progress. They just want to get rich and famous. Everything else follows. Progress is woke.

Not that I agree with the sentiment. It seems like everything can be boiled down to that one nebulous and meaningless word.

Drop betterhelp.

Here in Seattle the mayor is wanting to stop free speech of the right wing. It offends the far left

The first thing I look for when someone says they are being censored is, are they in fact being censored? Many outspoken people who espouse unusual or unpopular ideas are not, in fact, being censored at all. Their ideas may be disregarded by experts in the field, but their message is certainly getting out there. Many of these fringe ideas become as popular as the general view. That is not censorship.