Objective Truth? (1 Viewer)

[nonpareil]

A small digression...

When I watch the sunset, I see brilliant reds, pinks and oranges intermingling in such a way that leaves me stunned. However, these colors don't truly exist. They are arbitrarily assigned by my brain to differentiate the varying wavelengths and energies of visible light. There is no reason to assume your mind, or anyone else's mind for that matter, has decided to assign the same perceived colors to their same respective visible light wavelengths. We could be watching entirely different sunsets. My red could be your brown, by pink could be your yellow.

The beauty of the sunset and it's perceived coloration are entirely subjective. The numeric value of the 'individual' wavelengths, however, are not subjective. These values, though perceived differently from individual to individual, remained unchanged regardless of the observer. If the value of this radiation did vary, so would their effects on atmospheric conditions and countless other physical systems. Temperatures would vary from observer to observer, as with weather patterns.

The same can be said of the most simple mathematical concepts. Sure an alien may perceive two physical objects differently, but that does not change the intrinsic value of those two objects. It does not change their effect on the universe. Our counterparts in the Whirlpool Galaxy certainly may perceive a circle differently, but that does not change the value of pi. They may admire their sun (or more likely suns) differently, but that will not protect their solar system from the Schwarzchild Radius.

But pi and circle and quantity are concepts to assign to these physical phenomenon. Even the "numeric value of the 'individual' wavelengths". The question is if we are not there to assign the concepts, are the physical phenomenon the same? I assume it is, but I don't know, because I can't imagine the existence of those concepts in world where no one is imagining about it, because I am doing the imagining right now. Don't you see the problem? Temperature value, wind speed etc, cannot exist outside of my conceptualization because I have to conceptualize them to think about them.

Ok, I'll rephrase it, the universe breaks down.

So you assume. I don't see why a different reality, one where we right now have no perception of, should break down the universe. Maybe only your construct of the universe - which is a subjective truth btw. :mrgreen:

 

[nonpareil]

It's as true as your motion.

So we are no longer talking about "objective truth"?

 

[idk]

And you know this how?

I'm alive.

This isn't what I said. All of mathematics rest on axioms. Regardless of whether or not the axioms are actually true, the results that come from these axioms are true, within those axioms.

What I'm saying is without these axioms, we'd have no math. Without math, where does addition come from?

Without humans, where do axioms come from?

They are derived from nature, from observation. It is through the natural process set in motion since the Big Bang that led to our evolution, which, through billions of years, developed a mind capable of understanding these principles of mathematics.

What if these axioms are false? What if the universe was a giant damn computer? "What if" is irrelevant! The question is, are there objective truths. My belief is that there is, because I can't imagine we'd have made it this far (nearly 14 billion years) based on false logic.

 

[idk]

But pi and circle and quantity are concepts to assign to these physical phenomenon. Even the "numeric value of the 'individual' wavelengths". The question is if we are not there to assign the concepts, are the physical phenomenon the same? I assume it is, but I don't know, because I can't imagine the existence of those concepts in world where no one is imagining about it, because I am doing the imagining right now. Don't you see the problem? Temperature value, wind speed etc, cannot exist outside of my conceptualization because I have to conceptualize them to think about them.

I see the problem, I just don't see the point in recognizing it. It's futile. It solves nothing and is irrelevant to anything but a temporary existential emotion. I can't possibly understand what I can't possibly understand. Now that we've recognized that obvious fact, and then challenged it's obviousness, then subverted it's facthood, and twisted it into meaninglessness, where are we now? Back where we started.

So you assume. I don't see why a different reality, one where we right now have no perception of, should break down the universe. Maybe only your construct of the universe - which is a subjective truth btw. :mrgreen:

:roll:

 

[nonpareil]

I'm alive.

That's not enough proof.

They are derived from nature, from observation. It is through the natural process set in motion since the Big Bang that led to our evolution, which, through billions of years, developed a mind capable of understanding these principles of mathematics.

What if these axioms are false? What if the universe was a giant damn computer? "What if" is irrelevant! The question is, are there objective truths. My belief is that there is, because I can't imagine we'd have made it this far (nearly 14 billion years) based on false logic.

I think this question is more interesting than the whole Matrix questions. We don't have to question our existence to question what is taken to be "objective truth" such as Maths. And GManNickG is not even going that far. All he said was that Maths is true within its world of assumptions./axioms. Maths is logical. But logic doesn't equal "objective truth".

I think you are using the wrong word when you say "a mind capable of understanding these principles of mathematics", it's "a mind capable of inventing these principles of mathematics". Square root is a human construct, it doesn't exist by itself.

 

[nonpareil]

I see the problem, I just don't see the point in recognizing it. It's futile. It solves nothing and is irrelevant to anything but a temporary existential emotion. I can't possibly understand what I can't possibly understand. Now that we've recognized that obvious fact, and then challenged it's obviousness, then subverted it's facthood, and twisted it into meaninglessness, where are we now? Back where we started.



:roll:

You can accept that what you know to be "objective truth" are in fact what you assume to be "objective truth". I think of you as quite intelligent, so I'm surprise you would say that it's pointless to seek to understand something more. It's not meaningless to understand that your world is not as solid as you believe it to be - it opens up more possibilities.

 

[John Doe]

I'm alive.

You're alive, therefore 1 = 1? Talk about non sequitur.

They are derived from nature, from observation. It is through the natural process set in motion since the Big Bang that led to our evolution, which, through billions of years, developed a mind capable of understanding these principles of mathematics.

Or perhaps a mind capable of creating mathematics. (EDIT: oops, nonpareil beat me)

 

[DAR]

Once the definition of big is brought into play, being hot may be objectively determined.

If a hot sandwich is defined as one that is 15 deg above room temperature, are you suggesting it's not "objective"?

When idk posted "Big, hot" as examples of subjective assessments there was no objective definition provided. (I probably would have used "tasty, pretty, exciting" as examples.) You may elect to define a "hot sandwich" as one that is 15 degrees above room temperature, while I may elect to define a "hot sandwich" as one that is 22 degrees above room temperature, provided that room temperature is at least 17.3 degrees C.

Either way, neither one of our definitions of makes "hot" objective; we only provide objective definitions for particular sandwiches in particular rooms. What may be hot for a sandwich may still be cool for motor oil, searing a steak or melting copper.

That we can objectively quantify temperature and define sandwiches to the point of tastelessness has no bearing on the objectivity--or lack thereof--of "hot," especially when hot is used to imply "sexy" or "attractive."

 

[DAR]

We don't have to question our existence to question what is taken to be "objective truth" such as Maths. And GManNickG is not even going that far. All he said was that Maths is true within its world of assumptions./axioms. Maths is logical. But logic doesn't equal "objective truth".

I think you are using the wrong word when you say "a mind capable of understanding these principles of mathematics", it's "a mind capable of inventing these principles of mathematics". Square root is a human construct, it doesn't exist by itself.

I think you're onto something, particularly that mathematics is a system of axioms. Mathematics is also a system where there are boundaries between "conjecture" and "truth." As you point out, square roots are indeed human constructs. Fermat's Last Theorem, however, hanged in the annals of mathematical conjecture for some 350+ years before being proven by Wiles in the 1990's. That FLT did not move from the realm of conjecture to proven truth by means of observational data and analysis further supports the notion of mathematical truths as axiomatic, and absolute.

But I will assert that mathematics is also objective, as it works the same for all of us, regardless of our religion, race, nationality, age, shoe size, hair color, etc.

As I see it, "truth" comes in (at least) three different flavors, with different means of verification and falsification:

Mathematical truths (or those derived from axiomatic systems) are absolute and objective, but not based in reality.

Scientific truths are objective, based in reality, but not absolute.

Philosophical truths (religious, political, economic, etc., which I think was the topic of this thread) may be based in reality, can be applied absolutely, but lack objectivity.

Just my $.02...

 

[John Doe]

But I will assert that mathematics is also objective, as it works the same for all of us, regardless of our religion, race, nationality, age, shoe size, hair color, etc.

It seems axioms don't care about who uses them.

 

[nonpareil]

I think you're onto something, particularly that mathematics is a system of axioms. Mathematics is also a system where there are boundaries between "conjecture" and "truth." As you point out, square roots are indeed human constructs. Fermat's Last Theorem, however, hanged in the annals of mathematical conjecture for some 350+ years before being proven by Wiles in the 1990's. That FLT did not move from the realm of conjecture to proven truth by means of observational data and analysis further supports the notion of mathematical truths as axiomatic, and absolute.

But I will assert that mathematics is also objective, as it works the same for all of us, regardless of our religion, race, nationality, age, shoe size, hair color, etc.

As I see it, "truth" comes in (at least) three different flavors, with different means of verification and falsification:

Mathematical truths (or those derived from axiomatic systems) are absolute and objective, but not based in reality.

Scientific truths are objective, based in reality, but not absolute.

Philosophical truths (religious, political, economic, etc., which I think was the topic of this thread) may be based in reality, can be applied absolutely, but lack objectivity.

Just my $.02...

It's a good 2 cents. But we still have a problem with defining "objective". As I said, I see "objective truth" as something that is true irregardless of what is perceiving it (or maybe even when there's nothing perceiving it). How can we ever be sure that something is an "objective truth" since we can't imagine how something is perceived (or not perceived) without involving our own mind? That question seems rhetorical, and I guess mostly it is, but it's still an interesting question to think about, especially when applied to Mathematics.

 

[American]

There is one star at the center of our solar system. No amount of bias or philosophy can change that.

Again, 1 + 1 = 2 with or without humans. It's objective and universal.

This expression is merely man's way of communicating an observation.

 

[Mach]

No, it's not.
So what if he can't "he make any assertions about what is possible or not possible"

Then you didn't make any assertion, then there is no discussion.

Yet you seem to think there is a discussion....evidenced below. That's contradictory.

it doesn't mean that the assertion "that it is possible for consciousness (the perception of reality) to exist" is true.

What's your definition of truth? To put it simply, it's axiomatic to any such discussion, whether we write it out that way, or in a different langauge, or don't call attention to it directly. The words we use are symbols that correpond to the underlying admission that we are, in fact, communicating (and all of the underlying premises assocaited with that admission).

Deny you are talking, by talking to us about it. <- absurd right?

And so what if he can't "establish that he is not merely programmed to deny volition, or indeed to make any other statement", it doesn't mean that the assertion "that free will is possible" is true. Taken all together, these assertions don't seem to have any meanings.

Your assertions above all already rely on these premises. You are certainly free to both reject them and use them, but it doesn't mean you are making any sense. They don't require your recognition, or even knowledge of them.

 

[idk]

You can accept that what you know to be "objective truth" are in fact what you assume to be "objective truth". I think of you as quite intelligent, so I'm surprise you would say that it's pointless to seek to understand something more. It's not meaningless to understand that your world is not as solid as you believe it to be - it opens up more possibilities.

I seek to understand what I can understand. If there is something utterly outside the capabilities of the human understanding... well it's fairly pointless to chase the impossible.

A skepticism of the reality that immediately presents itself is integral to science. It's perfectly understandable to assume that the heavens surround the earth. We see fairly obvious evidence of this everyday and night. It took a skeptic with an open mind to recognize that this was untrue. However, Copernicus was forced to prove this with a set of mathematical axioms that continue to yield successful results, 450 years later.

I believe challenging the foundation of human mathematic and logic makes for interesting thought experiments and invigorating debate (as exemplified in this thread), but I honestly ask, what use is there in challenging the basis of human comprehension? If we discover that 1 ≠ 1, and we've been wrong all along, what are the implications for our perception of reality?

To use a bit of metaphor, of what use is it to the physical being upon discovering that she is just a stimulated brain in a vat?

 

[idk]

This expression is merely man's way of communicating an observation.

Exactly, which was my point.

 

[Mach]

When idk posted "Big, hot" as examples of subjective assessments there was no objective definition provided. (I probably would have used "tasty, pretty, exciting" as examples.) You may elect to define a "hot sandwich" as one that is 15 degrees above room temperature, while I may elect to define a "hot sandwich" as one that is 22 degrees above room temperature, provided that room temperature is at least 17.3 degrees C. Either way, neither one of our definitions of makes "hot" objective; we only provide objective definitions for particular sandwiches in particular rooms. What may be hot for a sandwich may still be cool for motor oil, searing a steak or melting copper.

Yet apparently if you take the time to clarify what you, personally, mean by "hot", and it's different than how you define hot for a sandwich, vs motor oil, then you have two different definitions, for the same word. Claiming "hot is subjective", while using two different definitions of the same word, is not appropriate for a discussion like this is it?

Claiming that who you find attractive is not based on some real, observable (ultimately) criteria is silly.

 

[John Doe]

I believe challenging the foundation of human mathematic and logic makes for interesting thought experiments and invigorating debate (as exemplified in this thread), but I honestly ask, what use is there in challenging the basis of human comprehension? If we discover that 1 ≠ 1, and we've been wrong all along, what are the implications for our perception of reality?

You're still approaching this wrong. It's not that 1 = 1 or 1 ≠ 1. Rather, it's a set of axioms from which we derive results. 1 = 1 is one of those axioms. We could make a system where 1 ≠ 1, and still derive perfectly valid results.

Axioms are arbitrary, just like morals. No humans, no morals, no humans, no axioms. No axioms, no math. Math isn't just axioms either; that's like saying music is just notes. Music is art of sound, and math is the art of imagination. No humans to produce art? No music, no math.

 

[DAR]

It's a good 2 cents. But we still have a problem with defining "objective". As I said, I see "objective truth" as something that is true irregardless of what is perceiving it (or maybe even when there's nothing perceiving it).

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on that. Objective truths are impartial truths; those that work the same for all players. Or at least that's what I mean by "objective."

How can we ever be sure that something is an "objective truth" since we can't imagine how something is perceived (or not perceived) without involving our own mind?

We can corroborate our perceptions with those of others, as well as devices that are free of human biases. If everyone on the planet was deaf, we could still be sure that a tall tree falling to the ground caused some kind of "sound", even if that sound went unheard. We could look for disturbed magnetic particles on audio tape, the diaphragm convulsions of a microphone, etc. triggered by the event.

Strictly speaking, we do need our minds to perceive the event--regardless of the form of data generated by the event, so that probably doesn't provide a real solid answer to your question. To avoid endless, navel-gazing rhetoric, I just make a few neat little assumptions, and move on:

1) I exist, as does the universe around me;

2) My perceptive faculties are pretty much on par with normal, and they're not deceiving me.

That question seems rhetorical, and I guess mostly it is, but it's still an interesting question to think about, especially when applied to Mathematics.

It is especially interesting when applied to mathematics, considering that grasping many mathematical concepts often involves tying those concepts to things outside of the system of axioms and within the observational realm.

For example, my preexisting knowledge of (musical) equal temperament and transposition made grasping the concept of fractional exponents much easier. As well, I regarded most of high school algebra as pointless mental masturbation until those concepts were applied to circuit theory a few years later.

Despite the enormous practicality of mathematics, its "truthfulness" is not determined by practical, applied or observational examples. Mathematical truths are derived by formal rigorous proofs which, again, may explain why it took so long to move Fermat's Last Theorem from the realm of "mathematical conjecture" to the realm of "mathematical truth."

 

[DAR]

Yet apparently if you take the time to clarify what you, personally, mean by "hot", and it's different than how you define hot for a sandwich, vs motor oil, then you have two different definitions, for the same word. Claiming "hot is subjective", while using two different definitions of the same word, is not appropriate for a discussion like this is it?

"The sandwich is hot" is a personal (and highly subjective) assessment because others may not reach the same conclusion.

"The sandwich is 27.2 degrees Celsius," conversely, is an objective assessment, which can be confirmed or refuted without personal bias.

Claiming that who you find attractive is not based on some real, observable (ultimately) criteria is silly.

I didn't make that claim. Nor do I claim that someone is "objectively attractive" simply because I find them attractive. Others may find the same individual positively repulsive using comparable perceptive faculties, but different values.

 

[Cephus]

Exactly, which was my point.

The observation is objective, the terminology we use to express that observation is subjective. There is a difference.

 

[idk]

The observation is objective, the terminology we use to express that observation is subjective. There is a difference.

That was my point.

 

[idk]

You're still approaching this wrong. It's not that 1 = 1 or 1 ≠ 1. Rather, it's a set of axioms from which we derive results. 1 = 1 is one of those axioms. We could make a system where 1 ≠ 1, and still derive perfectly valid results.

Axioms are arbitrary, just like morals. No humans, no morals, no humans, no axioms. No axioms, no math. Math isn't just axioms either; that's like saying music is just notes. Music is art of sound, and math is the art of imagination. No humans to produce art? No music, no math.

Right, I understand, but that still doesn't address my underlying point. I find myself constrained by language in every attempt to express this point. I'll give it another go. There are inherent values (which humans, in order to make sense of observation, defined arbitrarily. The result was mathematical/logical axioms and the structured reasoning that arose thereafter) that exist regardless of human observation.

My mind immediately returns to the Swazschild Radius every time I say this, which dictates that ~2.5 solar masses will determine whether or not a star has enough mass to collapse into a black hole. Eliminating all other variables, this value can be said to be responsible for the 'evolution' of the universe we see today. Obviously, the universe and its contained galaxies evolved independent of human observation.

It is these values that I claim are objective. Just remember, that the word 'value' is not objective. Neither, as both nonpareil and GManNickG have demonstrated, is the accepted definition for 'value' as I've used it. It is simply the best possible word I can think of to describe my point.

If the values were tweaked ever so slightly, say, if gravity were just a bit weaker, the universe would break apart. We created mathematics to describe a universe already in existence.

 

[nonpareil]

Then you didn't make any assertion, then there is no discussion.

Yet you seem to think there is a discussion....evidenced below. That's contradictory.

You are equating my writing all those words = "he make any assertions about what is possible or not possible". Even if I were to write words that amount to my making "assertions about what is possible or not possible", it doesn't mean anything, because at the end of the day, how do you or I know that I'm not a computer programme made to write those words? The appearance of "discussion" can exist without either consciousness or free will.

So there's nothing contradictory here, except some very illogical jumps made by you and those statements you posted.

What's your definition of truth? To put it simply, it's axiomatic to any such discussion, whether we write it out that way, or in a different langauge, or don't call attention to it directly. The words we use are symbols that correpond to the underlying admission that we are, in fact, communicating (and all of the underlying premises assocaited with that admission).

Deny you are talking, by talking to us about it. <- absurd right?




Your assertions above all already rely on these premises. You are certainly free to both reject them and use them, but it doesn't mean you are making any sense. They don't require your recognition, or even knowledge of them.

This last paragraphs reminds me of the argument by religious: "Your existence relies on God's creating you. You are certainly have the free will to reject him and still exist, but it doesn't mean you are right. God doesn't require you recognition, or even knowledge of him."

Well, duh. :roll:

This is a forum. I'm here to argue with people on points I find interesting. I assumed that's why you are here too. Dismissing me by saying I'm free to think whatever I want (I already know that) is kind of pointless.

 

[other]

I think those are two different meanings of observation. Empirical observation requires sensory observation.

Math is just the results of utilizing axioms. No observation necessary, per se.

yes, that's what the difference is. this epistomological argument is a very old one.

 

[Mach]

"The sandwich is hot" is a personal (and highly subjective) assessment because others may not reach the same conclusion.

So it's a matter of statsistics about how many people reach the same conclusion? I'm sure you know where that leads.

And then, see if your brain objectively knows the difference, touch a hot stove, see if your brain reaches the correct conclsuion without your higher-brain bias against it. Don't most brains reach the same conclusion?

"The sandwich is 27.2 degrees Celsius," conversely, is an objective assessment, which can be confirmed or refuted without personal bias.

So why do we have precision and margin of error on things like this?

I didn't make that claim. Nor do I claim that someone is "objectively attractive" simply because I find them attractive. Others may find the same individual positively repulsive using comparable perceptive faculties, but different values.

Yet relative to whatever criteria you have, it's objectively determined.
If all you're using is your "feeling", then you are objectively experiencing and conveying those feelings.

I'm just pointing out that subjective is not very useful to discuss truths, and really is just a quality statement about how relatively easy something is to confirm. Subjective means that the judgement is primarily made internally by person (mind), rather than external (not mind) things. It doesn't necessarily imply it's any more accurate, or any less "objective".

If one takes the time to understand what criteria someone else is using, subjectivity is no longer nearly as relevant.