#Is there such thing as Objective Truth or Objective Reality?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

sweet leaf
#

If so, how would you define it? Can you imagine observing a universe without first imagining the observer?

#

Is there such thing as Objective Truth or Objective Reality?

faint plaza
# sweet leaf If so, how would you define it? Can you imagine observing a universe without fir...

beauty is in the eye of the beholder... and thus truth is in the eye of the beholder...
we all have our own truths, some are so ingrained in us that we cannot deny them without years of change... and some are weaker

Relative truth is the only thing that exists, because if someone denies something, denies it truly, it isn't a truth to them, and not objective there is nothing you can do to make them believe it... only they can change what they think

Something as simple as 'the world is round' it is an objective reality for most. but then we still get people who deny it, and in their 'eye of the beholder' it is false, and not a truth, even though, to most of our beliefs, it is an objective reality

sweet leaf
faint plaza
sweet leaf
#

Ah! Interesting. So there is a fundamental difference between objective ‘truth’ and objective ‘reality’?

faint plaza
#

but can someone have their own objective relaity?

#

as if their relative truth effects their reality

#

so everyone has their own relative reality, but their is still an objective reality which they live in?

sweet leaf
#

I read an interesting quote once that goes ‘this is not the realm of understanding.’ It seems to me that there is always another layer, always infinite potential for our perspective to be superseded by circumstances beyond our perception. An interesting example is the idea that we cannot confirm whether or not we all perceive colours in the same way

faint plaza
#

ah i have heard of that! that two people could have learnt the same name for two colours, because they might have a diffirent colour vision, and there is no way to know that others have a diffirent colour vision to you

sweet leaf
#

In order for there to be a objective reality within which we all have our own individual subjective reality, what then defines the objective reality? Does that lead us to ‘God’?

#

Also reminds me of the quantum mechanics experiment ‘the double slit experiment’ which concluded that particles act differently under observation. They exist as a wave, undetermined, unless they are observed.

#

Definitely recommend checking out ‘double slit experiment’ on youtube, theres a bunch of videos. Superrrr interesting.

slate galleon
# sweet leaf In order for there to be a objective reality within which we all have our own in...

as someone who doesnt believe in objective truth or morality from a human perspective, i would still fully expect there to be beings which experience objective reality. the manner in which we as humans are capable of interfacing with that reality might not enable effective communication. i once heard it explained as drawing a line, and then trying to communicate with the line. within that analogy, we would be the line and beings experiencing truly objective reality would be the person drawing the line. the line still interfaces with reality in a limited manner, but it will never be able to communicate with the being who is drawing it. the nature of that being is inaccessible, no matter how enlightened that line becomes 😛

cyan void
#

So you @sweet leaf realized yourself in the headliner that you might more be after „objective reality“. Which is a concept necessary to have, if different perspectives of different observers are to be about the same thing out there. It can’t be perceived as is as long as it’s not perception by nature as in Bishop Berkeley‘s model of the divine and shared perception of its mentalistic projections. So Kant all the way in regard to the structural boundaries of our perception of reality. And in regard to „truth“, that’s a quality of (usually language/picture based) representations of reality. That’s the definition of truth by correspondence. You need an additional concept of „identifying truth“ to complete the concept. That part is probably best done by using a concept of coherence in regard to the evidence for and against specific hypothesis. And if you’re interested in identifying conclusions that are impossible to be false, you’ll have to go back to Kantian thoughts about the principles structuring our perception or the logical/mathematical truths that are true by following from our very own premises. Good luck with your further endeavors!😎

spiral vector
#

2+2=4

#

Therefore objective truth exists.

.

#

"objective truth" means something is fundamentally true, whether or not anyone cares. Even if you disagree with this argument, well, 2+2=4, so objective truth exists.

spiral vector
faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Even though reality is experienced subjectively

#

Wdym

#

Someone says 2+2=28

#

They are wrong, period

faint plaza
#

but to them it is true

spiral vector
#

But it's not

faint plaza
#

no it isn't

#

but to them it is

spiral vector
faint plaza
#

such as god for example, there are many religions, each with their relative truth, for example, and that makes a relative reality that all of them experience, because them thinking it is true gives it power over themselves

spiral vector
#

The question is not
"Will people agree" (they won't)
it's
"is there truth at all"

spiral vector
#

Subjective experiences do not disprove a fundamental reality

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Sure but there either is a God or isnt

#

It's not both

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

No, not all is in the eye of the beholder

faint plaza
#

i would argue it is

#

in their own perspective

spiral vector
#

If you say 2+3=9 I would fear you becoming a bridge builder

faint plaza
#

XD

#

well yes

spiral vector
#

Because that bridge would fall down

#

I'm damn serious!

#

(appreciate the laughs, you're fine lol) but

#

If you say that 2+2=5 is true because some people think it is

faint plaza
#

i would have my own relative truth, regardless of them

spiral vector
#

What happens when those people build bridges

#

?

faint plaza
#

my realative truth is that 2+2=4, it happens that lines up with the objective truth, i would say there is objective truth, and relative truth can line up with that, or it doesn't

faint plaza
faint plaza
#

with maths and science less so

cyan void
spiral vector
#

We have established that objective truth exists

cyan void
#

You can have beliefs in regard to the aletheian status of your beliefs too, but they are simply true or false as well and don’t create relative truths

cyan void
spiral vector
#

Eg: should we enforce objective truths on others?

#

If a student believes that 2+2=5, should they be allowed to graduate

faint plaza
# cyan void Objective reality

i would say that someones relative truth effects their relative reality, they have an objective reality also, but ones Relative truth can affect their current reality, and how they percieve it can't it? i think it can

spiral vector
#

they have an objective reality also

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

So their ""relative truth"" either aligns with objective truth or is a falsehood

faint plaza
#

but lines a blurred when more than one answer is acceptable

#

such as in ethics

#

or when no answer is

spiral vector
#

You are blurring the lines yourself-

faint plaza
#

xD

spiral vector
#

If it's true it's true

#

If it's false it's false

faint plaza
#

or none

cyan void
#

A falsehood is a falsehood. Doesn’t get any more objective that that. Just your beliefs in regard to a belief‘s true/false-status are sometimes better justified. Truth claims towards beliefs that are tautologically true and are proven to be, are those that are justified best.

faint plaza
#

well take this debate

cyan void
# faint plaza such as in ethics

Ethics is a problematic area, for it falls outside the realm of fact. And within the realm of normative projection. That’s what’s transforming normative judgements into metaphors of a different kind

faint plaza
#

and our own logic consulting it

#

and our own arguments

#

i don't disagree with yours

#

but i have a diffirent perspective

faint plaza
spiral vector
cyan void
faint plaza
#

or to change our own relative reality

spiral vector
#

Right but you just agreed there was an objective reality

faint plaza
#

just a question to make us think

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

If a student thinks that 2+2=5 I'm going to tell them they're wrong. It's harmful to them and possibly others (bridge) to do anything else

cyan void
faint plaza
cyan void
spiral vector
cyan void
#

Ah, sorry, have to go back to christmas party☺️

spiral vector
#

o/

faint plaza
faint plaza
spiral vector
#

No I mean that of course changing perspective will change people's actions

faint plaza
#

if two people experience the exact same thing, the exact thing, but one is an optimist, and one a pessimist. do they experience the same thing?

spiral vector
#

Yes

faint plaza
#

i would argue they don't

#

not really

spiral vector
#

But they did, factually

#

their perspective might change their biological response

faint plaza
#

this is a philosophical forum, get out of here you scientist! 😂

#

i am joking in good will of course

spiral vector
#

Lol

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Kind of

#

But not really

#

I understand your point? I think

faint plaza
#

i think peoples beliefs, thoughts, and mind give power of reality, in a way

spiral vector
#

They don't actually CHANGE reality though

#

Which is a very important distinction

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

We already agreed objective reality exists

faint plaza
#

it does

spiral vector
#

They change subjective perception of reality

#

They cannot change objective reality

faint plaza
#

but i would argue a relative reality exists at the same time

spiral vector
#

Sure

#

But it's just a perspective

faint plaza
#

and that the relative reality is just as strong

spiral vector
#

No

#

I disagree there

#

If we believe in opposing religions only one of us can be right

faint plaza
faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Our relative realities do not change the fact that whoever is right is right

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

That's irrelevant though

faint plaza
#

is it?

#

depends when reality ends

spiral vector
#

Some objective reality exists

#

Which means one religion is right

#

Meaning the logical course of action is to figure out which one is correct

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

No

faint plaza
#

why not?

spiral vector
#

It's mathematically proven there are truths that we actually cannot prove

#

We agreed objective reality exists

#

So we can prove it does

#

Because 2+2=4

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

No but either God exists or he doesn't

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Well, possibly God

#

Possibly not

faint plaza
#

is possibly factual?

#

or true?

spiral vector
#

I mean

#

God exists

#

Or he does not

faint plaza
#

shrodingers god

spiral vector
#

This is the premise of all religions

faint plaza
#

can he exist and not at the same time until we find out for a fact?

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Isn't it just a way to prove that the model is absurd?

#

Because the cat is not both alive and dead

faint plaza
#

but you can treat it as both

#

beacause their is an objective truth, but how do you know? and if you don't know, what use is it, and if you don't know, what answer is acceptable in the mean time

spiral vector
#

If there is no observable difference between the cat being alive or dead then you by definition can't know

#

But it's absurd to think that the cat is both

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

Two people argue about building a bridge

#

They have different ideas on how long the main bit needs to be

faint plaza
#

again with the bridge! 😂

faint plaza
#

but let's put that bridge in a box

spiral vector
#

Because the bridge has lives at risk

#

So

#

Isn't the question of God much much more important?

#

Because it has literally every eternal soul at risk

faint plaza
#

lets say for some questions there is a shrodingers box

#

others there isn't

#

for the question of the boxes means that there is only relative truth until objective truth is established as objective

#

and does that mean relative reality until objective reality is established?

#

i don't know

#

i don't know if i am representing this correctly

#

but it is worth a thought i suspect

spiral vector
#

Schrodinger's cat is a paradox

#

It's an example of why the model is incorrect

faint plaza
#

so what does that mean for real life examples

#

such as the god question

#

is the method of thinking about god incorrect

spiral vector
#

It means that the objective truth is TRUE no matter what

faint plaza
spiral vector
#

? No I mean

faint plaza
#

why not?

spiral vector
#

Us having different beliefs on religion does not change which religion is true

spiral vector
faint plaza
spiral vector
#

No because the Schrodinger model is false

#

That's the point

faint plaza
#

so is theology false?

#

the whole point of it

spiral vector
#

I'm saying that God is either real or not

#

He's not "both real and not" until we prove it

#

That's absurd

faint plaza
#

is this were agnostics come in place

#

?

spiral vector
#

We don't know whether God is real or not

#

But the question is literally the most important question, ever

#

So yes we should do everything to figure out if he is or not

faint plaza
# spiral vector That's absurd

i mean agnostics just say, there is no objective truth, until we are given evidence, which we can never be given while we live

#

they make that case

#

and i wouldn't argue that they are absurd

spiral vector
#

I would lol

faint plaza
#

well, they argue that he is either real, or not, but don't have a definite answer, not both

spiral vector
#

Right

#

But it's worth finding out

faint plaza
# spiral vector I would lol

i would argue that saying you are ignorant to make a case, and there is no sufficient evidence is more logical then arguing he is ( religion ) and isn't ( athieism ) than saying without evidence

#

i see it as accepting our ignorance

#

anyway i feel we got off topic

spiral vector
#

I think there is evidence

#

But sure

#

I think that if you accept there either is or isn't a God

#

You should logically try to figure out which

#

Because if there is it kinda determines the future of your immortal soul

#

According to most of them

faint plaza
# spiral vector I think there is evidence

i apologise if you are religious, mostly for me challenging it with shrodinger, but i hope you understand that me challenging it isn't undermining or disrespecting it

spiral vector
#

Nah you're fine lol

#

Challenging an opinion in a space like this is never undermining/disrespectful

#

That's kinda the point

faint plaza
#

i wash my hands of an answer and sit my time on the fence

spiral vector
#

I will say

#

If you are at that point (cannot be convinced of evidence)

#

Ask people, scholars of all religions

#

Or even just other similar perspectives

#

Because if you accept that there either is a God or isn't

#

You need to realize that that question matters!

faint plaza
#

i definitely realise it matters

spiral vector
#

Like, seriously, it determines the fate of your life after death in like every religion!

#

you should ask around-- Catholic/Orthodox priests, Jewish rabbis, etc

#

At least ask and see if any of them can provide you with a suitable answer

#

If not you're at the same spot as before

faint plaza
#

if i was in a place that spoke english, i definetly would ask a preist to prove the existance of god to me

#

i wouldn't see it as disrepectful

faint plaza
#

it's good but not that good

spiral vector
#

Well you do have the entire internet at your disposal

#

Lol

faint plaza
#

okay i'll take you on

#

can you provide evidence of gods existance?

#

if it is okay for me to ask

spiral vector
faint plaza
#

i am still here don't worry 😅

spiral vector
#

Let's just assume that "there is a God or isn't" because we just talked about and agree on it

Either there is a higher purpose to reality, or there is no higher purpose, and life is fundamentally nihilistic and depressing.

But if there IS some fundamental meaning to the world, that purpose must be self fulfilling. Otherwise it would not be fundamental.

I think humans have an intrinsic understanding of a higher purpose/meaning:
-every culture has tried to explain the world through a higher purpose. Certain aspects in religions are nearly universal, for example the idea of sacrifice

#

Catholic theology explains such a meaning for the world like no other. It both is self-fulfilling and also explains meaning of the world through the most powerful sacrifice possible

#

So... Sure, life COULD be inherently meaningless and catholicism a hoax. But I don't think that makes sense, and I don't think catholicism would so perfectly explain an intrinsic meaning to existence if that were the case

faint plaza
#

It is very Circumstantial and isn't evidence persay

spiral vector
#

Sure

#

But that doesn't mean it doesn't hold at least a little merit

faint plaza
#

it certainly has merit

spiral vector
#

I'm not the best person to ask tbh but this is the argument or set of arguments that I think is the most convincing to me

faint plaza
# spiral vector Let's just assume that "there is a God or isn't" because we just talked about an...

with me... i am a nihilist... but in a good way, if that makes sense
i like to find the narrative in something that has no meaning... making something out of nothing.... making your own story, regardless if you don't see the ending... because isn't that art, making something out of nothing? or greater than the sum of it's parts
making my own meaning, and not having meaning given to me
as that is freedom in my sense

#

if that makes sense, even if it is meaningless, it is mine, and i can decide what it means

faint plaza
#

i will definitely look into it further, and you have opened up my perspectives really

#

thank you a lot man

spiral vector
#

Anytime

faint plaza
#

whether i am crazy or not 😂

spiral vector
#

We're all a little crazy hahaha

faint plaza
#

@cyan void we got side tracked XD

cyan void
#

I see you did some wide topic sweeps. Can’t catch up, but would want to comment on Schrödinger‘s Cat thought experiment: it’s just a method to widen the quantic state of „superposition“ from atoms to macro objects.

spiral vector
#

Please enlighten me

cyan void
#

Okay

faint plaza
#

🤔

cyan void
#

Quantic states of the one that are talked about in the Schrödinger case are unstable states that seem truly coincidental in regard to when it false apart. And the more complexity is added, the higher the probabilities to have an immediate ending of the either-or-state.

#

So macro molecules like fullerenes had been the largest ones where they believed to reach such a state of either-or

#

A whole cat 🐈 would be almost impossible. But by combining the suoerposition particle with the normal cat, it seems to add superposition to the cat as well

faint plaza
cyan void
faint plaza
#

so i see you as the true loser here 😂

#

i mean that joke in the best possible way

#

nah nah but seriously, impressive you know that man

cyan void
#

Well, I guess nowadays they debate if the ugly metaphysics of a multiverse could be closer to reality than the superposition- I guess I am agnostic it that regard though

cyan void