Objective Truth

[Cerpin Taxt]

No it isn't circular logic. It is in fact the very basis of the scientific method that results are repeatable. If you want to reject all of science go ahead. Don't expect me to follow you down that path of insanity.

Saying it isn't circular doesn't make it not circular.

And what does science have to do with anything in this discussion?

So how do we know that 2+2=4 is true?

 

[disappoint]

The OP didn't ask about repeatability, he asked about objective reality, which are things as they are, not as we perceive them in most philosophical uses as I'm familiar with them. They are absolutes, not representations.

So let's do a thought experiment. It has been proposed that we are not "real" in this absolute sense. We may be projections, "shadows" if you will of an unknowable higher dimension. This is a scientifically valid question in that it is testable.

It's also been suggested that all we know and indeed ourselves are results of a program running on an unimaginably complex computer. Note that there is no known scientific objection to this idea.

Your task would be to show that we are not in a demonstrable way.

I don't accept that it is my task to do such a thing. The onus of proof is on the one making such claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you have presented a hypothesis with no reasoning behind it, much less any evidence. What have you observed to hypothesize those claims?

 

[mammador]

Facts don't exist.

What merely is objective is simply something proven beyond reasonable or logical doubt.

New Zealand is an island state. However, as humans cannot conceive of true absolutes, then this cannot be truly objective. It is literally true to 99.9% but not 100%.

 

[mammador]

Yes I do. I believe the universe is going to do what it will despite what we think. It's properties are there to be discovered. It has been said that some of the most profound discoveries happen not when the discoverer exclaims "Eureka! I've found it" but rather "Hmmm....that's odd.." In other words we often stumble on to a discovery purely by accident. Sometimes something we weren't even looking for. This shows that in those cases the discoverer did not cause or affect the discovery to be made but came upon it unknowing of it's existence.

Having said that, the latest discovery in physics that made headlines, the discovery of the Higgs Boson was not by accident. It had been theorized to exist for decades and was finally confirmed recently.

The universe is made up mostly of dark matter and dark energy. The visible portion of the universe is only about 4-5%. It seems we are rather insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. It's a humbling perspective, much like the picture of the tiny Earth photographed from far away and Carl Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot quote.

Below is a lecture by Lawrence Krauss on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUH77mYBUtM

Just don't read the youtube comments as most of them (on both sides of their argument) seem mentally unbalanced. I call it their argument because it's not one I'd want to be associated with.

Since human perception is non-absolute, how can anything we measure be different?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dp

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't accept that it is my task to do such a thing. The onus of proof is on the one making such claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you have presented a hypothesis with no reasoning behind it, much less any evidence. What have you observed to hypothesize those claims?

What extraordinary claims? Look up "holographic universe". My second example is perfectly compatable with science as we understand it. The only fundamental objection is of you can determine programming from "reality". So how do you do that? I've proposed a perfectly rational scenario. It has no known fundamental flaws. That it may or may not be true, which is irrelevant in discussing objective truths that you claim to be, but with nothing that backs your contention.

 

[disappoint]

Since human perception is non-absolute, how can anything we measure be different?

Objective, and absolute have 2 different meanings.

It is true that science does not claim anything to be known with 100% certainty. Including the idea that nothing can be known with 100% certainty.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Saying it isn't circular doesn't make it not circular.

And what does science have to do with anything in this discussion?

So how do we know that 2+2=4 is true?

Still no answer?

 

[disappoint]

Still no answer?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a question is answered and one does not hear the answer, was it still answered?

A signal with no receiver is just noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-n2AIaa-xg

 

[szechuanpork]

[objective truth does not exist] <--------- objective truth

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Damn, you're right! Better get to a church ASAP and Pray to Jesus...

Bolded is how you make no sense at all. Just because I say everything is subjective doesn't mean that it is objective (?! still wrapping my head around that one).

Let me explain it clearer. Follow these steps and see if they make sense to you.

1)Everything is subjective.

2)The premises of {1} is also subjective based on its own statement.

3) Since {1} is subjective, that means that objectivism is true.

Therefore, saying everything is subjective is just agreeing with the other side. It's false because it's saying, I'm right but you're right because I'm right. But A does not equal to B.

Reason doesn't support the premise of everything is subjective.

Put it another way, in order for {1} to be absolutely true, it must be an objective statement of truth. Therefore, saying {1} is absolutely true is wrong; {1} have an internal inconsistency with itself, aka self paradox, that prevents {1} from being true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a question is answered and one does not hear the answer, was it still answered?

I acknowledge that you responded. I also noted that your response was circular and thus failed to answer that question, so the question remains.

"Because everyone knows it" is not an explanation for how it is known. If you cannot explain how it is known, then you do not actually know the basis for your claim, and that makes you disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. Which is it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let me explain it clearer. Follow these steps and see if they make sense to you.

1)Everything is subjective.

2)The premises of {1} is also subjective based on its own statement.

3) Since {1} is subjective, that means that objectivism is true.

Therefore, saying everything is subjective is just agreeing with the other side. It's false because it's saying, I'm right but you're right because I'm right. But A does not equal to B.

Reason doesn't support the premise of everything is subjective.

Put it another way, in order for {1} to be absolutely true, it must be an objective statement of truth. Therefore, saying {1} is absolutely true is wrong; {1} have an internal inconsistency with itself, aka self paradox, that prevents {1} from being true.

3 is a non sequitur.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That is easy. The Arabic numeral system you are using was designed and created by humans and follow rules humans created for it. By this design, 2+2=4. It is that way because the designers of the system said it is this way.

Well you've gone and spoiled my fun. You are correct, of course, but there are contributors to this thread that believe that it is true independent of any human mind. In reality, it is true because we say it is true. That is to say, it is true by definition, but definitions are not objective.