# Objective truths?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Jun 5, 2010.

1. ### DoreenValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,101
Doesn't this question also serve as a response to your OP?

Further the OP scenario has as a proviso that no Matrix like situation is in place. This is like saying A must lead to B unless there is something that might prevent it from leading to B.

Adding to this, from a scientific methodology perspective you can only talk about probabilities. As far as scientists know it is incredibly unlikely that the molecules of the male would sift their way through the wall without the wall or the man changing. However it is not impossible.

Some physicists consider it possible the universe is infinite - thus radically increasing the chances of exceptional anomalies occurring. (bit of a redundant term there, but since it was such an exceptional anomaly I felt justified) There are also multiverse hypotheses out there offering other ways of having a universe, making exceptions likely in a different way.

3. ### KennycRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
993
Well, the current understanding is that the laws were different during the big bang.

Perhaps they change with time? But they are the only reasonable objective we have to measure anything against eh?

5. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
I agree... with the thrust of your post...
Granted we have no way of dealing with the unknown or unknowable in the terms you describe.
Granted in an infinite uniiverse it is possible that some form of sophisticated matrix is in place, and so would all imaginary constructs including our legendary flying pigs and his buddy the pink Unicorn etc etc have some possibility or probability of materially existing if we assume that the universe is infinite in all ways and not restricted in it's infiniteness. Example: if this is so we would not be able to see anything in the night sky as the infinitely large would blot out our view of the stars.
We do have finite barriers with in this infinity which allows us to exist as finite forms in an infinite universe. the question to me then is how extreme do these finite forms vary through out an infinite universe?

But if we go to such extremes I wonder does that not mean that even the subjective and objective would ultimately self annihilate themselves as concepts or notions of distinction? Are we talking after all about insanity?

I do agree however and ultimately any principle or governing factor such as fields of science including philosophy we as humans may use is subject to such severe speculation ultimately rendering any discourse on the subject futile and of no real utility if one wants to go down such a severe speculatory and imaginary path.

Last edited: Jun 5, 2010

7. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
by the same token , just because probability may suggest that it is possible doesn't mean that it is.
I wonder what the probability is for the field of probability to be wrong in the way it applies probability. I would bet that the probabiity of being incorrect using probabiity as it stands as a scientific tool is significantly greater than the molecules of man sifting their way through a brick wall especially as the man/wall/universal observers gedanken requires the man to use his will and volition to do so.

I have edited the OP to specify the requirement of volition and deliberate will.
It was mentioned after the OP but I failed to edit it , my apologies.

Last edited: Jun 5, 2010
8. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
Doreen, can I ask if you have a better way of presenting such a test case?
that being to attempt to render the need for "mind independancy" as irrelevant to demonstrate an objective truth using the philosophical definition? It would be fabulous if you did.
Is it possible do you think?

9. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
Have I shown how truth by consensus is avoided to your satisfaction?
Have I shown how if every observer was to perform the same exercise they would arrive at the same conclusion independantly of each others experience therefore be as objective in experience assessment as the man in question?

10. ### rcscwcRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
721
A purely Objective truth is a chimera. Is man mortal? What is the objective test to prove or disprove it? Mind you, one single immoetal human is enough settle the debate. After all, if one exists, several might exist.

But how to test it? That all humans so far have been mortals means nothing. After all, only a finite [no doubt large] numbers have been observed so far and every one has turned out to be a mortal. Are we justified in extrapolating, by induction, to all the humans yet to be born? No way.

Every truth has an element of subjectivity.

11. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
Is that an Objective statement?

12. ### DoreenValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,101
This all feels very familiar. Was it you with the robots and the wall?

I am not sure what objective truth means. Or how we can come at it. How would we ever know how our minds are distorting the possibilities? Consensual truth, I can grok. And this leaves open the possibility that we or circumstances or unknown factors are given us the desire to rush to universalize.

For all we know certainty is causal and thus self-reinforcing. If we are going to be all rational, and presume that current scientific knowlege really gives us close to a complete foundation, it seems a certain kind of agnosticism about objectivity is in line. If we look back at the history of science we should become rapidly humble about objectivity and limits. From that perspective we just don't know.

Unless there is a specific reason why we feel the need to jump to asserting objectve truths. I think, if there is one, then it should be part of the scenario.

Or if there are experiences we want to have and objectifying, in this total way, seems practical or necessary or worth exploring.

Or if we want to introduce, at least into our own personal lives, intuition as part of a valid approach. Up front I mean.

13. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
A more eloquent explication I've never read.
Beautiful Doreen.

Wish I could add something to what you've said here... but I can't.

14. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
so form what I gather it coudl be summed up as
"Given the vaguaries of current thought on the issue objective truths are not deemed as possible"

This is a fair enough situation and one I can accept.

In other words no matter how good the gedanken no matter how strong the case it will always fail due to the vaguaries of science.

15. ### DoreenValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,101
thank you.....

but then....is what I said a claim at objective truth?
is it an assertion of consensual truth - though there is no consensus on it?
and how do I know it applies? do I get to speak as 'we'?

I can imagine universes where what I said holds and takes on all comers - experiences that is.

But then I can imagine others where it is itself limited AND an assertion of objective truth.

Sometimes I try to understand the worldview of the person I am responding to and kind of feed it back as a challenge. (no doubt with my own misinterpretations) If I sense that hidden steps are being taken that indicate, in fact, some other worldview.

16. ### DoreenValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,101
I would say 'knowable as such' rather than possible. You or someone else may state one, but how we go about verifying in situ is the rub.

If that is the presumption...that knowledge only comes from science.

See that's the thing for me. I think, though I might be wrong, that your certainty that the OP situation 'should' be seen as an objective truth is based on notions of the universe based on science. If that is the methodology and only that, then we are left with 'what works so far'.

and yes, I do realize that probably your life experiences support that certainty also, but then you are stepping out of scientific methodology, though still within empiricism.

17. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502

non sequitur

The failure is not due to the vagaries of science, but due to the vagaries of reality...

18. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502

I wouldn't say it is.
I would say it's simply an epistemological claim. One need not extend knowledge claims to be universalized (or even universalizable..) for them to be correct...

See, I cannot.
My reason being that, there can be no assertions of 'objective truth' (such as the term is being used in here...). To claim such would be to overstep one's epistemological bounds (which is to say, to move beyond the phenomenological, i.e., to affirm an 'Objective Reality').

19. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
You may not be aware of this but I am currently developing a web site specifically designed to challenge such phenomological grounds.
It involves an award that will be granted to any one providing certain evidence of Light Effect Model which immediately impinges on the nature of our perceptions and currently being taken as an unevidenced given.
the site will be launched in approx. 30 days and is located at:
www.photonchallenge.com
a thread in pseudo science has been started:

be there or be square as they say....
and maybe have a shot at the award being offered which currently stands at $100usd but is expected to grow to possibly$10,000 usd once the online media gets involved

20. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
Glaucon...you shall be proved wrong by that said reality when you utter your last breath for one thing.

21. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
good thoughts thanks....

yes there is dilemma in that science has us all believing we do not witness reality directly which I know is yet to be evidenced properly by science.
So statments such as Glaucon and I dare say most of the philosophical world have been making are understandably incorrect given the general unawareness of the limitations of science and the paradigm and dogma they have to work with. Therfore ironically accepting an objetive truth from science.
Sorry Glaucon, with all due respect this is true.
Let me explain:
You have a logical circle going on.
We rely on science to show the logic behind phenonema. so that we can then make statements about the reality.
Science has stated that we can not witness in a way that is objective and we consider that to be an objective truth as all our other thinking is now devoted to such beliefs.

So we believe in the objective truth that science has stated "we can not percieve objective truths" and then apply it in circular fashion without ever thinking to realise that science may be utterly wrong on this issue.

Last edited: Jun 18, 2010
22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
23,311
fabulous post and courageous as well...!

23. ### glaucontending tangentiallyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,502
I don't understand what you mean here.