Objective Truth

[SSSnail]

I believe in pie.

You sir, are certainly a creature of reasoning and seeker of abject truth. Pie can be proven, and are often delicious.

But, let me tell you about the cakes...

 

[Mixolydian]

You sir, are certainly a creature of reasoning and seeker of abject truth. Pie can be proven, and are often delicious.

But, let me tell you about the cakes...

cake > pie, everyones knows this.

 

[Gintaras]

Bolded is what is known as universal subjectivism.

Universal subjectivism claims that all truth is subjective and is dependent on the knower. It's self-contradictory because the subjectivist claims that truth really, objectively, is subjective.

If one were to believe in universal subjectivism, then one would have to doubt whether the truth of "everything is subjective" is in and of itself subjective, a personal opinion or feeling in the mind of the subjectivist. Thus, they would not be claiming that the subjectivist theory was really correct and the objective truth theory incorrect.

In that case, they are not disagreeing with objective truth theory at all. They are actually agreeing with their opponent.

To argue with some religious freak is same like to argue with an idiot:

"They gonna drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience..."

google: "80 questions that will make you an atheist"...

Ask one of those questions to Pray To Jesus and you'll hear same bullshit as on OP...nothing logical....

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Wtf is objective truth? Truth is truth, rest is just perceptions .

This is a delusion. All truth as pervieved by man is relative. God is the only one capable of knowing Truth.

 

[Gintaras]

God is the only one capable of knowing Truth.

Does Always NEED MONEY and accepts all currencies...

True or false?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Does Always NEED MONEY and accepts all currencies...

True or false?

Engrish please.

 

[disappoint]

This is a delusion. All truth as pervieved by man is relative. God is the only one capable of knowing Truth.

Even if we assume what you just said is true, how do we know it's the truth? After all it's just your perception of the truth isn't it? So maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong and man can know the truth after all.

But if man can know the truth then what you said could be true, which means man can't know the truth...

So you see what we have here is a paradox. You know what the smart dude with funny hair said about paradoxes? God does not roll paradoxes with the universe! Or was that pair of dice? Maybe it was paradise? Oh what's the difference, right? Maybe, just maybe, they all sound similar for a reason. A hidden reason. Hidden all this time in everyone's head unbeknownst to them...

NAH I'm just kiddin man wasssap bro? Happy Yeaster to ya mate!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Lmao.

This does not answer my question. Can't you tell me how we know that 2+2=4 is true?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Take 2 objects and put them in one hand. Take another 2 objects and put them in the other hand.

What are 2 objects? How do we know there are 2 of them?

Now put them all in one hand. How many objects are in your hand now?

I have a handful. Some objects from a hand put with some objects from another hand gives me a handful.

If you say zero, you're right. 2+2=0. Now go write a paper for peer review and submit it to your local landfill.

You haven't explained how we know that 2+2=4 is true.

 

[disappoint]

What are 2 objects? How do we know there are 2 of them?



I have a handful. Some objects from a hand put with some objects from another hand gives me a handful.



You haven't explained how we know that 2+2=4 is true.

You're over thinking a very simple mathematical problem that most 12 year old children would think is child's play. Learn more actual math and science then try over thinking that.

 

[_Rick_]

Mathematics are the only proven truth. Everything else is statistics

 

[IronWing]

Mathematics are the only proven truth. Everything else is statistics

Try explaining mathematics to your dog. Mathematics is Truth. My cat puking at 4:30 this morning is truth.

 

[Braznor]

I believe that both, the objective aspects and the subjective aspects of truth are cyclical in nature, when compounding an observer into an environmental where such a truth or event is observed. In such a possibility, the objective and the subjective perspective of that truth need not necessarily be pole opposites of each other or cancel themselves out.

In case of observers like human beings, the subjective experience of the objective universe is still the byproduct of the objective biological processes within that observer. So in such a case, the subjective experiences of truth undergone by that person is still objective when taking into account the body processes which let him undergo that experience such a truth. Any person's reaction to any event is the reflection of the learning/capabilites of that person/system.

So even subjective experience is the byproduct of objective processes within a observer.

Now we can invert this same logic to validly say that objective truth is the byproduct of subjective factors of an environment. A particular environment could have its own share of biases which can lead to a flow of events different from the one in another environment. In such a case, the objectivity of the truth still depends on the subjectivity of the environment where it was observed by the observer.

For any complex observer, the subjective experience of truth arises from that observer's objective interaction with its environment.

For any complex environment, the objective truth based at that situation remains dependent on the subjective nature of that particular environment.

 

[Xecuter]

Bolded is what is known as universal subjectivism.

Universal subjectivism claims that all truth is subjective and is dependent on the knower. It's self-contradictory because the subjectivist claims that truth really, objectively, is subjective.

If one were to believe in universal subjectivism, then one would have to doubt whether the truth of "everything is subjective" is in and of itself subjective, a personal opinion or feeling in the mind of the subjectivist. Thus, they would not be claiming that the subjectivist theory was really correct and the objective truth theory incorrect.

In that case, they are not disagreeing with objective truth theory at all. They are actually agreeing with their opponent.

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).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're over thinking a very simple mathematical problem that most 12 year old children would think is child's play.

If it's so simple, why don't you answer my questions?

Learn more actual math and science then try over thinking that.

What do math and science have to do with this?

 

[sandorski]

If it's so simple, why don't you answer my questions?


What do math and science have to do with this?

Methinks some have misunderstood the question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This does not answer my question. Can't you tell me how we know that 2+2=4 is true?

Well if you take 2 pieces of dried pine and add them to two more and tie them together and thwn put them in a pond, then they would float. A duck also floats in water. Therefore it would weigh the same as a duck and therefore..."BURN HER!!!"

Well... I suppose much hinges on what "know" means. Ultimately we perceive the universe through our senses. When one sees a table we really aren't seeing it but electrical impulses transmitted to our brains simulated by photons bouncing of the table and gathered by our eyes. We have no direct connection with "tableness" or the resulting combination of the result of equations. It may be consistent as we detect things but that does not make anything real. It's a problem of philosophy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well if you take 2 pieces of dried pine and add them to two more and tie them together and thwn put them in a pond, then they would float. A duck also floats in water. Therefore it would weigh the same as a duck and therefore..."BURN HER!!!"

Bring out your dead! :awe:

Well... I suppose much hinges on what "know" means.

Very much so. It is the claim of some in this thread that a mathematical equation is objectively true -- that is, it is true, independent of what we think about it -- but nobody can tell me how we could tell that it was true in the first place.

Ultimately we perceive the universe through our senses. When one sees a table we really aren't seeing it but electrical impulses transmitted to our brains simulated by photons bouncing of the table and gathered by our eyes. We have no direct connection with "tableness" or the resulting combination of the result of equations. It may be consistent as we detect things but that does not make anything real. It's a problem of philosophy.

While I don't disagree with what you've said here, you're going farther than we need to for the purposes of this exercise. I just want to know how we learned -- objectively -- that 2+2=4 is true.

 

[Chaotic42]

I'm only on my first cup of coffee, but are you guys seriously getting your Descartes on on a Sunday morning?

Nice.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm only on my first cup of coffee, but are you guys seriously getting your Descartes on on a Sunday morning?

Nice.

Something something Descartes before the horse.... yeah, I'm still waking up myself...

 

[disappoint]

I just want to know how we learned -- objectively -- that 2+2=4 is true.

Because everyone who isn't looney tunes or is feigning insanity knows it to be so? I don't know what answer you're looking for so you're just going to have to tell us.

First we have to define the word "objectively" you used.

Objectively:
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectively

I have already shown you how knowledge of 2+2=4 fits all of those criteria. Now it's your turn to show how it hasn't.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because everyone who isn't looney tunes or is feigning insanity knows it to be so?

So we know it's true because everybody knows it's true. That's circular. Wanna try again?

I don't know what answer you're looking for so you're just going to have to tell us.

No. You're the one that believes it's objectively true. Defend your claim.

First we have to define the word "objectively" you used.


from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectively

I have already shown you how knowledge of 2+2=4 fits all of those criteria. Now it's your turn to show how it hasn't.

You haven't shown anything yet. You apparently do not know that 2+2=4 is objectively true, despite claiming you do. That's dishonest. Would you like to retract your claim?

 

[moonbogg]

Whatever objective truth is, it is objectively true that it isn't jesus.

 

[disappoint]

So we know it's true because everybody knows it's true. That's circular. Wanna try again?

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.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

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.