(October 13, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Is there ultimate, immaterial, Universal, objective truth? Objective truth would not be persuaded by authority figures, but rather dictated by nature. And while we may never achieve 100% truth during the human experience, the goal is to be as close to the truth as possible.

Or... is truth subjective. And we determine how sure we are via confidence levels. Truth is persuaded by authority figures, and dictaded as such.

Recources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-truth-objective

Not making a claim just yet, although it should be obvious what the answer is. What are your opinions?

If the answer is no, isn't that an objective answer? 

Yes, there is objective truth.

If somebody says no, then yes it would be an objective answer, a self defeating one. See where i'm going with this?

How could I know there's objective Truth, when I'm a purely subjective being?

(October 13, 2016 at 9:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: How could I know there's objective Truth, when I'm a purely subjective being?

Just because you interpret everything through your life doesn't mean what you observe is subjective. It just means your observations are subjective. The point here is that regardless of wether or not we percieve somthing to be a certain way, it remains true to it's objective nature.

We have collectively developed methods to observe and test the perceptions of the world around us, that is how you know.

Would you agree with this sir?

(October 13, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 9:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: How could I know there's objective Truth, when I'm a purely subjective being?

Just because you interpret everything through your life doesn't mean what you observe is subjective. It just means your observations are subjective. The point here is that regardless of wether or not we percieve somthing to be a certain way, it remains true to it's objective nature.

We have collectively developed methods to observe and test the perceptions of the world around us, that is how you know.

Would you agree with this sir?

Nope.  A collection of subjective experiences, no matter how large the population, is not sufficient to establish objective Truth.

But I should qualify that.  I think even subjective experiences can be objectively true IN CONTEXT.  So whether we're in the Matrix or the Mind of God, it's objectively true that in the context of mundane life, there's an empty Vitamin Water bottle on my desk.  It's objectively true that I'm experiencing certain things-- no matter what anyone's opinion, even mine, I can say that I hear sound, and see things.

A transcendent objective truth-- for example, about the reality of whatever might underlie the framework we live in (be it God or a fractal set of nested multiverses that stretches in all directions in infinite complexity or whatever)-- i.e. the CONTEXT set by living as a human being, cannot be known true by us, for pretty obvious reasons.

@Aractus @mh.brewer
"Mathematics exists because it was invented by humans. It isn't some immaterial "truth" that was out there for us to discover. "


Just because we gave a name to describe what we observe in the natural world, doesn't mean we invented the observation. The golden rule exists wether or not we are here to observe it.

This is how it works, we observe patterns in the natural world that are absolute, and consistant, and universal, and then make a name to describe that observation, for example the fibonacci sequence:

http://www.livescience.com/37470-fibonac...uence.html

Previous link that seemed to go overlooked:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/

(October 13, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the answer is no, isn't that an objective answer? 

No. hehehehehe

It might be different if you said "absolutely no". But not really. See? It might be different if you said "absolutely no +1 more degree of no". But not really. See?

(October 13, 2016 at 9:44 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 9:33 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Just because you interpret everything through your life doesn't mean what you observe is subjective. It just means your observations are subjective. The point here is that regardless of wether or not we percieve somthing to be a certain way, it remains true to it's objective nature.

We have collectively developed methods to observe and test the perceptions of the world around us, that is how you know.

Would you agree with this sir?

Nope.  A collection of subjective experiences, no matter how large the population, is not sufficient to establish objective Truth.

But I should qualify that.  I think even subjective experiences can be objectively true IN CONTEXT.  So whether we're in the Matrix or the Mind of God, it's objectively true that in the context of mundane life, there's an empty Vitamin Water bottle on my desk.  It's objectively true that I'm experiencing certain things-- no matter what anyone's opinion, even mine, I can say that I hear sound, and see things.

A transcendent objective truth-- for example, about the reality of whatever might underlie the framework we live in (be it God or a fractal set of nested multiverses that stretches in all directions in infinite complexity or whatever)-- i.e. the CONTEXT set by living as a human being, cannot be known true by us, for pretty obvious reasons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
You give up knowledge if you go down this route, and can't be reasoned with.

"Nope. A collection of subjective experiences, no matter how large the population, is not sufficient to establish objective Truth."

Even the context of your response was built off of the presupposition that what your saying IS in fact true! I mean do i even have to elaborate how absurd this is?

---

(October 13, 2016 at 9:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the answer is no, isn't that an objective answer? 

No. hehehehehe

It might be different if you said "absolutely no". But not really. See? It might be different if you said "absolutely no +1 more degree of no". But not really. See?

You're inventing your own language and logic at this point, and go agianst what's already been established. Yes, and no, are statements.

"a communication or declaration in speech or writing, setting forth FACTS, particulars, etc."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/statement

(October 13, 2016 at 9:45 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: @Aractus @mh.brewer
"Mathematics exists because it was invented by humans. It isn't some immaterial "truth" that was out there for us to discover. "


Just because we gave a name to describe what we observe in the natural world, doesn't mean we invented the observation. The golden rule exists wether or not we are here to observe it.

This is how it works, we observe patterns in the natural world that are absolute, and consistant, and universal, and then make a name to describe that observation, for example the fibonacci sequence:

http://www.livescience.com/37470-fibonac...uence.html

Previous link that seemed to go overlooked:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/

So are you changing your previous position that "mathematics makes up the foundation of our existence."?

As to "doesn't mean we invented the observation", you'll need to explain that in more detail. 

The "golden rule" exists because a human said it and applied to a wish for human behavior. Please show me the golden rule in action in a petri dish.

Didn't miss the previous link, just didn't miss understand it as you appear to have. 

(October 13, 2016 at 9:52 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

---

(October 13, 2016 at 9:47 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: No. hehehehehe

It might be different if you said "absolutely no". But not really. See? It might be different if you said "absolutely no +1 more degree of no". But not really. See?

You're inventing your own language and logic at this point, and go agianst what's already been established. Yes, and no, are statements.

"a communication or declaration in speech or writing, setting forth FACTS, particulars, etc."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/statement

What has already been established? I'll agree, yes and no are statements, just not objective ones. 

I see that you seem to think that you get to pick and choose the definitions as you see fit and that I must agree with them. That's not gonna happen. I'll choose "assertion", from the same website. 

I'll make the statement that "You are a looney". Is that a fact?

I believe that there are objective facts, such as the number of oranges in a particular bag from the supermarket.

Truth, however, I see as a sentient being's perception of those facts.  As it is limited by the perceptual abilities of the observer, it is by necessity subjective and provisional, incapable of becoming an absolute.