Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

@Aractus
I'm not sure i understand the point you are trying to make... Because there are arbirary sequences, or nonsense math, that proves math is artificial? Do you not recognise the relevence and applicability math has to the natural world? Regardless of what nonsense we can come up with, i don't beleive that means anything.

If i missunderstood please elaborate.

The only part of maths that is observational is "if I have three apples and I remove two I have one apple". You can't observe the presence of zero apples, nor can you observe negative apples, nor n*i apples.  You can observe division: if I divide my 3 apples into 3 equal groups they each contain 1 apple, but you can't observe multiplication: if I multiply my 3 apples by two I still have my three apples. That specific numbers have some relationship to the real world doesn't mean that mathematics itself does. There are infinitely many numbers, and most of them have no relationship to the real world.

How much matter by volume is in the universe? No one knows the answer to that because we don't know how many times we can divide subatomic particles to discover new ones. Which brings me back to the point that while you might think you observe a physical world, the reality is it's almost entirely empty space.

I'm giving you the benifit of doubt for now, you seem to know what you're talking about and i'd like to get to the bottom of this. But it sounds like you are touching on a entirely different topic when you start talking about physical worlds and empty space.. My claim is that math, and the fundemental building blocks of life are one in the same.

I'd rather let this article speak for my side, as it articulates what i've been trying to get across better than i possibly could. Maybe that will help us get over this language barier.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...h-excerpt/