Is there objective Truth?

[Whateverist]

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?

Let me guess .. are you going to knock all the pieces over, shit all over the board and announce your victory?  Cuz it sounded a little like that.

[Aractus]

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.

We didn't give a name to something we observed, Mathematics is invented. It's wholly artificial.

What about complex numbers (described using so-called "imaginary numbers")?

√(-1) = i
i2 = -1

A complex number is a number in the form of x = a +bi

You can expand from there into the quaternion numbers:

i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk = -1
ij = -ji = k
ji = -ij = -k
jk = -kj = i
kj = -jk = -i
ki = -ik = j
ik = -ki = -j

A quaternion number is a number in the form of x = a + bi + cj + dk

From there you can go to the octonions (used in String Theory).

An octonion number is a number in the form of "x= a + bi + cj +... + ho", although that's not how they're written they're written thusly:

x = x0e0 + x1e1 + x2e2 + x3e3 + x4e4 + x5e5 + x6e6 + x7e7

From there you could move on to the sedenions (/hexadecanion numbers), and probably not of much use in anything at all:

x = x0e0 + x1e1 + x2e2 + x3e3 + x4e4 + x5e5 + x6e6 + x7e7 + x8e8 + x9e9 + x10e10 + x11e11 + x12e12 + x13e13 + x14e14 + x15e15

And you can keep on expanding your dimensional plane as far as you wish to go. Don't forget you have to come up with all the other increasing complicated rules for calculating hypercomplex numbers in ways other than straight addition as well. An interesting property of sedenions is they contain zero divisors - that is it is possible to construct an product where numbers in the equation are non-zero but divide to zero:

(xn1en1 + xn2en2)(xn3en3 + xn4en4) = 0

Where:
xn1en1 + xn2en2 ≠ 0
xn3en3 + xn4en4 ≠ 0

So what we apply in mathematics is constricted to what we need because it ultimately leads to nonsense like the above. Or equations that just cannot be solved anyway like 1/0 = ?

[Soldat Du Christ]

[Whateverist]

Let me guess .. are you going to knock all the pieces over, shit all over the board and announce you victory?  Cuz it sounded a little like that.

This actualy made me laugh, thanks for that

Well I'm glad for that. You god-botherers work far too hard for far too little reward if you ask me.

[Cato]

Another pseudophilosophical fucktard that intentionally ignores the concept of justified true belief. As always we're left without any semblance of evidence, but are implored, at the risk of offending, to take seriously unsupported propositions.

[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.

---

Another pseudophilosophical fucktard that intentionally ignores the concept of justified true belief. As always we're left without any semblance of evidence, but are implored, at the risk of offending, to take seriously unsupported propositions.

And what exactly are you contributing to the conversation? Just empty words and trash talk, take that somwhere else thanks.

[Gemini]

And what exactly are you contributing to the conversation? Just empty words and trash talk, take that somwhere else thanks.

So the current state of epistemology with respect to justified true belief is "empty words?" A little humility would serve you well, if your ambition is to do more than amuse yourself by spouting off.

[Aractus]

@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.

[pocaracas]

[Soldat Du Christ]