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]

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

Mmmm not neccecarily, you missed the point, which is why i had to elaborate.

"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."

You can whitness it everywhere, no observational equipment neccecary, just eyes to see and an ear to listen. This isn't an arbitrary sequence of numbers. It is consistent in nature.
For your review:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2OlMAJj6o
http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/fibs...bslide.htm

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

What is there to missunderstand about this claim? Lol
"We humans have gradually discovered many additional recurring shapes and patterns in nature, involving not only motion and gravity, but also areas as disparate as electricity, magnetism, light, heat, chemistry, radioactivity, and subatomic particles. These patterns are summarized by what we call our laws of physics. Just as the shape of an ellipse, all these laws can be described using mathematical equations."

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

Sorry, you left the realm of knowledge, i won't go down that rabbit hole with you.

" 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."

Are you making up your own definitions now too?

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

There's no relvence here, you're just fishing for likes at this point...

---

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 you victory?  Cuz it sounded a little like that.

This actualy made me laugh, thanks for that

[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]

@pocaracas
"Any mechanism claiming to provide a truth with is closer to the Truth, other than Science, is lying."

That is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. A contradictory, Self defeating statement. Science is built from the ground up from the presupposition that we can KNOW anything at all. Again building off of philosphy.

I take it you agree with everything else I wrote, then...

So... what's your problem?
I'm going to try to work backward from what you wrote to try and make sense of it...
I think you're entering mental masturbatory territory with that "presupposition that we can know anything at all".
What does it mean for a person to know something? To have information stored in her brain pertaining to some event or object... that's what I'd say.

Are you wanting to claim that our brains are incapable of holding information? That would indeed be a self-defeating statement.

Science is a collection of information that humanity has deemed the most trustworthy, unbiased and independent from psychological faults.
Science is also a collection of methodologies to arrive at the collection of information and ever refine it.

Oh... OH.... OHOHOHOHOHOHOH... you're wanting to go meta on the world's ass!
Science can only operate on an existing Universe, hence we presuppose that the Universe exists in order to apply the science that describes the Universe. Isn't this what being a solipsist is all about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

If you want to get stuck on solipsism, be my guest, but know that there is no way out of there, without making a few assumptions... and the very first one is that the outer world does exist and is measurable and our senses measure it to a certain degree.


Anyway, you are aware that I first took some pains to define "truth" and "Truth" and only then applied that sentence, right?
Do note that, in this sentence, the claim is the lie:
"Any mechanism claiming to provide a truth with is closer to the Truth, other than Science, is lying."

From the basic assumption that things beyond our minds exist and they are measurable, then Science is the best mechanism to actually measure them, catalogue them, and reason out their relationships. In other words, it provides us with the best description of reality, hence the most truthful description of reality, the closest to the Truth that humanity is capable of.
From this, it naturally follows that any other mechanism is further from the Truth.
So the claim, by any other mechanism, that it is actually closer to the Truth than Science, must be false.

This is basic logic.

But, if I take the solipsist view, then what's the point of me typing all this? I might just be entertaining some ghost of my own mental construction.

" In other words, better not follow any form of faith-based system which is scientifically unverifiable."
Are you claiming you live purely by empirical evidence?

For the most part, yes.
However, for simplicity and mental sanity, I take many many many shortcuts.... some of them may be misleading me... but, overall, the system has been serving me well enough.

[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/