Is there objective Truth?

[Mister Agenda]

Your lesson which appears ahead of the part I did quote needs to be readily available to all noobs.  It would definitely have simplified things for me.  But the part I did quote is so reasonably reasoned that I'm happy to quote it all even without picking it apart into smaller chunks.  

Not just noobs. I literally just found out how to do my quotes the way I used to before the format change, thanks to Pocaracas.

[Mister Agenda]

Anyway, back to my point - Maths just like Money was invented.

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.

If my eyes are brown in all possible worlds, the word 'brown' was still invented to describe the color brown. Mathematics can be used to describe something precisely. It being a very precise form of language doesn't mean it wasn't invented.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.

If my eyes are brown in all possible worlds, the word 'brown' was still invented to describe the color brown. Mathematics can be used to describe something precisely. It being a very precise form of language doesn't mean it wasn't invented.

Can you conceive of a possible world in which pi is not the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?

[Whateverist]

Anyway, back to my point - Maths just like Money was invented.

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.

I confess I too find it irresistibly intuitive to think of mathematics as discovered rather than invented.  But then I realize that the discoveries we make are always within a system of description which has already been invented.  Mathematics doesn't float freeform in any idealistic medium independent of ourselves.  It exists within an evolving mental view of the quantitive which answers to the way we perceive and talk about the world.  The spectacular thing about mathematics is that within this construct it is possible to single out relationships previously not considered which turn out to have application back in the empirical world .. in spite of the fact that the model was not constructed with that aspect in mind.  I think this is what drives the strong intuition which I share with you that mathematics is discovered, not invented.  It is discovered .. albeit within the communally constructed model we've been fleshing out for many generations.

[pocaracas]

If pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter in all possible worlds then it was discovered and not invented.

If my eyes are brown in all possible worlds, the word 'brown' was still invented to describe the color brown. Mathematics can be used to describe something precisely. It being a very precise form of language doesn't mean it wasn't invented.

I think you guys are nitpicking a bit too much...

The wavelength that conveys the color brown (not that that one really exists per se... it's more of a set of wavelengths that give us that perception... we should be using a yellow, but whatever) is the same regardless of the language you use, regardless of the representation that is used. For example, RGB=#8B4513 is one such representation.
The representations are invented, yes.
The color itself is always the same. Has the same composition. Exists regardless of a sensing apparatus... light will do its stuff...

A mathematical concept can exist regardless of the formalism employed or even if no formalism is ever employed
The awareness of such a concept requires a conscious mind, but the abstract notion it embodies, like that of PI equaling the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, is true for all perfect circles, regardless of there being a consciousness thinking about it.... regardless of how this consciousness decides to call the quantity we call PI.

If there is no consciousness thinking or knowing about such a concept, then the concept is not actualized... it is unknown. It can be discovered.

But what does it mean for an abstract concept to exist?
Is existence here being employed in the same way as the existence of an electron? An electron can be said to have a physical representation, right?, width, height, energy... the whole shebang!
Or in the same way as the existence of the Force from Star Wars? an abstract fictional concept?...
Maybe some other way, huh?...

It is important not to fall for the trap of using the same word to represent two different concepts and then follow along as if they're both the same concept... the one you want.



I will often tell people that God exists in much the same way that Darth Vader or Harry Potter exist. As concepts planted in human minds, originating in works of apparent fiction. And believers will often be annoyed by this, because they want their god in the other kind of existence... the electron kind.... "but immaterial... it's complicated" yeah.... I know it's complicated. I like to remove the complication by cataloguing god as fiction... that solves every single complication that arises.
In fiction, we can do what's called "Willing suspension of disbelief", and roll with it.

[Angrboda]

If my eyes are brown in all possible worlds, the word 'brown' was still invented to describe the color brown. Mathematics can be used to describe something precisely. It being a very precise form of language doesn't mean it wasn't invented.

Can you conceive of a possible world in which pi is not the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?

Yes, this world. There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds. It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can you conceive of a possible world in which pi is not the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?

Yes, this world.  There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

It all goes back to the problem of universals, doesn't it? The fact that various knowing subjects can abstract a common feature (circularity) from a wide variety of unique sensible bodies and form the exact same concept of a circle, to me, indicates that circularity has some kind of objectivity, though not necessarily alienable from sensible bodies.

[Soldat Du Christ]

"Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there."

I could just as easily say you can't insert an infinite space time theory when we have reason to believe this to be so. Cosmologists like sean carrol are on the defensive. I agree with alot of the off hand points he made about theism and general science, but wasn't impressed with his dissmisal of the contrary.

"So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?"

Seeing how eternal universe theory has been demostratedly unestablished (even by your friend sean carrol here), and just the impossability of self existing naturalism. I'll side with a creator. Where we find B, there is always and A. Why wouldn't the universe follow the same logic?

"Yes I am serious. Anyone can quote or study "facts" and then draw whatever crazy conclusions they choose to. Facts alone don't bring you closer to understanding the world around you."

I agree, deductive reasoning is essential. What does this have to do with what i was saying. You are still missing the point

"Case in point - why not consider one of the most famous assassinations in the history of the world: the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans. Most classicists think that Pilate snuffed him out for becoming unruly at the Jerusalem temple where he may have also become violent. That's deduced from an understanding of the ancient world that looks beyond what his followers passed on about the ordeal. So, facts only tell you so much."

How is a crucifixion an assassination? Sources please.

"I think I can see your point. For example, if we are all a product of this creator, then we would naturally possess its various attributes and be subject to its laws. As a result, making use of reason, logic, and comprehending immaterial laws will help people on their quest for objective truth, because they are using the tools of their creator; this validates the means by which these people pursue truth. However, I feel that this ultimately has validity to a specific population of people, namely those who subscribe to supernaturalism."

The claim isn't that athiests can't count, the claim is they can't account for there counting. You want to see a prime example of what happens when people can't justify the use of objectivity? Go back and look at all the self contradictions. Or visit my new thread on the topic, and see all the anti-intellectual brain barf being spewed around trying to shut me up.

"This website presents concrete evidence of secular and non-theistic people who are logical and rational and who understand immaterial laws; yet, the supernatural has no validity or personal relevance to them. IMO, this suggests that these traits need not be associated with the supernatural; people can cultivate them just fine without it. However, to be fair, theists and non-theists ultimately use rationality to make their arguments and understand reality, yet neither side has a definitive, conclusive answer. Hence, since rationality, whether it be applied through a supernatural or natural lens, is presently incapable of unraveling and explaining the mysteries and secrets of reality, would you say that there are other ways to search for truth and understand reality that are outside of rationality and have not been discovered yet? Perhaps neither side is going about their search in the right way?"

Okay so you understand this already, the difference is you don't see supernaturalism as a better justification then the brain justifying the brain is that it? And to answer your question, i think it's clear it has to be one or the other. Now i asked you earlier:
"There are only two possible answers to this problem. Either matter made mind, or mind made matter. Supernatural cause, or natural cause. All theory will fall into either of these catagories would you agree?"

Please stick with me on this kernel, your aproach is a breath of fresh air

[The Grand Nudger]

You're still peddling that same false dichotmy.  Its a poor argument no matter what you plug in.  20 pages in...I;d hoped we'd have gotten to the "does truth exist" point, by now.  This is disappointing. In a thread -about- truth, your failure to acknowledge this basic logical principle amounts to your own objection to truth...regardless of whether or not it exists as you might describe it.

Btw, kernal, that's where your approach is lacking, lol. It gives hope to fuckers regardless of how plainly and simply wrong their claims may be...and that hope is -all- they need to persist in idiocy. 20 more p[ages and you're not going to come to an understanding, these arguments will not be improved. The subject will just keep on keepin on.

[Arkilogue]

See that's why I love these simple questions and other people's perspective. I would have listed the dominant aspect of the universe as we find it as "empty" space. We've covered the space vs matter ratio of atoms, yes? The universe "exists" (to our subjective biological sensors) because the space for photon travel, an observer and something for the photon to bounce off of, also exist.

Fair enough.  To be honest, I learn toward idealism, so in that context, space isn't really a thing, but rather a rule about how ideas about things are related to each other.

What a physical space is actually blows the mind if I think about it too much, especially when you start thinking about relativity, QM etc.

I view it like a stretchy diamond and all material things are like beams of color and light passing through it.