Why is an object beyond human imagination?
Because it needs? To exist without observers?
Intersubjectivity (that which all observers agree upon) is the objectivity of observers.
I’m typing this message right now.
If you read this, you’ll at least agree that the message was imputed by someone or thing that wasnt you. If it was you, you wouldn’t be able to observe the message as there’d be no distinctions in existence.
So, that’s the objectivity of intersubjective truth.
No there’s nothing outside the universe except the text I typed.
Yes I said that already. If the totality = T, then T doesn’t exist because there’s nothing outside of T to relate to. In fact I believe it’s the position of most scientists that all matter and antimatter equates to zero. Same with energy. So, there is nothing, yet here we are. Idk, what do you want me to say?
Maybe we could say T is something that exists in relation to nothing, if nothing can be sufficient context. I think that was Watts’ position. He said “There is a way in which nothing can be productive because we cannot have something without nothing.” That was his solution to the problem, but Ecmandu doesn’t see how nothing contains anything productive, so he needs to propose another solution to the problem if that is the case.
Right. Objectivity has no subject.
Right
But that’s an objective claim.
Alan watts is wrong. It’s not my opinion, absolute nothing is defined, or nothing in general is defined as “isn’t”. You’re making “isnt” an existential OBJECT, an “it” that “does something” or has a “function”
The actual solution, I’m not trying, I’ve already solved it, is that for every existent “something”. There must be "something else!
You could admit that you don’t have an answer that makes any sense. Instead you keep telling us “how it is”.
Same goes for your position on objective morality.
You say : “There is no objective right and wrong or ought and should.”
Then you tell people what they ought to be doing, that they are wrong about all sorts of stuff.
Because there are limits to both human imagination and human knowledge
What we actually know is infinitesimal compared to what we do not know
Is the term “utility” throwing you off?
You’re implying that there is an object prior to the subject determining THAT there is one
Would that not make the object’s existence independent of the subject?
Those two definitions are not mutually exclusive… that just leads to an objective reality that houses creatures with subjective experiences.
Sounds about right to me.
That is a strange definition of “objectivity” you have there… not sure anyone else uses that definition, but I can understand why you think it’s stupid.
I’ll make common cause with you and say that’s an idiotic way to define objectivity.
I dunno… that’s not what I’m asking you to prove… I’m asking you to prove the statement you made “anything is possible”
I’m not jumping to conclusions, I only know that it’s possible for gravity to work… you’re the one who claims to know that it is also possible for gravity to randomly stop working…
I’m very open to any evidence you might have to support that view of reality.
So… what you got?
Interesting, what are the odds that gravity won’t work tomorrow?
Also, please show your work… I want to know how you came by this knowledge.
You see I’m a skeptical sorta guy and don’t like taking things for granted.
Jeez… did you read what I wrote?
We don’t even disagree on this but I guess you saw an opportunity to vent and took it…
Math is a language, we made it up.
Physics is a conceptual model, we made it up.
We didn’t make it up for shits and giggles… we made it up for their utility
scientific LAWS are the foundations for the model… if you knock one down the whole damn thing comes crashing down.
Like if you were to have 1+1=3 be adopted as a truth in math, the rest of the discipline would come undone
They are not meant to signify a religious call to faith… but the dependency of the model.
Scientists, like the rest of us, are averse to building on shaky ground so they tend to be real careful with their “laws”
But if gravity stops working tomorrow, I think it’s safe to say we’re knocking that model to the ground and starting over…
You know… if we survive it
I want to reply to me own post here.
Nothing is a useful concept in relative terms in the sense that there is a nothing of bananas in my fruit bowl.
But people like you combine this in ways that are wholly irrational, you globalize it out of context.
You make both these statement equivalents on a regular basis:
There is a nothing of everything
There is an everything of something
The first statement is your dichotomy necessity, which I showed is false by simply substituting “nothing” with “something else”
The second one is your god proof, which many of us have demonstrated, allows for no difference; not opposites necessarily, in a binary sense, but difference proper.
There’s, again, (you ignored that post), a reason why scientists only talk about multiverse instead of the logically flawed “universe”.
Inter subjective and objective are not the same because inter subjective truth can suffer from the problem of induction
While it might be agreed upon now it may have to be revised in the future because of the acquisition of new knowledge
Truly objective truth or knowledge is not affected by induction
when a subjectivist makes an argument against the possibility of ‘objectivity’, and believes that if i can make sense of it, i’d agree with it, then he is working under the assumption that the truth (its sensibility) of the argument isn’t just something he can subjectively know, but also something i can know too. now here is the problem; if understanding of the argument’s sensibility is only a matter of subjectivity, i shouldn’t be able to understand it. if, on the other hand, i can understand it sensibility, and do believe the argument is true, there is at least one objective truth now… and that is the thing the two subjectivities agree on. ‘objective’ now means ‘true for more than one person’.
a simpler way to put this point is to just say that if the statement ‘there is no objective truth’ is true, then it is false, and there is now at least one objective truth… and that’s that such a statement is false.
here’s the secret. what stands ‘objectively’ at all times are not truth ‘things’ in the world, but the truth ‘form’ of the rule following. the attempt to argue that there can be no objective truth beseeches itself of the rule following which it employs in itself, and therefore becomes nonsensical. the logical rules of language are not some metaphysical things that drop down and force themselves on language, but are actually fashioned after a mirroring of the physical world - logic is embedded in existence - and then become active when we begin to speak of things. the problem with ‘subjective’ arguments that try to dispose of this rule-following convention in language - it’s logical form - is that they use the very logic they are seeking to deny the possibility of.
elsewhere i wrote:
"the question of ‘objectivity’ is about when we suppose the existence of a world independently of our experience of it, and a problem arises when we ask if we are able to make truth statements about that world that are not conditioned by personal prejudice, preference, bias or opinion. and this problem is not solved by dividing statements of facts from statements of value, as even some statements of impartial fact are dubious; what is the true color of the ball, for instance. neither do deductive statements tell us anything about the world. sure, it is objectively true that all bachelors are unmarried men, but such a statement doesn’t tell us anything about bachelors and unmarried men… only that these two terms are synonymous.
the resolution of the problem of objectivity really comes down to taking a radical anti-psychologistic position and claiming that not only do the rules of logic exist independently of the ‘mind’, but they are also the only ‘things’ that can be objective. so any statement about the world will conform to rules of logic which we all recognize, but will not necessarily say anything true about the world. in that case, it would be incorrect to say that the world consists of ‘things’ which can be named in speech (for how can we be sure our statements actually represent such things?). rather, the world consists of ‘facts’… which means, our language reflects and expresses the logical form which truth statements take, not the things in the world about which the logical statement’s are made.
you might say that our language reflects the logical structure of the world, but not the world’s content. because of this, language can’t be representational… its meaning must be derived from its use, and this use-meaning is bound up in an inexplicably complicated ‘way of life/language’ (wittgenstein) which conforms to various kinds of rule-following."
here’s a drill for yas. joe and bob are arguing over whether or not there can be objective truth. if before they can enter into this debate, they would be required to provide corollary definitions for every word that they used, they’d never begin arguing, because there would be no terminus to this process of defining. moreover, if to understand any single premise in the argument would require an understanding of the entire set of premises (which would never be reached for lack of terminus), no single premise could be proven by what conclusion followed.
while all this is going on… or not going on, rather, there is only one feature that stands throughout, and that’s the rules of logic used in the formation of the incomplete subset of arguments. these rules are objectively present at all times and for everyone who shares the language.
logic tells us nothing about the world. only statements do that, and they will always be dubious. that’s why we can’t rely on statements about ‘things’ to show us objective truths. we know of ‘objectivity’ by the general rules that oversee particular statements… and statements can even be nonsensical while still being logical:
some dizzlewopters shlup if all disnits wellop.
all disnits are welloping
therefore some dizzlewopters are shluping
certainly nothing is objectively true about this syllogism - if we mean by true, representing things in the world - except for its logical validity. see what i mean? logic can even prevail when talking nonsense.
logic is all around you. it tells you what’s dope and it tells you what’s whack. and if you ever try to argue that truth values are only subjective… that’s whack.
subjectivism belongs to ethics… to value statements, precisely because value statements can’t be true or false. they reflect nothing in the world. the statement '‘it is wrong for ecmandu to listen to rob stewart’ is equivalent to the exclamation ‘boo at ecmandu!’ or ‘oh hell no, fuck that!’
Let’s assume that’s true. What your stating is that because of this we know nothing, you sound like iambiguous.
We have:
Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown knowns (oh yeah, I guess I did know that, I forgot)
And unknown unknowns
We have proofs, that we can prove aren’t subject to future corrections.
Promethean!
Really? You’re bringing “boo, yeah” theory into this discussion?
I can prove that it’s wrong for me to listen to music:
Male ornamentation is destroying the earth and the species, all female music is derivative, thus making it out of bounds as well.
If my intention was to destroy the species, I’d listen to music.
There’s a slippery loophole that looks at music as a whole as raising vibrational levels or pointing out abuses in the species, abuses being something everyone has the right to clarify in any format.
So then it’s about being discerning.
Love songs are off limits though - as that’s no means yes signalling.
I never said we know nothing so those are your words not mine
What I said [ pay attention now ] is that there is a limit to human knowledge [ which there is ]
We may have proofs that arent subject to future corrections but our knowledge base is still very limited
And it will always be limited because of the limitation of the human brain and also because of induction
You’re talking to a guy who proved that a being cannot be omniscient.
The thing is though, you are running with this and de-objectifying proofs what we can prove will never be corrected.
That’s irrational as a stance.
I never said anything about falsifying proofs only that there is a limitation to knowledge which obviously there is
Therefore no irrationality at all
Ominscience isnt possible because of induction so its not that hard to demonstrate
But the way you wrote it makes it sound like you discovered it before any one else
You’re using induction incorrectly. Induction doesn’t allow for absolute proofs. I let it slide before, but your insistence made me clarify that you don’t know your subject.
Yes. My disproof is novel and unique to me. I’ve seen at least 50 disproofs for god that can all be shown incomplete. Mine is not incomplete.
Does that sound extraordinary to you, that I did this before anyone else?
Let me give you something to ponder then:
I’m one of two people in all of human history who found a unique way to order the rational numbers.
You’re not just talking to some average joe here.
So what is the something else? There cannot be two things in any universe because either they are connected things and are really one thing, or they exist in separate universes such that they do not exist to each other. The only possible context for something is nothing. What’s north of the north pole? Nothing. If it weren’t so, it wouldn’t be the north pole. What’s beyond the edge of the universe? Nothing: there is no there, there. If it weren’t so, we wouldn’t have a universe of something.
So that’s the answer then: there’s no outside the universe to conceptualize because there’s no there there and that fact is conditional to having a “thing” because things have edges where the connectivity stops. Standing on the north pole is like standing at the edge of the universe having no other place to go than south.
So there’s no objective viewpoint for outside the universe just like there’s no objective way to view north of the north pole since such a place doesn’t exist, but at the same time that nothingness provides the context required to have a thing in the first place, in the self/other relationship.
Alan Watts is the only human I’ve not yet found to be wrong about anything I’ve heard, and I’ve heard a lot. It takes a long time though to stop thinking he’s stupid. I feel like I actually had to grow neurons considering the amount of time it took to finally get my head around it; kinda like growing a muscle or a plant or, you know, growing something. Or learning an art like playing an instrument or dancing. Anyway, it took time and wasn’t intuitive from my western perspective.