If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlicue way out on the edge of that explosion, way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago you were a Big Bang and now you’re a complicated human being, and then we cut ourselves up like this, and don’t feel that we are still the Big Bang, but you are! It depends how you define yourself. You are actually… if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning, you’re not something that is a result of the big bang, on the end of the process, you are still the process! You are the Big Bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. See, when I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as: mister so-and-so, miss or mrs so-and-so, I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way; I know I’m that too, but we’ve learned to define ourselves as separate from it.
Well, logic stems from duality: true, not-true. So, we could say positive and negative. The negative is negative because the positive is positive. But what happens with trichromatic quarks? Now we have a logic based on 3 charges where red is not-green and not-blue. Can you imagine a battery with 3 terminals required to make it operate?
Or how about numerical bases? Does 11+11 = 22 or 6?
No it’s more like smiling to a human is considered friendly, but to an ape it’s considered aggression (showing teeth - weapons). It’s the same “word”, but construed differently… subject to the subject.
If the surface of the atmosphere were considered the surface of the earth, which is what the surface of jupiter is considered, then its shape would be different from the shape of the heavier rock ball underneath. And then there is the problem of defining the edge of the atmosphere. So the shape of the earth is subject to the definitions you create.
I don’t understand your objection.
I don’t understand the point you’re making here either.
You’re making more categories to argue against the objective truth of categories…
Also, I think if I remember correctly, space has one atom for every square meter. So the line can be drawn there.
The point is: we have objective ways of determining and measuring. We use them constantly.
Now, I’ll certainly be one to say that we haven’t solved ALL things objectively, however, for a great many things, we have. For these great many things, it’s very easy for us to state, “your opinion doesn’t matter, it was already solved”. For example: how we’ve solved the game of tic-tac-toe, or checkers… the best you can do is draw against a perfect player. It’s solved. Over. Done. Known. It’s no longer a matter of skill or opinion.
Well that just argues for what surreptitious said:
Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge
For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective
Objectivity is absurd and absurdities cannot be imagined.
What is space? Space cannot exist without something occupying it.
No, objectivity is not beyond imagination and knowledge, it is what’s true regardless of anyone’s opinion of the matter.
When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn’t afford opinion, it’s an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn’t matter here.
It’s your opinion that a tree exists. What is a tree but an arbitrary dissection of what there is? I can hand you a tree and when I do, it will contain dirt in a pot, so are dirt and pots part of trees? How about the atmosphere around the tree? Is that part of the tree too? The tree surely couldn’t exist without those things, so they must be part of it. And to have those things requires a planet, so the planet is part of the tree too. As is the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe; all of it is the tree. But it’s YOUR opinion that the tree is merely the woody bits and leaves. I disagree.
What constitutes a tree and whether or not it exists is subject to opinion.
Logic governs our language, so that we remain intelligible to each other. Ecmandu’s statement is true by definition, and Serendipper is pointing out that our definitions are subjective.
The only objectively “true” thing about logic is that we would become unintelligible without it.
There is an objective reality, but we are the ones who break it down into categories so as to apprehend it. That process isn’t entirely subjective however, as it is utility driven.
The moment you have an objective, a goal, the most efficient path to that goal is no longer subject to opinion.
Evolution has made us value predictive power, the ability to assesses action-consequence so as to maneuver the terrain more effectively, but we can adopt new goals ad-hoc, like winning a debate, in which case we can categorize the world in absurde ways and claim it to be just as valid as any other.
But when you have to dig you make a distinction between a tree and the dirt as they would not behave the same when struck by a shovel.
You expect me to believe that you’re typing this post even though everything is 100% interdependent, at 100%, that makes everything exactly the same, which solves as nothing at all.
I’ve stated many times that the universe has to be fragmented to allow discernment of other.
there has to be some degree of objective reality - meaning existing independently of experience - or else you get fucked up by this little dilemma:
two berkeleyeans meet in a bar. one of them drops dead. how does the other berkeleyean and the bar he’s in continue to exist if each of them is/was just an ‘idea’ of the other, now dead berkeleyean?
A being cannot be omnipresent, as omnipresence solves as something without an outside. Without the concept of an outside I couldn’t point to the sunset of the left of me to someone walking next to me, because I’d have no concept that right was outside of left. Omnistates don’t exist. The cosmos is, by definition, fractured. Meaning: every existent has an outside of.
You’re relegating what is meant by experience to be that of human experience only, but what is human experience other than a bunch of chemicals bubbling around? In my philosophy, the electron experiences the nucleus and the atom experiences other atoms as well as light and gravity. We experience a more complicated pattern of it, but matter observes other matter in the most simplistic fashion, but it’s still observation.
Objective reality:
The totality of everything that exists = T. Now, what does T exist in relation to? Where is T? What does T look like? How long has T been there? Are time and space applicable concepts outside of T? No. There is no way to speak of or to conceptualize any possible meaning to objective existence. If James’ axiom is true, then T doesn’t exist since there is nothing that is not T in order for T to affect. But yet here we are.
Now we’re entering into the realm of agnosticism: the nonconceptual knowledge; the apophatic knowledge, which is as opposed to a painter applying paint to display an idea, instead a sculpture removes stone to reveal an idea, likewise we strip away concepts to reveal what cannot be conceptualized. Neti Neti, not this not this.
There was a young man who said "God,
I find it exceedingly odd
that a tree as a tree would continue to be
when there’s no one around in the quad.
Reply:
Young man, your astonishment’s odd;
I’m always around in the quad,
that’s why a tree as a tree continues to be
since observed by yours faithfully, God.
It just means that what you call a tree is subject to what you define as a tree; there is no objective tree. Is a blueberry bush a tree? Every time I call one a tree everyone jumps at the chance to correct me.
Yep, when I dig up a tree, I have to decide what is tree and what is not, then shovel out the tree and leave the rest. My decision will be unique compared to everyone else.
Completely removing the roots is very expensive for massive trees, usually people just opt for them to be cut as a stump and then rot out over several decades.
This doesn’t confuse anyone even though there are an infinite number of ways to cut the tree down and backhoe the roots. This infinity doesn’t confuse anyone who is instructed to either take the tree down to the trunk or to remove the roots entirely.
Nobody gets confused like you and digs a hole from Antarctica to Japan just to remove a tree.
Or even moreso: “well… I can’t do the job because that means I have to dig up all of existence! Sorry, I can’t flush the toilet or wash a dish or wipe my own ass either (as you start rubbing toilet paper on a mountain!), because that means I have to do it for all of existence”
You’re talking nonsense here, literally, you are talking psychotically… you have psychosis. I know that you don’t really believe anything that you’re saying because you are reading posts and forming intelligible replies. So, you’re not actually psychotic, just pretending to be psychotic, which technically is trolling… but even this, were still giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you’re just a bit confused, as we all get from time to time, and that you’ll admit your momentary confusion and snap out of it.
If I got killed in that scenario how can “I know” what had happened.
If the whole human species is exterminated instantly, there is more subjects and subjectivity to interacts to sustain any objectivity.
If I get injured the whole event is intersubjectively caused by objects on a subject, i.e. intersubjective objectivity.
As long as the person is living, the basis is intersubjectivity of objectivity.
Objectivitity is built and emerged along with evolution within subjects on the holistic collective scale not on an individual basis.
On the contrary you are the one who is psychotic and delusional [not in a serious psychiatric manner] when you insist there is absolute objectivity. Note I wrote this earlier;
If you are not religious but still insist there is absolute objectivity, you are still caught in an illusion thus delusional [not in a serious psychiatric manner] as compelled by an existential crisis or zombie parasites.
Note Science at best merely ASSUMEs there is absolute objectivity in order for its model to work but there is no way Science will ever claim with certainty absolute objectivity exists.
Absolute objectivity = objects exist regardless whether human subjects exist or not.
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures via intersubjective consensus through its very specific, qualified and conditional Scientific Framework and Model.
Note there is a long history within philosophy to support my points, btw it is not Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism with Theism.
One of my basis is Kant’s Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism.
