Give me Truth.

[Aupmanyav]

"it is true that this blade of grass is precisely 4.359cm long". Note the "is", there was no need to frilly it up with waste of time statements.

A conditional statement. After one more Planck's interval, it will not be truth.

 

[ChristineM]

A conditional statement. After one more Planck's interval, it will not be truth.

It is truth at the time of measurement and that is all that matters

 

[PureX]

A world exists external to the self. We each perceive it through our senses, either directly or by our instruments.

If we perceive it, it is no longer existing "external to the self". And since the "self" is the subject of our subjective experience, our perception of this "external world" is a subjective perception (creating a subjective conception of reality, in our minds).

In what sense is that not 'access to objective reality'? Why is not each example of breathing in, drinking water, eating food, encountering other people, having conversations on the net, a demonstration of our access to objective reality?

What you are defining as being "the self" is your own body. But this is not accurate. What is the "self" is not just our bodies, but our cognitive being. It is our self-awareness. And that includes our subjective experience and understanding of the world in which we exist.

But our subjective experience and understanding does not include all that exists. It only includes that which we have experienced and recognized, of that which exists. The rest is 'objective reality', but that reality exists apart from our cognition. And by it's very definition, it must remain there; beyond our cognitive grasp.

That there's no such thing as absolute truth is no impediment: truth is our best opinion for the time being, and science is forever a work in progress, whose conclusions can be and are routinely tested and retested for accuracy.

What you are describing is the presumed relative truthfulness of functionality. The problem is that when we think we have access to "objective reality", we start thinking that relative functionality is "the truth". And when we espouse science as the primary means of determining this relative functionality, we have entered the error-prone philosophy of "scientism".

So what? 'Omniscience' is an imaginary condition, a magic wish.

Again, so what? We know (again not absolutely, but better than we used to) that what we have works in reality because we test it against reality.

We are not testing it against reality. We are only testing it against our subjective perception and understanding of reality.

There are no absolutes outside this sentence. Again, so what?

The "so what" is called honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. And it is essential to our quality of life. When we humans neglect these qualities we very quickly become wildly destructive, because we think we know 'how reality should be'. And we set out to make it so.

Righteousness isn't a word I use much, and 'we tend' is situational, but I don't disagree with your basic point. However, I draw your attention to the way in which rational enquiry, not least scientific method, takes those very matters into account and deals with them through eg the requirements of honesty, transparent reasoning from evidence, repeatable experiment, peer review, publication, and so on.

What has science ever done to make humanity wiser, or morally responsible to each other or the world?

The problem I have with scientism is that it makes science out to be something that it clearly and functionally is NOT.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But our subjective experience and understanding does not include all that exists. It only includes that which we have experienced and recognized, of that which exists. The rest is 'objective reality', but that reality exists apart from our cognition. And by it's very definition, it must remain there; beyond our cognitive grasp.

And when we espouse science as the primary means of determining this relative functionality, we have entered the error-prone philosophy of "scientism". The "so what" is called honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. And it is essential to our quality of life. When we humans neglect these qualities we very quickly become wildly destructive, because we think we know 'how reality should be'. And we set out to make it so.

What has science ever done to make humanity wiser, or morally responsible to each other or the world?

Our subjective experience may not include all that exists, but our understanding can include all that, i.e., objective reality. Our understanding can include the reality which exists apart from our subjective experience. At one time 'reltivity' and 'quantum mechanics' were beyond the understanding of all except a few scientists, now understanding that is common place. If there is something which is not presently within our cognitive grasp, it may become so in near future.

What else can we use to determining the objective reality if not science? Honesty, humility and open-mindedness are social issues. They will be tackled at that level. No, we have not set out to make objective reality confirm to our models. We are investigating. Do you think philosophy or religion have made any change in humans? They worsened the scene for many centuries. It is only now when the hold of religion has slackened that we are thinking of other things.

 

[PureX]

Our subjective experience may not include all that exists, but our understanding can include all that, i.e., objective reality. Our understanding can include the reality which exists apart from our subjective experience. At one time 'reltivity' and 'quantum mechanics' were beyond the understanding of all except a few scientists, now understanding that is common place. If there is something which is not presently within our cognitive grasp, it may become so in near future.

Our cognitive grasp changes as our relative circumstances change. And our concept of "reality" changes accordingly. But it remains limited, subjective, and relative, nevertheless. So you are proposing that there is a significant matter of degree: that the relationship between what we don't know, and what we think we do know, is changing in favor of our knowing. But there is no way for us to know that this is so. Because we cannot know how what we don't know would completely alter (delete) what we think we do know, were we to know it.

We humans survive and thrive by learning how to manipulate our environment to our own advantage. So we fear our own "unknowing", and we like to tell ourselves that we know more than we do. And that our knowledge is increasing every day. But this does not make it so. And there is no way to know that it is so. In fact, there is pretty good evidence to suggest that the more we think we know about how the world in which we live functions, the more likely we are to destroy ourselves, and it with us. So our "accumulated knowledge" does not seem to be panning out as we would have expected it to if our presumptions about our increased knowledge were right.

What else can we use to determining the objective reality if not science?

Science is not discovering "objective reality". It is providing us with an increase in functional ideation. That's all it can do.

Honesty, humility and open-mindedness are social issues. They will be tackled at that level. No, we have not set out to make objective reality confirm to our models. We are investigating. Do you think philosophy or religion have made any change in humans?

Moral change? Yes, and far more-so than science has. Science gives us increased functionality, while philosophy gives us the reasoning to apply it, but religion and art gives those reasons their values.

They worsened the scene for many centuries. It is only now when the hold of religion has slackened that we are thinking of other things.

That's just nonsense. You wouldn't even know what "bad stuff" is if philosophy, art, and religion had not helped you recognize what "good stuff" is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It cuts both ways. You mean an upheaval in our current knowledge? Generally what happens is refinement, like since Newton. Of course, possibilities exist.
You mean we should return to 'not knowing', pick grains from wild grasses, climb trees when predators attack us, etc. Sorry, the clock cannot be put back, survive or perish. It won't make any difference to Mother Earth.
My question is 'What if not science?'
"Yes, and far more-so than science has. Science gives us increased functionality, while philosophy gives us the reasoning to apply it, but religion and art gives those reasons their values.": Bombs and missiles have been very effective in avoiding war, more than philosophy and religion.
Good stuff is known even without religion. Religions have only plagiarized it.

 

[blü 2]

If we perceive it, it is no longer existing "external to the self".

No, our perception of things with objective existence is distinct from, is not the same thing as the things themselves. Otherwise there'd be nothing for our senses to perceive but our own imaginings, and I'm not a solipsist.

And since the "self" is the subject of our subjective experience

The brain monitors and edits the incoming sensory data and interpret the parts it deems relevant. Is that what you're referring to?

our perception of this "external world" is a subjective perception (creating a subjective conception of reality, in our minds)

But we have many ways of maximizing our objectivity. Other things being equal, a video will beat witness testimony in court, for example. Part of science is repeating experiments that others have done to confirm their results. Truth is our best opinion for the time being, but it still functions as truth, and it can generally be confirmed or confounded by anyone else who cares to compare it to objective reality.

What you are defining as being "the self" is your own body. But this is not accurate. What is the "self" is not just our bodies, but our cognitive being. It is our self-awareness. And that includes our subjective experience and understanding of the world in which we exist.

No, what I'm defining as the "self" is the brain's sense of self, the me that looks out through my eyes, that speaks or types this &c. Though as I said, I can use the word "I" to refer only to me=sense of self or to refer to me=brain+body.

But our subjective experience and understanding does not include all that exists. It only includes that which we have experienced and recognized, of that which exists. The rest is 'objective reality'

We don't experience all that we understand to exist. We look around, we go touring, we hear tales and reports, we read, watch docos, observe, encounter, and so on. But having objective existence, being in nature, existing external to our mentation, being real, are synonyms. There really is a world out there and our senses really do tell us about it. That our interpretations are subjective doesn't alter the reality of external reality.

And by it's very definition, it must remain there; beyond our cognitive grasp.

You must be using different definitions to me.

What you are describing is the presumed relative truthfulness of functionality.

I thought I knew what 'functionality' meant, but I see I'll have to ask you for your definition.

The problem is that when we think we have access to "objective reality", we start thinking that relative functionality is "the truth".

As I said earlier, either to you or in another post, 'truth' means correspondence with objective reality, and so there's an objective test for truth. But eg in matters explored by reasoned enquiry, like physics, truth is our best opinion for the time being, not anything absolute. As I also said, there are no absolutes outside this sentence.

And when we espouse science as the primary means of determining this relative functionality, we have entered the error-prone philosophy of "scientism".

I'll wait till you explain your use of 'functionality' before I respond to that (though I'll flag that scientism is not the same thing as a preference for evidence-based conclusions and can easily sound like a cheap shot in conversations of this kind).

We are not testing it against reality. We are only testing it against our subjective perception and understanding of reality.

Think of it as a consensus of people with the qualifications to have credible opinions: we're testing X's report about reality against the reports on the same reality from those people, we're after the best opinion available to us.

The "so what" is called honesty, humility, and open-mindedness.

I'm open-minded only up to a point. When the claims aren't backed by evidence, when there's no reply to my request, Really? Show me, my skeptical side seems to dominate.

What has science ever done to make humanity wiser, or morally responsible to each other or the world?

It can help clear out superstition, bring discipline and clarity of thought, reply to cigarette companies and global warming deniers, and make good things as well as bad things possible. Be it noted that religion has led to many many many more wars than science has.

 

[PureX]

No, our perception of things with objective existence is distinct from, is not the same thing as the things themselves. Otherwise there'd be nothing for our senses to perceive but our own imaginings, and I'm not a solipsist.

All we get are the perceptions, however, not the "things". In fact, the "things" are not things at all, but undifferentiated phenomena until we perceive them, and differentiate them in our minds. All we can ever know of is it is what we subjectively experience, and subjectively differentiate and relate, in our own limited minds. We presume there is an objective reality from the input we receive, but we can never get beyond that assumption. And that assumption is, itself, a subjectively derived determination.

The brain monitors and edits the incoming sensory data and interpret the parts it deems relevant. Is that what you're referring to?

That's how we create what we call "reality" in our own minds. We are interacting with something, but we can never know what beyond our limited and subjective experience of it.

But we have many ways of maximizing our objectivity.

These are all delusional, sorry. Just as our "reality" is, itself, a delusion created in our minds in the absence of our ability to know otherwise.

Other things being equal, a video will beat witness testimony in court, for example. Part of science is repeating experiments that others have done to confirm their results. Truth is our best opinion for the time being, but it still functions as truth, and it can generally be confirmed or confounded by anyone else who cares to compare it to objective reality.

The video only supports the delusion that we "know what happened", because it shows us what we presume to be important to knowing this. But the video can't show guilt or innocence: the "truth" of the crime. We just make that up, and pretend/presume we got it right. Our reality is a similar delusion, based on similarly limited and subjective "evidence". That we similarly pretend/presume to be "the truth".

As to "objective reality", that remains an ideological myth based on the fact that we are receiving input from 'something' outside ourselves. But we have no way of verifying this because all we have to go on is the input, itself. We have no access to it's presumed origin.

 

[blü 2]

the "things" are not things at all, but undifferentiated phenomena until we perceive them, and differentiate them in our minds.

I agree that our evolved genetics determine a lot about how we interpret what we perceive, right from birth. I'm comforted that those genetics reflect how to survive as a gregarious primate, and how to breed successfully ─ if they didn't attune us to reality sufficiently for those two purposes, we wouldn't be here. I also agree that our priorities, genetic or nonconscious or deliberate, affect our selection of what is relevant to us in incoming sensory data, and that we translate the data accordingly.

All we can ever know of is it is what we subjectively experience, and subjectively differentiate and relate, in our own limited minds. We presume there is an objective reality from the input we receive, but we can never get beyond that assumption.

Try stepping in front of a speeding truck ─ you'll find there really is something out there. that looks and acts like and may very well be a speeding truck, a real one, conforming to the intentions of its maker and owners and drivers. We can manipulate reality, and we continue to enlarge our understanding of reality and our control over it, whether landing rovers on Mars, or developing microorganisms that will eat ocean-dump plastics without producing waste just as harmful.

That's how we create what we call "reality" in our own minds. We are interacting with something, but we can never know what beyond our limited and subjective experience of it.

We know enough to develop atomic theory, which becomes the standard model and generates QM along the way. Or do you disagree with the Standard Model, and disbelieve that the evidence demonstrates a real Higgs boson?

But the video can't show guilt or innocence

It's not asked to show guilt or innocence. It's asked to show what the facts are. The judgment whether those facts constitute a breach BY A OF rule Z is (so far) made by humans.

: the "truth" of the crime. We just make that up

We make up the rules, sure: let's say if your vehicle is driven through a red light and none of the exemptions applies, then you cop a penalty. So was your vehicle driven through a red light? Yup, the camera shows, that at time T at place P, vehicle V was driven through a red light; and other things being equal that will be good evidence of the happening. (Showing that you owned the vehicle and that no exemptions apply will need to be done in other ways.)

What exactly do you say is being pretended about the camera evidence here?

As to "objective reality", that remains an ideological myth based on the fact that we are receiving input from 'something' outside ourselves. But we have no way of verifying this because all we have to go on is the input, itself. We have no access to it's presumed origin.

If you don't believe in objective reality, why do you post on the net? Or do you think you're not actually posting on the net?

 

[PureX]

Try stepping in front of a speeding truck ─ you'll find there really is something out there. that looks and acts like and may very well be a speeding truck, a real one, conforming to the intentions of its maker and owners and drivers. We can manipulate reality, and we continue to enlarge our understanding of reality and our control over it, whether landing rovers on Mars, or developing microorganisms that will eat ocean-dump plastics without producing waste just as harmful.

All this equates to is interactive manipulation. What we understand, we can try to control. What we don't understand often controls us. But it's still all just phenomena, both in our heads and beyond, being sifted through by our desire for control. And what is beyond always remains beyond. While what is in our heads always remains subject to our limited capacity to experience and understand the phenomena of existing. The truth is "what is": ... ALL of it. "Reality" is the delusion we create in our heads about it, based on our limited capacity for experiencing and understanding the whole of "what is". We don't have access to the truth because the truth is a singular whole. So we make it up in our minds, out of related bits and pieces, and we call it "reality". And we pretend it's true even though we are constantly being shown that "reality" is a delusion based on relative functionality which we take as some watered down form of truthfulness, which is not 'the truth'.

Functionality is not truth. But since we cannot know the truth, we accept relative functionality as being a kind of truth because it "works" relative to our desire to control our own existence.

We make up the rules, sure: let's say if your vehicle is driven through a red light and none of the exemptions applies, then you cop a penalty. So was your vehicle driven through a red light? Yup, the camera shows, that at time T at place P, vehicle V was driven through a red light; and other things being equal that will be good evidence of the happening. (Showing that you owned the vehicle and that no exemptions apply will need to be done in other ways.)

What exactly do you say is being pretended about the camera evidence here?

That it gave us knowledge of "the truth". It did not. It merely interrelated various functions to allow us to pretend that we have obtained "the truth".

If you don't believe in objective reality, why do you post on the net? Or do you think you're not actually posting on the net?

I don't have to pretend that I know "the truth" about what I'm doing, to do it. I can do it just because I want to. Which is really why any of us do anything. It's pretending that we can own "the truth" that is the delusion, here, not our desire.

 

[Segev Moran]

In maths, 'true' means 'correct according to the rules of the system'.

Agreed.

It's only 'absolute' in the sense that if the elements are correctly expressed and the process (here, addition) is correctly carried out, the result will be necessarily be the same each time.

Agreed.

That's why we could make adding machines and can make calculators - process, not discretion, is required.

That's only a small part of the reason.

Numbers such as 'two' and 'four' and 'pi' are concepts

Correct.

not things

Why not?
Everything in our reality is a concept.
Nothing is an actual thing.
Math, is the language we invented to describe reality.
No matter how you look at it, 2 things are objectively to a human mind, 2 things.
You can call it 2, 5, or 7. it is still objectively 2 things.

, and your equation is not a statement about reality but a statement about concepts within a reasoned system. It is only true within that system.

Of course.
And no matter how far you will go back in time, the objective truth is that our reality is exactly how we experience it.
Subjectively, our reality can be a grain of sand in a much bigger reality.

Any instantiation of '2 + 2' will be the result of a process of human selection and deeming, not a statement about reality as such.

How about The moon orbits earth?
Even though we know that earth also orbits the moon, the objective truth is our reality, is that the moon orbits the earth.
If humans will reach space and will live on mars for example, their perspective might change, yet the motion of the moon and the earth will remain the same.

Two trees together with two other trees will give four trees only after a human brain has perceived a real situation, has decided trees are relevant, has determined that THIS tree and THIS tree are relevant, and THAT tree and THAT tree are relevant: only within such a mentally constructed frame is this an instantiation of the abstraction '2 + 2'.

How amazing huh? almost seems that our ability to speak, literally, generates our reality

But if I have a jug that holds two pints, and a can that holds three pints, and I fill the jug twice and empty it into the can, 2 + 2 = 3 for all useful purposes. That's not a trick ─ it just underlines that without a brain imposing a conceptual frame no sums can be done, whether real (these trees and those trees) or purely conceptual (2 + 2).

Humans known objective truth is our reality. when i say reality i mean the physical reality.
There is another reality that we try to describe.
You'll be wrong to think that it wasn't done with languages other than math, and as it seems, much earlier and not less accurate.

 

[Segev Moran]

These are still relational statements.

Everything is relational.
This doesn't mean it does not describe an objective truth.

 

[crossfire]

Everything is relational.
This doesn't mean it does not describe an objective truth.

That is the point I've been trying to get across.

 

[Segev Moran]

That is the point I've been trying to get across.

It is still an objective truth.

 

[crossfire]

It is still an objective truth.

No argument here.

 

[blü 2]

All this equates to is interactive manipulation. What we understand, we can try to control.

Ah, so there is an objective reality then. The only question is how much of it we understand and can control, you say. I can agree with that.

What we don't understand often controls us.

That's the political norm lately,

But it's still all just phenomena, both in our heads and beyond, being sifted through by our desire for control.

But the objective phenomena are real, and the brain states and processes that produce the phenomena in our heads are also real.

And what is beyond always remains beyond.

That can't be right. We confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson 2012-2016, so what was beyond was no longer beyond, no longer hypothetical but an aspect of reality. Similarly we're working on, for example, dark matter, a description of the mechanisms of consciousness, global warming, the factors that explain the relationship between our gut biochemistry and our wellbeing, a healthy substitute for corn syrup, the meaning of 'overpopulation' and its remedy, and what to do about Donald. As we do these things, we keep looking for new phenomena, new things that need explaining, new angles, insights and discoveries.

While what is in our heads always remains subject to our limited capacity to experience and understand the phenomena of existing.

You keep repeating how ******* stupid we are. I instead keep admiring and cheering for our explorers, realizers, achievers in the realms of thinking.

The truth is "what is": ... ALL of it. "Reality" is the delusion we create in our heads about it, based on our limited capacity for experiencing and understanding the whole of "what is".

So your parents weren't real, you say?

We don't have access to the truth because the truth is a singular whole.

Ah, there's your problem! You're using some inflated idealized notion of TRUTH™! No, truth is determined by its correspondence with reality, and as our best understanding of reality changes, so does truth. It once was true that the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, and now it isn't &c &c. Truth isn't absolute, merely retrospective.

Functionality is not truth. But since we cannot know the truth, we accept relative functionality as being a kind of truth because it "works" relative to our desire to control our own existence.

The reason we can't know the TRUTH™ is because there's no such thing. But there's no end of truth to be found. Truth isn't truth because it works, by the way. A statement is true because it accurately reflects our best understanding of reality for the time being.

And that understanding is evidence-based.

 

[blü 2]

Why not?
Everything in our reality is a concept.
Nothing is an actual thing.

You're an actual thing. The air you breath is real. Your computer is an actual thing. The screen I'm reading your post on is an actual thing. The e-phenomena putting your post on my screen are real phenomena. Sunburn is a real phenomenon. What's your problem?

Math, is the language we invented to describe reality.

In that case, we made a very clumsy job of it. For example, there are no mathematical points, lines or planes in reality, no instantiations of pi or any other nonrational real number, no Cantorian infinities, and so on.

No matter how you look at it, 2 things are objectively to a human mind, 2 things.

It's thought that some birds, particularly crows, have an evolved perception of numbers up to three. It's thought that humans have a similar instinctive response to specific quantities up to five. Beyond that, the shepherd counts the sheep by putting a pebble in a bag as each one goes past, and taking a pebble out as each sheep comes back. Or makes a notch on a stick as each goes out, and runs his thumbnail down the notches as each comes back ─ an unquantified one-to-one correspondence. Maths with integers larger than five is a learnt thing.

You can call it 2, 5, or 7. it is still objectively 2 things.

Only if you and I agree on the frame ─ what are we counting, and within what part of reality? How many cups in front of Elmer? On the table? In the kitchen? Do mugs count as cups? And so on. If we don't agree we don't get a result. How objective is that?

If humans will reach space and will live on mars for example, their perspective might change, yet the motion of the moon and the earth will remain the same.

Yes, whether maths exists or not, and whether the applicable formulas are perfectly accurate or only approximate or simply wrong.

There is another reality that we try to describe.

In what sense is it real if it doesn't exist unless there's at least one brain around that holds the relevant set of concepts?

 

[Agent]

Jesus said that he was a witness to the truth, while Pilate said, "What is the truth?"

 

[Frog]

Jesus said that he was a witness to the truth, while Pilate said, "What is the truth?"

The Absolute truth can not adequately be described in relative terms

 

[Segev Moran]

You're an actual thing. The air you breath is real. Your computer is an actual thing. The screen I'm reading your post on is an actual thing.

You are an real thing.
What you actually are, is a collection of trillions of trillions of trillions and many times more, small "power-cells". we call them atoms.
they are made out of smaller parts, that in turn are made of even smaller parts.
these parts are not made of matter. they seem to be a sort of a wave-particle. riding the thing we call space-time.
there is a force we cannot yet understand that drives all these "wavicles" into motion.
we are a collection of energies or what ever you choose to call it, that clamps to generate our entire reality.
The big question is how this enormous collection of atoms that "generates" you, can be controlled by another bunch of such atoms that are located in another location?

The e-phenomena putting your post on my screen are real phenomena.

Agreed.

Sunburn is a real phenomenon. What's your problem?

Agreed, and i have some, nothing i worry about too much. but thanks for taking interest
[/QUOTE]
In that case, we made a very clumsy job of it. For example, there are no mathematical points, lines or planes in reality, no instantiations of pi or any other nonrational real number, no Cantorian infinities, and so on.
[/QUOTE]
Yet we came up with the same "actual" things you mentioned above only thanks to this clumsy math.
Points, lines, planes, PI.. these are all a part of what we call Algebra. it can describe movement paths,surfaces, volumes. it can explain people how to build a miles long bridge. it can describe how rain falls, it describes what size your car wheel should be, it describes how fast a water wave will move and so on.

It's thought that some birds, particularly crows, have an evolved perception of numbers up to three.
It's thought that humans have a similar instinctive response to specific quantities up to five.

Makes sense.
Our brain contain many more neurons causing it to be more effective in storing "patterns".
Some amazingly unique brains can remember trillions of patterns, some can less.
i can't see how that negates the statement i have made?
The "human" advantage, is that we can invent numbers that don't exist.
Same process, different abilities. imagine that.

Beyond that, the shepherd counts the sheep by putting a pebble in a bag as each one goes past, and taking a pebble out as each sheep comes back.

Sounds effective

Or makes a notch on a stick as each goes out, and runs his thumbnail down the notches as each comes back ─ an unquantified one-to-one correspondence.

Even more effective

Maths with integers larger than five is a learnt thing.

All Math is a learned thing.

Only if you and I agree on the frame ─ what are we counting, and within what part of reality?
Obviously.

How many cups in front of Elmer? On the table? In the kitchen? Do mugs count as cups? And so on.

Indeed.
Yet when you will be asked, there is a common sense that will help you with all those questions.
The beauty is we can decide against this common sense when ever we like

If we don't agree we don't get a result. How objective is that?

Humans agree that there is one moon orbiting our plant.
This is true even if some call it 5 moon. the fact is, there is only 1.
In a room, with nothing but boxes, when asked how many boxes are there, each can answer in whatever language they want.
It'll still remain the same number of chairs regardless of who exists in the room .
This is what science is based on. measuring things.

Yes, whether maths exists or not,

Exactly!

and whether the applicable formulas are perfectly accurate or only approximate or simply wrong.
In what sense is it real if it doesn't exist unless there's at least one brain around that holds the relevant set of concepts?

Exactly!
It is objective in our reality. the other reality is a whole different reality its got its own objective truths.