Objectively Real

[Willamena]

By taking it away.



Anything.

How does one "take it away" from anything?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How does one "take it away" from anything?

Well, for example, if we're talking about Bob's subjective viewpoint, we could remove Bob's subjective view by killing him or rendering him unconscious.

 

[Engyo]

If something is objectively true then it is true everywhere, all the time, under any condition or circumstance.

You are thinking of subjective truth where it is true only in certain places or certain times or when certain conditions are met.

Air pressure at sea level on earth is 14.7 PSIA. Air pressure at geosynchronous orbit above earth is effectively 0 PSIA. Does this make air pressure subjective, according to your criteria?

 

[Willamena]

Well, for example, if we're talking about Bob's subjective viewpoint, we could remove Bob's subjective view by killing him or rendering him unconscious.

Haha!

We remove it from "the picture," and we do that by changing the picture. No murder necessary. We paint the picture this way (with subjectivity), or we paint the picture that way (sans subjectivity)... But whatever way we paint it, there remains a picture. And, always, an observer.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Haha!

We remove it from "the picture," and we do that by changing the picture. No murder necessary. We paint the picture this way (with subjectivity), or we paint the picture that way (sans subjectivity)... But whatever way we paint it, there remains a picture. And, always, an observer.

But there are always things that are unobserved, and/or have never/not yet been observed. And the fact of their existence isn't negated by this.

 

[Willamena]

But there are always things that are unobserved, and/or have never/not yet been observed. And the fact of their existence isn't negated by this.

Is there anything that you can honestly claim to exist, that no one has ever seen, experienced, heard of, etc.?

I hope not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is there anything that you can honestly claim to exist, that no one has ever seen, experienced, heard of, etc.?

Indeed - the vast majority of what's in our universe.

As a small, specific example, assuming that astronauts at some point walk on Mars, one of those astronauts will invariably pick up a rock - a rock that is sitting on the surface of Mars right now, and has been for countless years. No one has ever seen or touched this rock before, but it exists at this moment, objectively.

 

[Willamena]

As a small, specific example, assuming that astronauts at some point walk on Mars, one of those astronauts will invariably pick up a rock - a rock that is sitting on the surface of Mars right now, and has been for countless years. No one has ever seen or touched this rock before, but it exists at this moment, objectively.

Is it safe to say that there is, right now, evidence of rocks on Mars?

Rocks on Mars have been evidenced. Automatically, then, there is a "subjective perspective" inherent.

Edit: Not so for, for example, the tea cup orbiting Pluto.

 

[Engyo]

Is it safe to say that there is, right now, evidence of rocks on Mars?

Rocks on Mars have been evidenced. Automatically, then, there is a "subjective perspective" inherent.

Edit: Not so for, for example, the tea cup orbiting Pluto.

Can we count experiencing something remotely (ie through the Mars Rovers) as being sufficient to move something from the subjective to the objective category?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is it safe to say that there is, right now, evidence of rocks on Mars?

Rocks on Mars have been evidenced. Automatically, then, there is a "subjective perspective" inherent.

Edit: Not so for, for example, the tea cup orbiting Pluto.

"Rocks on Mars" however, isn't that specific rock. Additionally, this was just one example. There are undoubtedly physical objects that exist, that we haven't seen yet. For example, before the advent of the telescope, the planet Saturn was known as visible, yet there was no knowledge that the planet had rings. The rings around Saturn still objectively existed before they were observed, or conjectured.

 

[Willamena]

Can we count experiencing something remotely (ie through the Mars Rovers) as being sufficient to move something from the subjective to the objective category?

In my opinion, we should count everything included in the picture as inherently both subjective (to the observer as subject, and with itself as the subject) and objective (true, and cast across the divide).

 

[Willamena]

"Rocks on Mars" however, isn't that specific rock. Additionally, this was just one example. There are undoubtedly physical objects that exist, that we haven't seen yet. For example, before the advent of the telescope, the planet Saturn was known as visible, yet there was no knowledge that the planet had rings. The rings around Saturn still objectively existed before they were observed, or conjectured.

Oh, that's right. . . there are quite a few tea cups orbiting Pluto.

Are these "undoubtedly physical objects" specific things (like that particular rock) that you can claim exist? I'll just sit over here and wait. . .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, that's right. . . there are quite a few tea cups orbiting Pluto.

Are these "undoubtedly physical objects" specific things (like that particular rock) that you can claim exist? I'll just sit over here and wait. . .

Whether I can claim they exist has no bearing on their objective existence, which is the whole point.

While you're waiting, you might want to ponder the rings of Saturn example.

 

[Willamena]

Whether I can claim they exist has no bearing on their objective existence, which is the whole point.

But it does have a bearing on the truthful claim of existence. We cannot claim this "undoubtedly" objective reality as truthful without bending* a bit.

While you're waiting, you might want to ponder the rings of Saturn example.

The rings of Saturn could be truthfully claimed to exist only once they were known to exist.

*over backwards, standing on our head, and reciting Shakespear

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But it does have a bearing on the truthful claim of existence. We cannot claim this "undoubtedly" objective reality as truthful without bending* a bit.

I'm not talking about the truthful claim of existence - but simply existence.

The rings of Saturn could be truthfully claimed to exist only once they were known to exist.

Right, but I'm not talking about being able to truthfully claim their existence. They existed, objectively, before they were known to exist.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not talking about the truthful claim of existence - but simply existence.

If we abandon truth, we can claim anything.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If we abandon truth, we can claim anything.

True, but the point is that the claim has no bearing on the objective existence of something. Nobody claimed Saturn had rings before they were discovered, but even if someone had, that claim, nor the non-claim, would have had any bearing on the actual, objective existence of Saturn's rings.

 

[Willamena]

True, but the point is that the claim has no bearing on the objective existence of something.

We cannot truthfully claim that anything exists apart from anything we can truthfully claim exists. So I would say it does have a bearing.

Nobody claimed Saturn had rings before they were discovered, but even if someone had, that claim, nor the non-claim, would have had any bearing on the actual, objective existence of Saturn's rings.

And once they had been discovered, they could truthfully be claimed (all the way back to their beginning).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We cannot truthfully claim that anything exists apart from anything we can truthfully claim exists. So I would say it does have a bearing.

I'm not sure how you mean. By what process does our ability to truthfully claim something exists actually have any effect on whether it objectively exists or not?

Are you saying that something doesn't exist unless we can truthfully claim it exists? If so, are you proposing that when we discover something new, it didn't actually exist until we discovered it?

And once they had been discovered, they could truthfully be claimed (all the way back to their beginning).

But even before they were discovered, they still existed. The subjective view of a claim on their existence had no impact on their actual objective existence.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure how you mean. By what process does our ability to truthfully claim something exists actually have any effect on whether it objectively exists or not?

It doesn't . I spoke only about what can truthfully be claimed to objectively exist. Anything beyond that cannot be said to truthfully objectively exist.

Of course, we can speculate all we want. We know only what we know about reality, and we can't make any truthful claims about the "undoubtedly" real.

Are you saying that something doesn't exist unless we can truthfully claim it exists? If so, are you proposing that when we discover something new, it didn't actually exist until we discovered it?

I'm saying that something cannot be truthfully claimed to exist unless it is known to exist (either empirically or theoretically, but not hypothetically). Does that make sense?

But even before they were discovered, they still existed. The subjective view of a claim on their existence had no impact on their actual objective existence.

That "they existed" in the past is claim in nature. (Speculative, too, but I'll allow it.)