Objectively Real

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Indeed - I'm stating that whether we can truthfully claim that something exists doesn't actually determine whether it objectively exists or not.

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.

Right, but the inability to make any truthful claims about the existence of something we haven't discovered yet, doesn't have any bearing on its actual objective existence. When we discover something new (assuming that we haven't already discovered everything that exists), of course we will be able to then truthfully claim that it exists, but whatever that thing is, it still objectively exists at this moment.

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?

Makes perfect sense. I'm saying that the objective existence of something isn't dependent on our ability to know that it exists.

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

Yes, but they also existed before the claim was made. If, for some reason, world history had resulted in the telescope not yet being invented at this point, the rings would still exist objectively, although we would have no way to truthfully make that claim. Our ignorance of something has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not, but certainly makes it impossible to make a truthful claim about its existence.

 

[Alceste]

When I hear "objective reality" I think "really real" or "congruent with physics," ie: free of optical/aural/tactile or psychic delusion, unfiltered through our psychic "imaging software."

The number of people consulted is irrelevent. People in 3rd (waking) state consciousness are all perceiving the same hallucination, but their shared subjective reality does not constitute an objective reality, no matter how many reporters you consult.

Totally agree.

To begin to perceive Objective Reality you'd have to begin by looing out of the window.

Me, I'd be scared to loo out the window of a moving plane.

 

[Alceste]

I just watched a documentary on M-theory, which posits the entire universe we know is an imperceptibly thin 11-dimensional membrane, one of an infinite number of other membrane universes which create clumps of matter when they collide.

If that is objectively true, it has always been true from the beginning of our universe and beyond, and is true through an infinite number of other universes, in an infinite number of which we do not even exist to subjectively perceive it.

If it's untrue, it doesn't matter how many physicists agree that it is true - it is still objectively untrue, always has been and always will be.

Millions of children believe Santa Claus is objectively real, but their belief doesn't have the power to manifest some fat dude and a bunch of toymaking elves at the north pole. (Perhaps in an infinite number of other universes, it does. Just not this one. )

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Millions of children believe Santa Claus is objectively real, but their belief doesn't have the power to manifest some fat dude and a bunch of toymaking elves at the north pole. (Perhaps in an infinite number of other universes, it does. Just not this one. )

Figures we get stuck in the crappy non-Santa manifesting universe. Of all the luck...

 

[Engyo]

Millions of children believe Santa Claus is objectively real, but their belief doesn't have the power to manifest some fat dude and a bunch of toymaking elves at the north pole. (Perhaps in an infinite number of other universes, it does. Just not this one. )

Watch out, Alceste -

You are getting perilously close to the major premise of Robert A. Heinlein's "Number of the Beast" sci fi novel.

 

[Alceste]

Figures we get stuck in the crappy non-Santa manifesting universe. Of all the luck...

No kidding! Or one of the universes where people can fly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No kidding! Or one of the universes where people can fly.

I didn't even think of that. Now I'm just getting depressed. Where can I file for a transfer?

 

[Alceste]

I didn't even think of that. Now I'm just getting depressed. Where can I file for a transfer?

If you take a good run at the membrane, maybe you can burst through, but be careful: you might end up in the universe where George Bush is still king of America.

 

[Engyo]

If you take a good run at the membrane, maybe you can burst through, but be careful: you might end up in the universe where George Bush is still king of America.

Yeah, mapping and control are two really big issues there.......Heinlein covers this quite well.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed - I'm stating that whether we can truthfully claim that something exists doesn't actually determine whether it objectively exists or not.

I have no problem with that claim.

Right, but the inability to make any truthful claims about the existence of something we haven't discovered yet, doesn't have any bearing on its actual objective existence. When we discover something new (assuming that we haven't already discovered everything that exists), of course we will be able to then truthfully claim that it exists, but whatever that thing is, it still objectively exists at this moment.

We cannot make any factual claims about "actual objective existence", as you are attempting to do here, unless and until it can be verified that this is the case.

Makes perfect sense. I'm saying that the objective existence of something isn't dependent on our ability to know that it exists.

I have no problems with that claim, either.

Yes, but they also existed before the claim was made.

We can make that claim, now that they are discovered.

If, for some reason, world history had resulted in the telescope not yet being invented at this point, the rings would still exist objectively, although we would have no way to truthfully make that claim. Our ignorance of something has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not, but certainly makes it impossible to make a truthful claim about its existence.

We cannot make the truthful claim that they exist if they are not discovered. We (positively) have "nothing" to claim.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Looks like we've reached round-in-circles time again. I don't really have anything new to add that I haven't already said, and it appears likewise with you. Heading out in a few minutes anyway.

 

[Willamena]

Looks like we've reached round-in-circles time again. I don't really have anything new to add that I haven't already said, and it appears likewise with you. Heading out in a few minutes anyway.

Personally, I think we're agreeing.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[Alceste]

We cannot make the truthful claim that they exist if they are not discovered. We (positively) have "nothing" to claim.

No, but we can (and do) get to define what the words in our language mean. "Objective truth" implies a reality that exists independently of subjective perception. If you start mixing in a big dollop of subjectivity in your definition of "objectivity", it becomes kind of pointless to have two different words in the first place.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, I think we're agreeing.

But maybe that's just me.

Let's just disagree to disagree.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, mapping and control are two really big issues there.......Heinlein covers this quite well.

I might just have to go pick that up one of these days.

 

[Willamena]

"Objective truth" implies a reality that exists independently of subjective perception.

But truth that exists objectively (as truth does), and exists independently of subjective perception, doesn't exclude "subjective perception" either --especially as, objectively speaking, we each hold a perception that is truthfully subjective.

If you start mixing in a big dollop of subjectivity in your definition of "objectivity", it becomes kind of pointless to have two different words in the first place.

Subjectivity really exists.

I don't see pointlessness.

 

[Alceste]

But truth that exists objectively (as truth does), and exists independently of subjective perception, doesn't exclude "subjective perception" either --especially as, objectively speaking, we each hold a perception that is truthfully subjective.

No, but your question (I thought) was whether more than one person sharing a subjective perception makes it "objectively true". The answer is no. Not if it's two people, two million people, or two billion people.

I would say that most of us would intuitively guess that the more people share a subjective view, the more likely it is to be objectively true, but all of that is moot if the whole universe is actually a microscopic membrane wobbling about in 11 dimensions. Anybody you know subjectively perceive the universe that way?

Subjectivity really exists.

My point is that the word "subjectivity" is not interchangeable with "objectivity". 6 billion humans simultaneously perceiving that the universe is 3 dimensional does not make this misapprehension objectively true.

I don't see pointlessness.

The pointlessness lies in having two different and seemingly opposed words to describe the same thing. The OP implies that two people sharing a belief in Santa Claus makes Santa "objectively" real.

 

[Willamena]

No, but your question (I thought) was whether more than one person sharing a subjective perception makes it "objectively true". The answer is no. Not if it's two people, two million people, or two billion people.

I would say that most of us would intuitively guess that the more people share a subjective view, the more likely it is to be objectively true, but all of that is moot if the whole universe is actually a microscopic membrane wobbling about in 11 dimensions. Anybody you know subjectively perceive the universe that way?

My original question was about the "objectively real". In other words, we each know reality in our own way, so does the objectively real for each of us amount to nothing more than what we agree upon, based on each other's descriptions?

Have you defined a firm relationship between truth and reality? (just curious)

My point is that the word "subjectivity" is not interchangeable with "objectivity". 6 billion humans simultaneously perceiving that the universe is 3 dimensional does not make this misapprehension objectively true.

Not interchangable, correct. :yes:

I do distinguish, though, between perception and perspective and allocate "objective" and "subjective" to the latter. (I asked what was meant by "subjective perception," got no answer and tried to muddle through with it, but I probably shouldn't have.)

The pointlessness lies in having two different and seemingly opposed words to describe the same thing. The OP implies that two people sharing a belief in Santa Claus makes Santa "objectively" real.

They do not describe the same thing, though. At least not for me. In my OP question, if two people agree upon a description of Santa Claus the next question then is whether Santa is objectively real, not (an affirmation) that Santa is objectively real (the agnostic's play-ground).

 

[Alceste]

My original question was about the "objectively real". In other words, we each know reality in our own way, so does the objectively real for each of us amount to nothing more than what we agree upon, based on each other's descriptions?

Have you defined a firm relationship between truth and reality? (just curious)

I haven't defined any inflexible opinions, perceptions, perspectives or narratives that I'm aware of. When I find inflexibility in my mind I tend to deconstruct it.

What is "objectively real", if objective reality is defined as phenomena that exist regardless of whether they are perceived by humans, or bacteria, or by nothing at all, is not within our ability to comprehend.

For example, there are wavelengths of light we can not see, and sounds we can not hear. From this, we can deduce we do not - and can not - see or hear what is objectively real. All of our perception is subject to similar biological limitations.

The best we can do is to use all the tools in our limited workshop to move in the direction of objectively reality, while embracing the fact that we will never arrive, and enjoying the journey.

I do distinguish, though, between perception and perspective and allocate "objective" and "subjective" to the latter. (I asked what was meant by "subjective perception," got no answer and tried to muddle through with it, but I probably shouldn't have.)

I think subjective perception is the only kind we have. If you were a bee, for example, the world would look very different to you. So different you would hardly believe this is the same world.

They do not describe the same thing, though. At least not for me. In my OP question, if two people agree upon a description of Santa Claus the next question then is whether Santa is objectively real, not (an affirmation) that Santa is objectively real (the agnostic's play-ground).

Yeah, I can see where you're going with that - this is the journey I described above. If I see a ghost, I'm not terribly impressed. If I can get a whole room full of people together and we ALL see a ghost - and are able to describe it independently, after the fact, without conferring, and our descriptions are the same - then that becomes a beacon that guides us on the journey toward objective reality.

 

[Valjean]

How about sensory/perceptual delusions like motion -- subjectively very 'real' but physically, and thus objecively, impossible?