Thoughts on subjective vs objective truth?

[SmallKoy]

Do you believe in objective truth or do you think everything is subjective?

 

[ilovecats]

I believe that these is an objective truth but it's impossible to see, as humans only can see a very limited part of the picture and there's no guarantee that knowledge reflects reality. The human mind is not made to see the objective truth of this world, but for survival. The concept of "we can't know" is called epistemological nihilism

 

[SmallKoy]

I believe that these is an objective truth but it's impossible to see, as humans only can see a very limited part of the picture and there's no guarantee that knowledge reflects reality. The human mind is not made to see the objective truth of this world, but for survival. The concept of "we can't know" is called epistemological nihilism

Interesting perspective. I will certainly be researching epistemological nihilism.

 

[Darkover]

reality as certain facts about it that are always true the truth is worth pursuing

 

[sserafim]

Honestly, I'm not really sure. I think that there is an objective truth and everyone has their own subjective version of the truth. What do you think?

 

[SmallKoy]

Honestly, I'm not really sure. I think that there is an objective truth and everyone has their own subjective truth. What do you think?

I think that there is objective truths, I would say that I am a spiritual person but I also strongly believe in science. I would agree that everyone has their own subjective truth. I think there are many objective truths, like science and mathematics for example, or the Earth being round. Maybe I could be convinced otherwise. Not sure. Just something I have been thinking about.

 

[DarkRange55]

I'll have to respond to this tomorrow but you have an awesome avatar!

 

[SmallKoy]

I'll have to respond to this tomorrow but you have an awesome avatar!

Thank you. Yours is great as well

 

[CTB Dream]

Objctv sm posbl see human see math etc cnssnt this objctv

 

[Pluto]

As we are speaking at an intellectual level, then I would say no, everything knowable is subjective.

Science is the worst offender if you look at its history. The Earth was the centre of the 'solar system' until just several hundred years ago. Then Newton's laws governed the universe until about a century ago when they turned out to be completely wrong.

Then came relativity and quantum mechanics, etc. which to this day do not actually fit together, not to mention being completely unintuitive from the conventional human perspective. And to say that all scientists agree with each other on all points would be absurd. As much as I respect science, it certainly has its limits.

 

[Slow_Farewell]

There are objective truths but it's difficult to figure out which ones are truly objective.

 

[DarkRange55]

The only objective truth that I know is that I exist. All else that I know is subjective.
But that may be a limitation of me, rather than of the universe as a whole.

I think that within our universe they (math & science) do count as objective truths (but my knowledge of the nature of our universe is subjective).
My guess would be that in any universe (within the multiverse) consistent enough to bring forth human level consciousness there would be science and mathematics that would be objective truths.

 

[sserafim]

The only objective truth that I know is that I exist. All else that I know is subjective.
But that may be a limitation of me, rather than of the universe as a whole.

I think that within our universe they (math & science) do count as objective truths (but my knowledge of the nature of our universe is subjective).
My guess would be that in any universe (within the multiverse) consistent enough to bring forth human level consciousness there would be science and mathematics that would be objective truths.

What if life is a simulation and you don't actually exist?

 

[SmallKoy]

The only objective truth that I know is that I exist. All else that I know is subjective.
But that may be a limitation of me, rather than of the universe as a whole.

I think that within our universe they (math & science) do count as objective truths (but my knowledge of the nature of our universe is subjective).
My guess would be that in any universe (within the multiverse) consistent enough to bring forth human level consciousness there would be science and mathematics that would be objective truths.

I agree with you. Well said.

 

[Homo erectus]

I doubt there is objective truth. But somehow it appears that there are patterns in subjective experience.

 

[DarkRange55]

As we are speaking at an intellectual level, then I would say no, everything knowable is subjective.

Science is the worst offender if you look at its history. The Earth was the centre of the 'solar system' until just several hundred years ago. Then Newton's laws governed the universe until about a century ago when they turned out to be completely wrong.

Then came relativity and quantum mechanics, etc. which to this day do not actually fit together, not to mention being completely unintuitive from the conventional human perspective. And to say that all scientists agree with each other on all points would be absurd. As much as I respect science, it certainly has its limits.

Newton's Laws still govern. It's his understanding of gravity that was tweaked. Thats the beauty of science. It's constantly refining and updating its understanding. We are talking to each other on the internet and with electronic devices because we have scientific knowledge. Science is never "certain" of anything unlike religion. Scientists don't talk like that. They speak in terms of probability.
Proof should only be used in a system where the axioms are clearly stated. In science, we cannot be sure that the axioms properly reflect reality, so we cannot really prove anything once we take reality into account.
Math can have proofs because it does not have to deal with the reality of the universe, so its assumptions don't have external dependencies. You can prove something within a closed system of assumptions in science (basically reducing that part of science to mathematics), but you can't really be sure that your assumptions reflect the way the universe works.

Religion erases the question marks in men's hearts and replaces them with periods and exclamation marks.

What if life is a simulation and you don't actually exist?

Its possible but what is the evidence?

it is based on the assumption that simulations will be trivial for advanced intelligences, and that they will bother to do it.
If you accept on both of those assumptions, then the simulation hypothesis is sound.

I don't think that it would be trivial for them – it is just that the simulation hypothesis assumes that it would be trivial enough for them that they would often do it.

 

[R_N]

Tough one. I could say some things are completely a figment of imagination and others are real even if they are seen and experienced differently.

There are many things we don't know but when we start to fill the gaps with fairy tales I am not the one who will take such theories seriously.

 

[SmallKoy]

Newton's Laws still govern. It's his understanding of gravity that was tweaked. Thats the beauty of science. It's constantly refining and updating its understanding. We are talking to each other on the internet and with electronic devices because we have scientific knowledge. Science is never "certain" of anything unlike religion. Scientists don't talk like that. They speak in terms of probability.
Proof should only be used in a system where the axioms are clearly stated. In science, we cannot be sure that the axioms properly reflect reality, so we cannot really prove anything once we take reality into account.
Math can have proofs because it does not have to deal with the reality of the universe, so its assumptions don't have external dependencies. You can prove something within a closed system of assumptions in science (basically reducing that part of science to mathematics), but you can't really be sure that your assumptions reflect the way the universe works.

Religion erases the question marks in men's hearts and replaces them with periods and exclamation marks.

Its possible but what is the evidence?

it is based on the assumption that simulations will be trivial for advanced intelligences, and that they will bother to do it.
If you accept on both of those assumptions, then the simulation hypothesis is sound.

I don't think that it would be trivial for them – it is just that the simulation hypothesis assumes that it would be trivial enough for them that they would often do it.

Excellent responses. I think that us questioning if we are a simulation, to me, is proof enough that we are likely not a simulation. Why would we question that? I feel as though we wouldn't be questioning a lot of things, if we were.

 

[SexyIncél]

I typically use a realist philosophy. It says there's an objective reality — regardless of whether we believe in it. (When people say "Be realistic!", that's what they mean)

But! Our UNDERSTANDINGS of that objective reality are fallible

Spoiler: About the philosophical framework I often use

Ok, so that philosophy is called Critical Realism. (Those two words are shoved together for a quirky historical reason; it's not calling itself a particularly critical form of realism.) A good intro is Collier's book. And here's workshop videos

Consider why things fall to the ground. People like Aristotle explained it like "Things go to their natural place". A feather falls slower than a bowling ball. A balloon might actually go up — not down

But we've developed the concept of gravity:

1. The gravity mechanism's there, even if another mechanism nullifies it (like a helium balloon's buoyancy)
2. Any such theory could be wrong (and often have been)
3. The mechanism of gravity goes beyond appearances. (We don't directly perceive gravity. We just perceive things falling, sometimes)
4. Gravity can even contradict appearances — the gravity theory predicts the feather & bowling ball should fall at the same rate

So Collier says:

The word 'real', in many contexts, draws its content from its contrast with 'apparent'. A theory is realist in a stronger sense than others if it makes the following claims for knowledge:

1. Objectivity, in the sense that what is known would be real whether or not it were known: something may be real without appearing at all.
2. Fallibility: for insofar as claims are being made, not about some supposedly infallible or incorrigible data of appearance, but about something that goes beyond them, the claims are always open to refutation by further information.
3. Transphenomenality, going beyond appearances: knowledge may be not only of what appears, but of underlying structures, which endure longer than those appearances, and generate them or make them possible. We may have knowledge, not just of actions but of characters; not just of historical events but of social systems; not just of family likenesses but of the molecular structure of DNA.
4. Counter-phenomenality: knowledge of the deep structure of something may not just go beyond, and not just explain, but also contradict appearances. It is well known that Marx thought that it was precisely the capacity of science for counter-phenomenality which made it necessary: without the contradiction between appearance and reality, science would be redundant, and we could go by appearances. Later, I shall defend the weaker claim that its capacity for counter-phenomenality is what makes science a force for human emancipation.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think there are some objective truths. Like- water will turn to ice at a specific temperature and evaporate at another temperature. Ok- temperature is a human made scale but- some things will react predictably in certain conditions and if they don't- it's likely because the conditions were slightly different. Ok- ice and steam are also simply human words but- each time, they will have predictable qualities so- it seems safe to assume they are the same thing each time.

Still, there's just so much we don't know or properly understand, so a lot of our understanding is still theory I suppose. I remember feeling distraught when a friend of mine doing A Level Chemistry said that everything we'd learnt about atoms and electrons at GCSE level was oversimplified to the point of being complete crap! I thought- great. All that time spent revising and I'm going to be remembering lies in years to come.

I guess there must be objective truth to everything out there. For example, however the earth came about- there must have been a sequence of events that happened. Whether we'll ever completely work it out though or- figure out what was here before all that- who knows?

But, isn't objective truth simply that something happened and was understood fully at the time? I can tell you the objective truth that I ate a packet of cheese and onion crisps at lunch. The only way you could refute that is if either the crisps didn't exist, or I don't. Or, neither of us do. They were nice though. That's my subjective opinion...

 

[DarkRange55]

I think there are some objective truths. Like- water will turn to ice at a specific temperature and evaporate at another temperature. Ok- temperature is a human made scale but- some things will react predictably in certain conditions and if they don't- it's likely because the conditions were slightly different. Ok- ice and steam are also simply human words but- each time, they will have predictable qualities so- it seems safe to assume they are the same thing each time.

Still, there's just so much we don't know or properly understand, so a lot of our understanding is still theory I suppose. I remember feeling distraught when a friend of mine doing A Level Chemistry said that everything we'd learnt about atoms and electrons at GCSE level was oversimplified to the point of being complete crap! I thought- great. All that time spent revising and I'm going to be remembering lies in years to come.

I guess there must be objective truth to everything out there. For example, however the earth came about- there must have been a sequence of events that happened. Whether we'll ever completely work it out though or- figure out what was here before all that- who knows?

But, isn't objective truth simply that something happened and was understood fully at the time? I can tell you the objective truth that I ate a packet of cheese and onion crisps at lunch. The only way you could refute that is if either the crisps didn't exist, or I don't. Or, neither of us do. They were nice though. That's my subjective opinion...

"Theory" has a different meaning in common parlance than it does scientifically.

from Grammerly - Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence. Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

I would argue that facts are objective, truth is subjective…
(I'm certain this will get a philosophical backlash)
Something like the block universe is a is at the boundary between philosophy and physics.

Philosophy deals with things like the meaning of truth and the meaning of proof, which are applied in mathematics.
>> I doubt there is objective truth.
How is "cogito, ergo sum" (or one of its slightly broader versions) not an objective truth?

 

[Forever Sleep]

"Theory" has a different meaning in common parlance than it does scientifically.

from Grammerly - Objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence. Subjective means information or perspectives based on feelings, opinions, or emotions.

I would argue that facts are objective, truth is subjective…
(I'm certain this will get a philosophical backlash)
Something like the block universe is a is at the boundary between philosophy and physics.

Philosophy deals with things like the meaning of truth and the meaning of proof, which are applied in mathematics.
>> I doubt there is objective truth.
How is "cogito, ergo sum" (or one of its slightly broader versions) not an objective truth?

All very interesting to think about. I think you have a more agile brain than me...

'Facts' can be misquoted, mispelled or completely manipulated. In which case, they're false. Do you reckon all companies are honest on their tax returns? Yet- legally- they are supposed to be factual.

Law itself can be made subjective I would say. You just need a shit hot defence attorney to appeal to the jury. To make them laugh. To make it entertaining and make them feel sympathy for the accused. There can even be factual evidence presented which they somehow manage to persuade the jury to ignore... 'If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.' (In reference to the OJ Simson trial where the gloves supposedly worn by the killer were 'demonstrated' to be too small- badly but supposedly enough to convince the jury.) I guess that is typical of the difference between objective, factual evidence and an attorney's talent in turning that into subjective truth or nonsense.

'I think, therefore I am'. Hmmm, I'd lean more towards that being subjective actually. As far as we know, trees and mountains don't think and don't contemplate the meaning of life. They still exist though- try walking through one. I don't believe that thinking is the only thing that qualifies something as existing. People who are in a coma still exist but they don't have a lot of brain activity going on. It's like that whole- "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I suppose- relating to that other thread about the possibility of this world being a simulation- thinking and dreaming could actually be more of a problem when it comes to believing you truly exist too eg. What if we do exist but, somewhere else? What if we're part of a greater consciousness? And, all that was discussed on the other thread.

 

[DarkRange55]

All very interesting to think about. I think you have a more agile brain than me...

'Facts' can be misquoted, mispelled or completely manipulated. In which case, they're false. Do you reckon all companies are honest on their tax returns? Yet- legally- they are supposed to be factual.

Law itself can be made subjective I would say. You just need a shit hot defence attorney to appeal to the jury. To make them laugh. To make it entertaining and make them feel sympathy for the accused. There can even be factual evidence presented which they somehow manage to persuade the jury to ignore... 'If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.' (In reference to the OJ Simson trial where the gloves supposedly worn by the killer were 'demonstrated' to be too small- badly but supposedly enough to convince the jury.) I guess that is typical of the difference between objective, factual evidence and an attorney's talent in turning that into subjective truth or nonsense.

'I think, therefore I am'. Hmmm, I'd lean more towards that being subjective actually. As far as we know, trees and mountains don't think and don't contemplate the meaning of life. They still exist though- try walking through one. I don't believe that thinking is the only thing that qualifies something as existing. People who are in a coma still exist but they don't have a lot of brain activity going on. It's like that whole- "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I suppose- relating to that other thread about the possibility of this world being a simulation- thinking and dreaming could actually be more of a problem when it comes to believing you truly exist too eg. What if we do exist but, somewhere else? What if we're part of a greater consciousness? And, all that was discussed on the other thread.

I agree with solipsism to the extent that the existence of oneself is the only thing that one can know for sure (even the nature of that existence cannot be known for sure).
However, I disagree with those that say oneself is the only thing that exists – the existence of other things are highly probable, but simply cannot be proven.
Even if I am an illusion or a dream, I still exist as a dream or as an illusion.
Thus although I may not know the form of my existence, I know that I exist.

When you can afford a good attorney, the color of the justice system takes on a very different hue. Laws can be interpreted differently. And they are written on paper, not in stone, so they can be re-written. (Legal) laws are human constructs.