Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

You are arguing that Objective Reality can only exist when all Subjective accounts of reality agree. But subjectivity is, by definition, the skewed view of reality based on the observers combination of bias, sensory limitations, and frame of reference. Asking all viewers to agree before we can claim an Objective Reality is not a valid argument. It is built on a paradox of your own creation, and not one that actually exists.

Special Relativity does not disprove Objective Reality. Einstein believed in an Objective Reality as his thoughts on simultaneity demonstrate. Using the "signal confirmation" method, Einstein argued that you could know a system completely, and how it APPEARED to every observer in every frame of reference at any given state of a system. The fact that every state was knowable, even if they "disagreed" on which events occurred at the same time, was an argument for the subjective understanding of Objective Reality depending on frame of reference. Einstein would agree with me on this issue. Be believed in an Objective Reality. It was one of the reasons that he rejected the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and the source of his famous quote "God does not play dice".

I believe Whitehead's interpretation of Special Relativity would be more to your liking. He thought the problems of simultaneity said something about the real world rather than our measuring of it. I think he later retracted this stance as complete bunk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Contra:
Knowing the entire system by means of mathematical deduction is a far cry from observing the system. As special relativity declares it is impossible other than with the use of mathematics to observe the universe as seen through the eyes of a relative v observer. [ relative simultaneity issue]
A logical observation [ mathematics ] unfortunately is not quite the same thing. It presents only a simulacrum of reality and not reality per see.

I have argued a provocative and possibly controversial notion that objective reality is a self justified, self evident and self correcting state.
Even when we look at physics we find that when we consider factors like entropy {2nd law TD} and governed singularities [ illusion of duality - black holes - polarisation] [ we can see that the universe in practice is an entity that has it''s own self justification for it's existence.]

The use of a robot analogy is to aid in the understanding of that provocative notion. [ I haven't seen it demonstrated elsewhere all though I am sure there are philosophers with similar views yet to be expressed adequately.]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just simple observations of a bar magnet will show that both poles offer similar, if not exact strengths etc...

To create a magnetic field it must be balanced symmetrically if I am not mistaken.

In fact I believe it to be impossible to create an emphasis on one pole over the other. [Because if we could we would have pseudo perpetual energy devices by the bucket loads.]
This highlights how reality is self justifying in it's basic premise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously your resources are garbage because your logic is invalid.

 

This is not what objective truth means. That is the definition of subjective truth. Subjective means that truth requires subject. Objective truth means that truth does not require any subject. They are 2 opposing arguments. You cannot combine both opposing arguments, and make them the same thing.

Subjective truth: Without subject there is no truth.
Objective truth: Truth exists with or without subject.

 

What are you talking about? You just repeated exactly what I said. What is your point? It is you who do not understand. All you are doing is repeating something I already described.

 

In order for objective truth to be available to the subject, first of all, it has to exist. If there is no truth that exists independent of subject, then the question of objective truth being available is irrelevant. Something that does not exist is never available.

Because it is logically impossible for objective truth to not exist, the question of whether or not it is available is a valid question.

 

I agree completely.

 

Again you supply ample support for your complete lack of knowledge of logic.
A logic cannot be invalid.

 

Lix you still haven't answered the question:
How can an object be false with out an observer to deem it so?

 

You are granting the "observer" too much power. "Observation" is just billiard-balls colliding. Photons exciting photoreceptors in the eye, triggering the firing of synapses on the ends of neurons, causing chemical and electrical changes in the brain...

The solar system also "Observes" that there is not a second sun in orbit around Sol by the resultant orbits taken by the planets. The cause is just as direct, and the fact that the planets are stable where they are is an Observation of the FACT that our solar system is not comprised of two stars.

They were in this position before we were around to use our own method of Observing. So, either we are not needed in order for facts to align with an Objective Reality, or we have to extend the concept of "Observation" into a ludicrously wide swath which robs it of its meaning. Inanimate objects organized themselves according to FACTS in Objective Reality long before we were around to foist our subjective opinions on them or to talk about them. It is logically impossible for any other conclusion to have merit.

 

This is another fallacy.

If there is "no truth" without a subject, this doesn't mean or imply that with a subject there is "a truth". With a subject, there is a subject. Can a subject know it is a subject, if there's no "object"?

If you were the only subject in the universe, how would you know what you were?

Truth exists because subjects exist, who observe an objective "truth". Which is, that they exist as subjects who observe an "external" objective world.

Argument destroyed completely, returning to base: over.

 

What are you talking about? I've already answered that. An observer CANNOT deem something true/false in the sense of being the one to decide it. It is impossible. Observation only draws conclusions. They cannot impose their conclusions on the matter at hand.

 

ahh but you need to look a little deeper....

We as humans are also made up of "objective material", our bodies are made of matter, water, carbon etc etc and we are also part of the solar systems mass and matter.

Our bodies reflect and emit Em all the time and we are part of a self justifying reality even if we think our minds are not.

It is only the minds desire that renders everything including our own bodies as subjective.

 

sorry just responding to your earlier post that clearly shows other wise....

 

One of the basic concepts behind the theory is this little twist:
Old man says to young lad, "how old do you think I am?"
young lad makes a few wild guesses and says "I dunno how old are you?"
Old man says with a smile on his face "Exactly the same age as you are, my lad"

ashes to ashes dust to dust.....we are afterall made up of the same star dust...therfore exactly the same age.....

any ways

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it's sad how the old man thinks he's so wise for not following common parlance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what is true in reality doesn't depend on what anybody believes. if anybody thinks this is false, i'd like them to provide an example that contradicts it.

 

They have been provided numerous times, and to take the time to actually write up an essay to shut you down would be rediculious.

 

then it'll be extremely easy for you to repost one example

 

Urrr... what? You mean you want me to cite the thread? Oh wait, ok, you want me to provide you with logic which refutes you in accord with the thread lixluke? Or, you want me to provide you with numerous examples of how what is "true in reality" totally depends on what everybody believe?

Lixluke, you shine through in every post, hang a toenail by every beliefe you have, and have the same political behavior as the same person I have debated before.
The very same self defense mechanisms even!!!

If this is not proof, then what other proof do you want?

lixluke do you understand anything?

Lixluke you fail. For me to provide you with one example is like asking me to bone the very ground for search of a golden fossel, I cannot take this task up at this moment, it requires far too much effort.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!