Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Objective reality
onifre
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 8 of 172 (559307)
05-08-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
05-06-2010 10:39 AM


Can anybody actually give a satisfactory definition of "objective reality"?
Satisfactory in what way? To you specifically?
Rahvin posted the approved dictionary definition, someone felt it was satisfactory. I liked it myself, I was satisfied.
But something tells me you're looking for something else?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 05-06-2010 10:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 1:46 PM onifre has replied
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 05-08-2010 10:24 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 12 of 172 (559314)
05-08-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
05-08-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Non-Empirical Objective Reality(?)
Is mathematics objective? Do mathematical constructs "exist" externally to the minds of those who conceive them?
Well I would say that mathematical constructs are our way to desipher the reality we find ourselves in. In a way that we can all agree on. It exists within our subjective, yet agreed upon, framework of reality. But that which we are trying to figure out is objective, and exists whether we can understand it or not.
But can we have non-empirical forms of objectivity?
And if we can does that lend credence to "religious" claims of such objectivity (e.g. multiple experiences of "something" equates to the objectivisation of "something").
Lets take the religious claim of multiple experiences; all there is empirical evidence for is the experience, and even then you are still left with second hand information. But lets say we plugged them into a machine and pinpointed where exactly in the brain the experience was taking place, that would be objective evidence for an experience.
Now, their interpretation of the experience can only be subjective, by definition.
Likewise, lets take science. A scientist's interpretation of evidence is of course subjective, but the evidence remains objective. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be many other scientist trying to interpret the same evidence.
To me it seems clear how to distinguish the two.
Does that make sense? Feel free to ignore or even belittle if not.
I think it did, and I hope I answered it coherently too.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 2:24 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 23 of 172 (559327)
05-08-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
05-08-2010 2:24 PM


Re: Non-Empirical Objective Reality(?)
Does a perfect circle exist?
Yes, and they are an amazing band.
Seriously though...
If we can agree that mathematical concepts are our subjective representation of reality, then, within that subjective framework of reality something as subjective as "perfect" can exist.
I think you did if you assume that all maths is derived from empirical reality.
Well I wouldn't agree that it is derived from, I would say that it represents empirical reality.
Would that change your position?
What the fuck do we mean by a "perfect circle" or "imaginary numbers"?
The same thing that we mean when we say beautiful.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 2:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 3:02 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 27 of 172 (559331)
05-08-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
05-08-2010 3:02 PM


Re: Non-Empirical Objective Reality(?)
Oni writes:
If we can agree that mathematical concepts are our subjective representation of reality, then, within that subjective framework of reality something as subjective as "perfect" can exist.
Straggler writes:
Can it?
The question should be, Does it? All that you are saying here is that there is no perfect way to represent a shape that we believe can be perfect. Like say, a square.
Can you imagine infinity?
No, of course not. But wouldn't doing so make it finite? I can't imagine infinity because it's infinite.
How much maths can be derived irresopective of empirical investigation?
An infinite amount.
So to say that 1 + 1 =2 is the same as saying "that is beautiful"?
I am being facetious. But only to ask - What exactly is the difference?
No I meant, saying something is perfect is the same as beautiful. You have to set an arbitrary parameter of what is (perfect or beautiful) and see what comes within a degree of acuracy to your set margin of perfection (or beauty).
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 3:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 3:40 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2971 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 172 (559334)
05-08-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
05-08-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Non-Empirical Objective Reality(?)
So is 1 + 1 =2 an objective "truth"?
Yes. An apple and another apple would give you a total of 2 apples.
The apple being the objective part. Numbers are our subjective representation for them when summing up the total.
Does it rely on minds to perceive or conceive this or is it true regardless?
Things exist in multiples, this is true regardless. How you choose to represent it is subjective.
I think this is getting a bit confusing to follow. lol
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 3:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2010 4:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024