Objective reality

Not a definition as such - But I would start with something along the lines of it meaning that which can be said to exist externally to the minds of those perceiving or conceptualising it. That which exists in some sense independently to subjective experience. I still have no idea what you are talking about here BTW. "Shared subjectivity" sounds to me like it is bordering on the oxymoronic.

To try and be fair to Nwr (not something that comes naturally to me given the squirrel brained inanity I have been accusing him of)......Is mathematics objective? Do mathematical constructs "exist" externally to the minds of those who conceive them?Rahvin does a good job of accounting for the link between empiricism and objectivity. 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").Does that make sense? Feel free to ignore or even belittle if not.

The fact that it isn't "real". If the Matrix is designed to obey programmed laws then I guess the exploration of those laws is "science" in many senses of the word.I would, for the sake of devils advocacy if nothing else, put it to you that the ultimate aim of science would be to not just understand and explain the laws of the Matrix reality but the understanding of the laws that relate to the reality in which the Matrix itself exists.The red pill or the blue pill Cavey. Which would you take? Live a self consistent and internally cohernt lie? Or discover and explore the "truth"?Red? Or blue?

Dude - I spent last night in the pub arguing with my artsy fartsy mates that this was precisely the case. In fact the whole "alien intelligence" thing was the basis of my drunken ramblings in favour of exactly that.What I need from people like you is an explanation of why I am right

I would have said exactly the same until recently.The question I would ask you is - Does a perfect circle exist? It doesn't exist empirically (I think we can agree). But do the mathematical "truths" related to such a concept "exist"? I think you did if you assume that all maths is derived from empirical reality. That was my view until very recently. Now I am not so sure.Do imaginary numbers (ignore the confusing terminology) as in the square root of -1 "exist"? Does not empirical reality (i.e. QM) suggest that they do?What the fuck do we mean by a "perfect circle" or "imaginary numbers"?I ask you here because it is an interesting question. Not because I think I have some ultimate answer I am going to inflict on you or bombard you with.I think the views of the likes of Cavey, Rrhain and SG are key to this thread. Hopefully they won't mind questioning on these issues.

Only if they have the concept of a perfect circle.If the concept of a perfect circle is not objective why would they acknowledge such a relationship?Yet there is no empirically observable example of a perfect circle. That, as I see it, is the problem with the link between pure empiricism as the sole arbiter of objectivity as you seem to be portraying it.Do you disagree?

Which sounds wonderful. But what does it mean?There are those here would argue that multiple individual subjective experiences of Allah constitute objective evidence of Allah (or at least "something" supernatural).Are they wrong in your view? If so why? Yes and no. If we are in the matrix there is a science of the Matrix - sure. But are scientists ultimately trying to discover the rules of the Matrix or the rules that govern the Matrix? Is there a difference between different sciences (or different research activities) in this respect? Yeah - I personally am a shallow bastard and can only pray that the holodec will prove more fruitful than this jar in which my brain currently resides

My own (highly subjective view) of Nwr is that he spouts a lot of bollocks and has no idea what he means by most of the words he uses.He never takes an actual position and instead attacks the position of others by bearing down on the semantical use of terminology within the conventionalist limitations he has set himself.

Can it? Can you imagine a perfect circle? Can you imagine infinity? Can you imagine all the real numbers between 0 and 1? I used to agree. As a physics graduate this is what I was taught. But is it true? How much maths can be derived irresopective of empirical investigation? Do the laws applying to infinite dimensional sphere hold "true" in some sense regardles of the actual empirical existence of infinitely dimensional spheres? 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?

So is 1 + 1 =2 an objective "truth"?Does it rely on minds to perceive or conceive this or is it true regardless?That is the question of mathematical paltonistic reality is it not?

Yeah. Absolutely. Fluctuations in the Matrix, temporal brain activity, telepathic dolphins or indeed any other possibity could be the cause of such phenomenon.But there still is a "shared" phenomenon that is experienced. Necessarily subjectively. But which exists external to the mind of the experiencee. Yes? As one who is a "pure" physicist isn't the discovery of ultimate "truths" the aim of physics? Are we happy just working out how the Matrix operates? Who cares as long as I am logged in and taking full advantage?

Dude - Given the topic isn't that inevitable?Let me ask - Does the number pi exist? Is it only a number that has meaning to the decimal point that we require it to have meaning to? Or does it mean more?If it means more doesn't that imply that perfect circles mean more?If we say that 1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 we also (necessarily) say that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =0.999R = 1This depends on the infinite limit. So does infinity "exist"? I get where you are coming from in saying that maths is effectively just a subjective represenatation of objective empirical reality - But does this hold up to scrutiny? That is my question and it doesn't seem clear cut.Hence the paltonistic position of many (most?) mathematicians.

Well join the club. Although I suspect you are more informed than most here and I have no doubt at all that you are more informed than me. Let's consider pi again. Now I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that there are ethereal perfect circles floating around in some sort of non-empirical plane of reality. So I guess the question of "does pi exist" or "do perfect circles exist" comes down to what we mean by "exist".What is it about the relation between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter (even the concept of a circle itself) that we think an intelligent alien species from light years away would recognise? Why would they?Is pi in some sense a property of our universe?
Is pi an objective property in the sense that it remains a property of our universe independently of whether or not any minded entity realises that this is the case? Or even if any minded entities exist to realise that this is the case?
Yet a non-empirical property in the sense that the actual number pi is dependent on the mathematical construct of perfect circles that can never be physically observed except to approximation.I dunno. But it seems to me an argument could be made for this position and that it would be at least as strong as arguing that pi is simply a useful calculation construct.Or maybe those aliens won't have the foggiest clue as to what the significance of this number is and will wonder why we keep bomabarding them with our meaningless drivel? What each of them perceives is only relevant to the point of consistency. As long as each can correctly identify the same wavelength with the same label the internal subjective perception of it all is essentially unknowable.I know London buses are red and so do you. But who knows whether our individual internal subjective perceptions of red buses bear anything but the loosest relation. All we can really point out is the consistent ability to independently label some aspect of reality that (presumably) exists externally to both our own minds.

Do you think aliens would have the same concept of pi as us?If so why?

Well that is the crux of the issue. If mathematics is subjective why would we expect them to have created maths that we recognise as maths any more than we would expect them to have created art that we appreciate as art or music that we appreciate as music? Why? What is it about reality that makes this the case?If aliens independently conceive of perfect circles and pi free from human biases of culture, pschology and perceptual limitations then how is that NOT "objective"?It is arguably more "objective" in some very pure sense of the word than those messy and inexact empirical discoveries that rely on limited perceptual capabilities but which we consider to be the height of objective reasoning. The ratio between the circumference of a perfect circle and it's diameter remains the same and "true" in our universal reality regardless of whether or not anyone actually conceives of this or not.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.