Objective reality

How can Pi possibly be subjective? I appreciate that you yourself may not want to count it as "objective reality", but subjective???

No, definitely not. If the aliens are sufficiently intelligent, then they, like us (mathematicians) will have realised that Pi is an integral part of mathematics, with a value determined completely independently of any scientific experiment. And it is this that we would share. And the objective nature of mathematics would thus be revealed. Well, if you define objective reality by what you define objective reality to be, excluding the one major counterexample raised by nwr and championed by myself, then I guess I can't raise that idea to defy your statement... for trivial reasons But I would stand by what I have said. I believe that mathematics does not obviously satisfy your statement, and therefore your statement is potentially shakey, as you present it.

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.

Pi is a concept. It doesn't "exist" independently of a mind to hold it. It qualifies as "shared subjectivity," but if every human being died today, the concept of pi would not continue to exist any more than the concepts of democracy or love or logic.If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?The answer is typically that the falling tree makes vibrations in the air that human senses would interpret as sound, regardless of whether one is present or not.The circles we observe in reality exist regardless of whether or not we are around to see them. Pi is a conceptual model that represents the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle in our minds.If nobody capable of abstract thought were to exist, neither would pi. The relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle would continue to exist, but our conceptual model representing that reality would not.That's also why I think aliens would independently arrive at the same (or at least nearly so) conceptual model - it's intended as a reflection of reality. As long as we are all in fact observing a reality that exists independent of our own existence or thoughts or opinions, we'd be modeling the same thing and would arrive at the same (or very similar) subjective concepts.

Mathematics in the sense we're talking about now is an attempt to model reality. The model is not itself reality, just as a picture of my cat is not actually my cat. The model is subjective, the real thing being modeled is not. Models can be wrong or inaccurate depending on our methodologies or imperfect intellects; the real thing simply exists as it is, independent of us. Does a perfect circle exist in objective reality, without a mind to conceive of it? If so, then yes - the relationship is objective. But our modelof that relationship, which we symbolize with pi, exists only within our minds, just as the word "cat" is a subjective symbol that refers to an objectively real thing.

What subjective concept is that?If the aliens and us both independently arrive at pi free from similar psychological, cultural or even perceptual biases - 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.

Good. Hold that thought. Redefine Pi to be that relationship. Now, is Pi objective and real?

And yet our mathematical models are often as indicative of reality as they are reflective of it. Does that tell us anything? Is C=2*pi*r true regardless of anyone to conceive of it? Or not? Sorry to be dum - But are you saying cats don't exist or that pi does? In what way are they the same or in what way are they different? I am unclear as to what you mean by your comparison here.

Yes. Assuming that a perfect circle objectively exists, the relationship between circumference and diameter would also exist regardless of observation or opinion.All I'm saying is that equations like "c=pi(2r)" are not objective, as they require a mind to subjectively assign values to those variables and numbers, and the fact that we all agree on what values to assign those symbols does not make the equation any more objective. Only what the equation represents is objective and real.

In the everyday sense, I would argue that they don't. Does this mean Pi does not exist? Let's take the primes. One is hard-pressed to find the primes on display (although it can be done) in the Universe, yet does that mean that once sentient life is removed, 17 objects could find themselves arranged in a rectangular grid of equally divided columns and rows?What I am trying to show is that there are truths of this reality (any reality?) that are the epitome of objective, and must be recognised as having a level of "existence". I myself go further to suggest that our everyday objective reality is built up of these truths, thus removing any need to consider two types of existence.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I don't think we disagree.

If the scientific method was not used to formulate Pi in the first place, then what was?This is how I see things:Some long-ago hypothesis:
-There is a specific and distinct relationship between a circles diameter and it's circumferenceSome long-ago observations:
-Every approximate circle seems to have an extremely similar specific and distinct relationship between it's diameter and it's circumference.
-As we create circles closer and closer to "a perfect circle", this value becomes more and more preciseSome long-ago conclusions:
-This relationship can be represented by a single number, let's call that number "Pi"
-"Pi" can be theoretically defined with an idealistic equation, it is correct for every circle we can imagineIf that's not the scientific method, then what is? Yes, that's exactly true. But you haven't explained why your counterexample should be included. When I've taken your counterexample and explained exactly why it already is included... it can be tested scientifically. Yes, you've been quite willing to say so over and over. But can you show how what you say has any significant bearing? Or are you simply talk?Your belief that mathematics does not fit into my defined relationship between objective reality and the scientific method isn't worth too much. If you have something you can show, then your point would become much more apparent.If you don't think my definitions are fair or accurate, please provide a reason why they should be something different.So far, the only two examples have been addition (provided by me, and shown to be scientifically testable) and Pi (provided by you, and yet still shown to be scientifically testable).Both are exactly as I claim... that there are scientific tests for things that exist within objective reality.Do you have any substance behind your claims?
Can you show that Pi cannot be scientifically tested for?
Can you show some other idea that is a part of objective reality that cannot be tested with the scientific method?I'm not pushing you because "I think I'm smart" or because "I think I know more than you". In fact, I think you're much smarter than me in this arena. I'm pushing you because you have yet to explain or show that what you say is true. I would just like to see what it is you're basing your claim on. If it makes sense and you can prove me wrong, I'll gladly change my position. I'm just looking to learn here and you seem extremely hesitant to teach. I am begging for you to show me why I'm wrong.I am extremely interested if anyone can describe a concept that is a part of "objective reality" that cannot be tested with the scientific method.I've always heard that the "Supernatural Realm" is a part of objective reality but it's impossible to test for it with the scientific method. If anyone can show such a thing, then perhaps I can gain some sort of insight into what other mean when they talk about a "Supernatural Realm".

Of course specific nomenclature or method of expression is not objective. I wouldn't expect aliens to look at "c=pi(2r)" and have any idea what it meant.But I would expect them to have the concept of the pi as the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference AND to consider that as something more fundamental than simply an empirical measurement that they have taken of lots of circles which then happen to all give approximately the same value. What does it represent in your view? Do you think an alien civilisation would, like us, have calculated pi to an extent that defies empirical usefulness and have gotten an identical result?All I am saying here is that there appears to be something about mathematical constructs like pi that transcend empirical measurable objective reality in some sense. But which are no less objective or "real" in their own right.

Can you demonstrate that by the scientific method?Irrespective of the language and symbols used, any suitably advanced intelligence will recognise this relationship.

So you are saying that we discovered pi rather than invented it?Have we determined the precise value of pi empirically or mathematically? Would we expect an alien civilisation to get the same result assuming they could achieve the same levels of accuracy? Do you think an alien civilisation would, like us, have calculated pi to an extent that defies empirical usefulness and have gotten an identical result?If so why? (as in why is the result identical not why would they bother to do this)If this cannot be determined empirically is it still "science"? Is it still objective?