Objective reality

I would agree that the answer is NO.I would say that the answer is objective... only based upon the subjective rules that are agreed upon to play the game.Therefore, it is not a part of "objective reality".I find this equivalent to my morality. My morality is based upon some subjective rules (good things are those that make other people happy, bad things are those that make other people sad, my goal is to maximize happiness and minimize sadness). Once those subjective rules are in place, an objective morality can result with objective results based on specific situations. (Did I do something good? That depends on if I helped make people happy or sad, which can be objectively identified by asking those affected) However, the "objectiveness" is still based back on those subjective rules in the first place. Therefore, my morality is not a part of "objective reality"."Objective reality" would be those things that are objective regardless of any subjective nuances beyond some basic assumptions like "I exist" and "an external reality exists" and maybe "we can experience that external reality"... which seem to be requirements for any subjective ideas to exist as well. I smell a razor in here...I still stand by the statement of: All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.So far, no one has provided any example that goes against this statement. "Mathematics" has been attempted... but it seems that certain aspects rest on subjective rules while other aspects actually can be verified through scientific tests (like obtaining the value of pi from observations of circles).

You're missing my point. And I apologize, I think my thread-title was misleading. I couldn't really think of one and just shoved that up there.I fully agree that there are no circles in the Universe that will give you an exact answer for Pi.My point is that it's the scientific method that is used to give you those approximations to close in on the exact idea of Pi that you can share with aliens.
My point is that the "exact idea of Pi" (the objective reality of Pi) can be tested and verified through the use of the scientific method. And, indeed, that's what was used to obtain the "exact idea of Pi" in the first place. I have not missed the point which you expressed to Dr A. I've only purposefuly ignored it. I am trying to make my own point, which is different I agree with all you say. But it is all irrlevant to the point that I am trying to make. It's quite possible that the point I'm making is irrelvant to whatever you want to talk about as well... What I'm talking about doesn't depend upon an answer of "what the stuff is". Perhaps it is "stuff we haven't detected yet"... perhaps it is "just rules". Regardless of whatever it is based upon... it's still there regardless of anyone's personal subjective ideas on the matter.Given a general environment, my hand does not go through a wall. Perhaps there is "stuff" blocking it. Perhaps there is "just rules" blocking it. That doesn't really matter. My hand still does not go through the wall regardless of any and all subjective ideas that anyone may or may not possess. This is what I'm referring to as objective reality.Even (given an alternative environment) when my hand passes through the wall... if it does so because of "stuff" or because of "rules"... it doesn't matter. It will still do so regardless of anyone's personal subjective feelings on the situation. Such a situation is a part of "objective reality".My main point is simply: All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality (as defined above in this post) are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.If you can present an idea that defies this statment, then I will agree to no longer ignore the points you're making

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".

Yes, I am saying we discovered the relationship between a circle's diameter and it's circumference rather than invented it.
Are you saying we invented circles?
We certainly invented the name "Pi".
We certainly invented the useful notation of 3.14.....
We did not invent circles.
Therefore, we did not invent diameters.
Therefore, we did not invent circumferences.
Therefore, we did not invent any relationship that may or may not exist between diameters and circumferences.Basic circles exist objectively (tree trunks, looking at the sun...).
They have objective (empirical) diameters and circumferences. Which can be used by the scientific method to develop general equations, this particular one we have named "Pi". I do not think we have determined the "precise" value of Pi, have we? Do you mean, like, the ending decimal? It doesn't have one. Do you mean "precise" as in the exact relationship between a circles diameter and circumference? We haven't determined it at all, we've observed circles and identified general equations to represent them... and called one of them "Pi". Yes. How could we possibly not? Decimal representation is merely a useful notation. The concept of Pi is a direct relationship concerning the diameter and circumference of a circle. As long as aliens have some sort of equivalent useful notation... how could their accuracy be different from ours? Perhaps, sure. Because Pi (the theoretical value based on the general relationship between a circle's diameter and it's circumference) is objective. Basic circles are objective. Pi is derived by doing objective calculations upon objective observations to identify an objective conclusion. The perfect circle's perfect "Pi-value" does not have to exist within objective reality to be measured in order to identify the objective general relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle ("Pi"). No, it would not be science or objective. But... why can it not be determined empirically?Basic circles exist and can be observed empirically.
Diameters and circumferences can be observed and measured empirically.
These objective measurements can be used to show an empirical relationship.
This empirical relationship can be reduced to show a general empirical equation.
The result of this general empirical equation is called "Pi".
Pi is empirical.
(Note, I'm not saying that the exact value of Pi exists for some existing "perfect circle". I'm saying that Pi represents the general empirical relationship that can be observed in basic circles... and that this is empirical and scientific).
This general empirical equation may be used to identify a "perfect Pi" value for a "perfect circle"... but who cares? It does not negate the fact that the general equation was still derived empirically through observation.
What step are you missing?Are you saying a perfect circle must necessarily exist in order to be specifically observed before the general relationship of a circles's diameter and circumference (Pi) can be considered empirical and objective?
Why would that be so?
Why can't objective, empirical observations lead to objective generalities?
What do you call those objective generalities when they are tested (time and time again) against reality and are always true?
Are you really suggesting that such an observationally based generality be called "subjective"?
Do you think Pi could possibly exist as we know it without empirical observations of circles?Are you saying that a man in a box with 5 apples can only understand that 2 + 3 = 5 is objective, but cannot possibly understand that 2 + 4 = 6 is objective because he doesn't have 6 apples?
1+1+1+1+1=5 but 1+1+1+1+1+1 can't possibly = 6?
What sense does that make?

Aliens and us would agree on pi to whatever accuracy by using the same process (empirical observations of basic circles) to develop the same empircal general equation. Once the general equation is set the "theoretical perfect pi" is equivalent for both of us, it's just a matter of continuing the calculation to whatever accuracy you would like. 50 decimal places... or a million decimal places.You seem to be asking the question of "how can a chair be a part of objective reality if Stile measures it's height to be 1.001 meters and Straggler measures it's height to be 1.002 meters?"The question shows a difference in objective measuring techniques... it does not show that the chair's height is not objective. Do you agree that the chair's height (whatever it is) is still objective?Different calculations of a specific "pi-value" derived from different measurements of different natural-circles does not indicate that Pi (the general relationship itself) is not objective.The objective-ness of the general relationship does not rely upon specific general empirical measurements. It relys upon viewing *all* the general empirical measurements and identifying the general relationship as a whole. The culmination of *a lot* of general measurements objectively leads to an objective pattern... the general relationship. Which, being directly based on empirical observations, regardless of any individual's subjective ideas, is therefore empirical in itself.It goes like this:
-We gather many, many observations (as accurate as possible) of circles (knowing that they are not perfect)
-we look at these observations and identify a general equation to represent the relationship between circumference and diameter
-we can say "if we had a 'perfect circle', then the relationship would be equal to Pi". If you are also suggesting that math is objective... why are we discussing whether or not the aliens will have the same objective math? If math is objective... then shouldn't the aliens have the exact same math?My only addition is that Pi can be tested through the scientific method. I fully admit that the "perfect, idealized concept of pi for a perfect circle" will never be measured in the real world... but that doesn't stop the scientific method from working. The scientific method isn't about idealized exactness, it's about describing the real world as accurately as possible.I don't understand what we're arguing over. All your comments seem to imply that you want me to explain why/how math is objective. But if you're already agreeing to that... why are you asking the things you're asking?

Me personally? No, I've long forgotten my maths and theory for such things. But I do think that someone can.If you do think it's objective, and you do think that "any suitably advanced intelligence will recognize this relationship"... how will they recognize it unless it is derived (somehow) from observations of reality?If it is derived from observations of reality, how is it not testable by the scientific method?If it is not derived from observations of reality... how can you be so sure that is, in fact, objective and aliens would recognize it?

Okay, I think I understand.
But I'm pretty sure I've covered this already and I'm still not sure of any specific arguement against it, so I'll try again: I'm guessing that somewhere in the 4 to 7 range you think we lose the "scientific-ness" of the structure? But why?
Do you not think that making a general equation to represent an idealized concept off a bunch of empirically obtained data measurements is scientific?I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the scientific method is... making observations and generalizing into idealized concepts.Hypothesis - there is a relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle
Observations - measure a bunch of circles to find their circumference and diameters
Analysis - look at all these values and attempt to identify a generalized, idealistic representation
Conclusion - circles follow a specific relationship between their circumference and diameter ("Pi")What's not scientific?Once the idealistic equation is identified, we can then represent a "perfect circle" and therefore a "perfect Pi" and do a calculation to any accuracy.
...maybe you don't think the idealistic equation is objective anymore? If not... then it doesn't go against the orignal statement anymore because it's not a part of objective reality.
...if you do think it's a part of objective reality, then you must agree that there's no other way to go then to identify this exact same idealistic equation. Once that's identified... any calculation of Pi can be made to millions of decimal places and will be exactly the same for any aliens.Which means that an alien civilization would agree with us on Pi to a degree that goes beyond scientific empirical investigation.Which goes back to a guy in a room with apples example. If this man has 5 apples, he can objectively (and scientifically) develop that 1+1+1+1+1=5. But you're saying that it's impossible for him to understand that 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 just because he doesn't physically have 6 apples??
I can understand you saying it's no longer a part of "objective reality" (within the box)... but then... it's not a part of my claim anymore.

I think this is the heart of the matter.And I think I've figured out my own confusion.My early guess would be that the formal system is part of the development of the equations. But if the equations are based on original observations of the real world... and result in explanations about the real world that can be tested (say, like, quantum theory prediction/confirmation type stuffs) ...then that would see to be well within the realm of "scientific study".Of course, there are pure theoretical maths and physics that do not have results that are testable in the real-world. But these are all based upon the same rules and regulations that other concepts that are testable use.
So I do agree that these purely theoretical maths and physics are objective based on the objectively known rules of reality. But I do not agree that they are within the "known to be a part of objective reality" category I'm thinking of when I state:(Back to my original-original wording in Message 437, the post-linked-to in order to create this thread) So... all this seems to have been a confusion over my use of the word "objective". I'm attempting to differentiate between "objective based off of known rules" and "known to be a part of objective reality" and I don't think I've been doing a good job at keeping it straight.I will try to explain my confusion through the use of my own man in a box with 5 apples example:His known objective reality contains scientific proof for 1+1+1+1+1=5, but does not show that 1+1+1+1+1+1=6.
Although 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 is objective, it is not "scientifically testable" in the sense that buddy doesn't have 6 apples. It is "objective based off of known rules".
Since it cannot be tested... it then is not a part of known objective reality... in which case my statement doesn't apply.Bringing this back to advanced mathematical concepts (purely theoretical):
They are only "objective based off of known rules" and are not "known aspects of objective reality" (as I've been defining the terms). Therefore, my original statement does not apply.For Pi, specifically, I think it may actually be a part of "known objective reality" since it can be scientifically tested and verified within some degree (as all scientific tests include possible errors). So maybe Pi was a bit of a poor example to attempt and flush out this confusion.Hope this clears up some things.

Actually, he can't even do that. He's only got 5 apples. But I understand your point. He is intelligent. We are talking about intelligent aliens, right?
He has an apple, and decides to call it "1".
He then holds two apples and decides to call that "2".
...
He sees that when he holds 2 apples and then holds another 3 apples.. he ends up with "5".
...
Through these observations he can scientifically test and construct simple math. Exactly. Although I don't so much restrict "knowing to be a part of reality" to be only that which is "empirically verified" so much as I don't know of any other successful method to do such.
If you go back and read my original posts on the matter from the other thread, you'll see that I fully intended it to be a simple statement of totality that is futile to argue against. It wasn't meant to spark debate or even be debated. Imagine my surprise when so much has come out of it... That may very well be your intention. But it was never mine. I simply wanted to defend my original statement. And explain it, and understand the rest of the discussion. Oh, I understood the idea. I just didn't understand how it defied my original statement. Which is what I thought everyone was trying to show me and caused me even more confusion.
I fully agree that anything that is "objective" (blanket term) is not necessarily scientifically testable.
Like I explained in the earlier thread, my morality is "objective" in a way as well... but it is certainly not scientifically testable.

Forgive me, this is the same confusion I've been trying to battle since the beginning. I will attempt to be extremely explicit.He does not have an empirical basis to conclude that the number 6 exists.
He does have an "objective" basis to conclude that the number 6 exists (extending the rules he's scientifically and empirically tested and shown to be "a known part of objective reality" with his 5 apples).
But "6 apples" is not within his "known to be a part of objective reality" category.
His number 6 would be equivalent to "purely theoretical maths/physics".So he certainly can conclude that the number 6 exists. It just isn't included in his "known to be a part of objective reality" category.Let's move this back to Pi.
Let me know where if/why you think the "known to be a part of objective reality" area is not valid, I think it all comes back at the end:1. Basic circles exist and can be tested.
2. Basic geometry exists and can be tested (hexagons...)
3. Basic math exists and can be tested (addition gives us simple math... speed/velocity/acceleration measurements can give us basic derivatives and integration...)
4. Analysis of simple geometric shapes (equilateral triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon... any Regular Polygon where the sides are all the same length) gives us an equation showing a relationship between distance from a shape's centre, it's number of sides, and it's perimeter.
5. Taking the limit of this equation as the number of sides goes to infinity (a circle...), we'll end up with our same circle equation of Circumference=SomeConstant*diameter.
6. This equation can be scientifically tested and verified against basic circles existing in nature. Will it be perfect? Of course not, but that's not a requirement of science.
7. That "SomeConstant" will also be the theoretical Pi value for a perfect circle that all aliens will be able to duplicate to any requested accuracy.I agree that we'll both (humans and aliens) be able to calculate Pi beyond our "known to be a part of objective reality" category. But this doesn't stop us from both having an "objective" (general usage) value of Pi that we can calculate to whatever accuracy we want.Hope that clarify's my thinking and usage of terms.

The answer to all 3 of those questions is "I don't know".
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable may know. I'm not positive that he can't. I just don't personally see how. Can you think of a way he can test that 6 apples is within his "known to be a part of objective reality" while he only has 5 apples?

(And, personally, I wouldn't mind being corrected... fastest way to learn things I know of)(But you didn't hear that from me... what you did hear from me is that I'm perfect )

Yes, hardly surprising at all.I already told you that the statement wasn't meant to be anything more than a simple totality. Why are you attempting to force it into meaning something more?
Of course, I'll say again that I'm not defining empirical observation to be the only method of establishing known reality. It's just the only successful one I'm aware of, you're free to propose an alternative. I don't find this annoying. I'm starting to find it boring, though. It seems as though you're trying to force my simple, off-hand statement into some sort of larger claim. And I'm not clear at all on what direction you want to go in, or what it is you want to talk about. No. I'm saying some parts of mathematics are just idealized extrapolations of emirical experience.Certainly not all. Certainly not purely theoretical maths/physics (as I've already stated). And maybe the line between the two isn't very clear. I always think my position is obvious

Yes.Like the man-in-a-box with 5 apples.
1,2,3,4,5 are "known to be a part of objective reality".
6,7,8,9,.... are "objective" (based off similar rules that are 'known to be a part of objective reality', but not actually verified to be a part of reality... so not 'known') I don't really see the issue. Why would it matter?All numbers are objective in the sense that they are formed through formal logic based on exact, specific rules.
Some can be verified to exist in reality, some can not. Why is this a problem? "Considering" something is a subjective process. I don't really care what you would like to consider, or not consider.
It seems, to me, that the number 1 has been verified to exist within our reality a lot more than that larger number has, though. But what does it matter? A totality is a simple statement of circular logic where one thing is contained entirely (totaly) within the other.
Example: Cirlces are round. Yes, but what you quoted isn't where it all started. It all started back on that other thread, I think I was replying to kbertsche and nwr replied to me about it. You mean as in "the rules" as cavediver mentioned a bunch of messages ago? Doesn't seem to make a difference to me. Whether or not things "actually exist as stuff" or "actually exist only as objecteive mathematical truths (rules)" is an interesting curiosity. But it has no bearing on results. Like I said in my reply to cavediver... my hand does not go through a wall, it doesn't matter if "stuff" blocks it or if "rules" block it... whatever blocks it always blocks it (given a general environment, anyway). It's not like if we suddenly verify that it really is "just rules" that walls will stop blocking things or anything in our environment would actually change. Only our understanding would change. Which may allow us to investigate further or break into some currently-unknown levels of technological advancement... but it doesn't change those things that we already have solidly verified.I'm still getting the feeling that you're discussing something I'm not discussing. I think that whatever that is... is causing a lot of confusion between our posts. I'm not sure how to identify it.

Yes, exactly what I'm talking about.