Objective reality

First off - sorry for the belated replies. I've been a busy bee the last few... weeks (apparently) and sometimes I just can't post in a timely fashion. Better late than never? Think about what?
Remember we're talking about the kind of situation like the man in the box.
"Which are known to be a part of objective reality"
Man in the box = "5"
In reality = "I don't know" (how high have you ever counted stuff?)What's wrong with this position? Why would I need to know the highest number that is known to be a part of objective reality? Or, to say it another way, why would I need to know the highest number that is actually represented in objective reality? As long as the mathematical rules we rely upon are always verified to be accurate against the reality they are tested on... what does it matter how big "the highest" number is? But... I'm calling "known to be objective" that which we have actually counted and verified (likely mutlitple times by multiple different people). How are you calling that a "subjective conclusion"? If that's a subjective conclusion... then what is objective? That depends entirely on what you mean by "more real".
If you're talking about "things that have actually been verified to exist in reality".. then yes, of course it is. Like the man in the box, if he only has 5 apples than "5" is "more real" than "6". How is it not? He can extrapolate, or anticipate, or hypothesize about "6". But until he actually has 6 apples... "5" is more real, wouldn't you say? Why would this be any different when we increase 5 and 6 to "some really big number" and "some really big number + 1"? And I still don't see what the point of this is. Who cares if some number is "more real" (in this context) than another number? As long as all numbers are theoretically useful and all verified concepts come back to reality... what does it matter which number happens to be the biggest we're able to verify back to reality? Either you do not understand what I'm advocating, or you have not made your own position very clear. Because I still have no idea what you're on about, or what these "enormous implications" may or may not be. I should note that I have no idea about the story of Plato, his Cave, or any shadows. So those terms don't really mean anything unless you care to describe the scenario.
Yes, I am treating maths as an idealised extrapolation of empirical results. But I already do also consider the oppostie view that if we examine mathematic reality than an understanding of empirical reality will follow from that... the two go hand in hand, don't they?
1. You get some empirical observations and create a mathematical model...
2. You take your cool mathematical model and some cool mathematical tricks and come up with an awesome mathematical statement about empirical reality.
3. You take your awesome mathematical statement... test it against reality... and see how it does. If it works out, then, congratulations! You just successfully broadened human knowledge of "known to be an objective part of reality" (assuming it can be verified, replicated....).
Why would you assume I'm ignoring step #3?I still don't really understand what you're attempting to talk to me about.

Oh, I see. Then our discussion is simply confusing for no reason. You're accounting a position to me that I do not take.I've never made the assumption that math is necessarily just an idealised extrapolation of empirical reality. Why do you think I have? I only assume that math can be an idealised extrapolation of empirical reality... and I've shown that it can.I also do not hold the view that the only reality that can be objectified is empirical reality. Why do you think I do? I only hold the view that certain aspects of empirical reality can be objectified.I make no all-encompasing claims, such things are rather foolish with the limited knowledge I am constrained by.All I said was:
All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality (because they can be shown to others) are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.
Message 50Which is a rather simple and circular statement. I think you've been trying to place things upon this in order to have a conversation with someone who you wish said something else.You then brought up maths, and I've shown you that indeed there are parts of mathematics that have been shown to others to exist in objective reality and they are also testable and verifiable through the scientific method.I also quickly admitted that there are parts of mathematics that are not currently demonstrable to others using objective reality, only theoretically objective within the confines of the rules that support those same mathematics. You could try to twist this theoretical aspect into meaning "exist within objective reality" by leaving out the word "theoretical" or "based upon the rules of mathematics" and thereby skewing context and definitions from what I originally intended... but if we're not talking about the same thing it is again rather simple and circular to understand that we're not talking about the same thing.If you think certain mathematical concepts do exist, which can be shown in physical reality to other people, that cannot be tested by the scientific method... then we may have something to talk about. If you think I am supporting some other position... then we have equally failed in me explaining my position and you attempting to understand it.

I don't know. I don't know everything. Why do you keep trying to force absolute statements when none are warrented? You are equivocating again.
I am of the position that some number are known to exist within objective reality (represented by countable, real objects) and others are not. -Do you seriously advocate otherwise?
I also hold the position that I do not know the highest number than any people have ever counted anything. -Do you? Again, that's not what I've said.This is what I said, you quoted it in the beginning of your own message: This is what you are saying I've said: Do you notice the crucial qualifiers you're leaving out?
Do you see how silly your version is when compared to what I'm actually saying and explaining to you?And now you're also adding on "..not necessarily part of empirical reality" which isn't anywhere contextually near what the original statement is discussing. You ask some follow up questions that I answered honestly. Then you try to force them back onto the original statement with no understanding of context or qualifiers? You seem to bordering on the side of insanity.As long as you continue to force your own version of what you wish I was saying... your confusion will remain. You can free yourself of this at any time by simply attempting to understand what I've actually said.

You are forgetting the qualifier I have been trying to describe.
There is a difference between "objective reality" and "known to be in objective reality".For instance, black holes have always been a part of objective reality. However, they have only recently become a part of "known" objective reality.While understanding this qualification, re-read the above quote on our two stated positions, and hopefully you can see that they are not necessarily opposites and can possibly be held ad the same time without contradiction.I'm not talking about basic "objective existence" of any form.
I'm talking about "known objective existence", it is a much smaller subset.Hopefully you now understand my statement. As I attempted to clarify in the post that spawned this thread, from Message 1:

Yes, I've been trying to clarify things for you since the previous thread. I have attempted to word it in varying ways because you do not seem to understand what I'm saying and seem to refuse to believe me when I tell you you're getting it wrong. So you and cavediver both have claimed. And I'll tell you what I told cavediver... I do not understand this equation, and I do not understand why it is considered "verified as objectively true" or what you mean when you use those terms.Is it "objectively true" according to an extrapolation of the rules of mathematics? In which case, it is not considered a part of what I'm talking about.If not, then how (specifically) has it been "verified to be objectively true" without using the scientific method?You cannot expect me to use strict definitions, and then waffle them yourself. If, in fact, you can describe how this relationship is "verified to be objectively true" (as I've defined it) without basing things on the foundational rules of mathematics... I would be very interested to hear how the scientific method cannot be applicable. It's certainly claimed to be refuted. But until you show your work, it remains a simple claim. You're saying this relationship can be "verified to be objectively true".Are you talking about "known to be a part of objective reality"? As I am? Or have you once again shifted the goal posts back to "including theoretical objectivity based upon the rules of mathematics"? Which I have explicitly stated is not covered in what I'm talking about. I said that I do not know all the numbers that are "known to be in objective reality". But I certainly provided you with a method to figure such a thing out on your own. Namely, find out if such a number has been counted with physical objects yet or not. If you're not willing to do your homework, I can't be expected to answer all your questions. But we should remain honest in our debate, shouldn't we?
We should be honest and consistent with what we're talking about when we say "known to exist within objective reality", shouldn't we?I'm talking about things like the man-in-the-box example.Aliens may very well recognize "6" just as this man will. For it exists objectively as an extrapolation of the rules developed from his 5 apples.
However, "6" is not "known to exist within objective reality" because he doesn't have 6 apples and thus he cannot confirm it's existence.So we need to be clear about what you're talking about.
Does this equation represent something like the numbers 1 to 5 with this man in the box? Is it something that is "known to exist in objective reality"?
Or is this equation more related to the number "6" as far as the man-in-the-box is concerned? Objectively extrapolated, but not quite "known to exist in objective reality"?Either way... you'll have your answer.If it's like 1 to 5, then there is a scientific test that can be done.
If it's like 6, then it's not what I've been discussing anyway.Like I said, the statement I've been making is very simple and very circular. There really isn't any "loopholes" in it unless you continue to shift the goal posts or re-define terms.

Exactly.I've been trying to tell you over and over that I'm not making a deep point. I've said many, many times that this is a simple, and very circular statement.Good to see that you finally understand. Imagine my surprise when you keep asserting over and over again that I'm incorrect and that you are capable of showing my circular statement to be wrong. I knew my arguement was circular, I told you it was, I re-told you it was, and then I almost went blue in the face showing you that it was. Now you finally understand that it is and say I'm the one that's confused? In any case... I'm glad to see you finally undertstand the simple, circular statement I made many moons ago.