Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:56 AM
22 online now:
PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1

 Rew Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12
Author Topic:   Objective reality
Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 166 of 172 (564285) 06-09-2010 1:40 PM Reply to: Message 165 by Straggler06-09-2010 1:02 PM

Straggler writes:

 Stile writes: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?

Yes I do. Because I am taking the position that objective existence of numbers has nothing to do with "countable, real objects".

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:

 In Message 437, Creation, Evolution, and faith, Stile writes:I know that I've always had a hard time explaining what I'm attempting to discuss with respect to this aspect. There is "objective reality".There is "known to exist within objective reality".There is "unknown to exist within objective reality".There is "known to not exist within objective reality". In this thread, I'm trying to say there is always a scientific test for those things that fall into the "known to exist within objective reality" category and do not fall into either of the 2 following categories.

 This message is a reply to: Message 165 by Straggler, posted 06-09-2010 1:02 PM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 167 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:15 AM Stile has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 167 of 172 (564398) 06-10-2010 9:15 AM Reply to: Message 166 by Stile06-09-2010 1:40 PM

Stile initially says:

quote:
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.

quote:
If you can present an idea that defies this statement, then I will agree to no longer ignore the points you're making

 Stile now writes: In this thread, I'm trying to say there is always a scientific test for those things that fall into the "known to exist within objective reality" category and do not fall into either of the 2 following categories.

If that is your only point then I think it has been refuted long ago in this very thread

This mathematical relationship (originally cited by Cavediver earlier in this thread) is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. It is as true for an intelligent alien race as it is for us. Indeed it remains true even if all intelligence in the universe is wiped out. It is agreed to be, and can be verified as being, objectively true.

In short the relationship is objective and it is known to exist in objective reality. However it is not able to be empirically derived. It cannot be derived from, or verified by, the scientific method.

Thus your main point is refuted. No?

 Stile writes: There is a difference between "objective reality" and "known to be in objective reality"

If you say so.......

Yet when I ask you which numbers are “known to be in objective reality” you tell me that you don’t know. So how can they be known if they are unknown? This would seem to be a contradiction in terms. But I suspect we are destined to talk in (imperfect) circles on this.

The main point remains that is known to exist within objective reality and yet is not verifiable through the scientific method.

Thus (I think) you are refuted.

 This message is a reply to: Message 166 by Stile, posted 06-09-2010 1:40 PM Stile has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-10-2010 11:31 AM Straggler has responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 168 of 172 (564416) 06-10-2010 11:31 AM Reply to: Message 167 by Straggler06-10-2010 9:15 AM

 Straggler writes:Stile initially says: (something that was written in this thread)...Stile now writes: (something that was written in the previous thread)

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.

 Straggler writes:This mathematical relationship (originally cited by Cavediver earlier in this thread) is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. It is as true for an intelligent alien race as it is for us. Indeed it remains true even if all intelligence in the universe is wiped out. It is agreed to be, and can be verified as being, objectively true.

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.

 Thus your main point is refuted. No?

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.

 Yet when I ask you which numbers are “known to be in objective reality” you tell me that you don’t know. So how can they be known if they are unknown? This would seem to be a contradiction in terms.

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.

 The main point remains that is known to exist within objective reality and yet is not verifiable through the scientific method.

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.

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"?

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 167 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:15 AM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 169 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 2:27 PM Stile has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 169 of 172 (564431) 06-10-2010 2:27 PM Reply to: Message 168 by Stile06-10-2010 11:31 AM

 Stile writes:If not, then how (specifically) has it been "verified to be objectively true" without using the scientific method?

The relationship in question is “collectively agreed to exist within objective reality” or “known to exist within objective reality” in the sense that it appears to be an innate mathematical property of the universe. It is a relationship that exists and has been discovered rather than being something that has been invented. The identical result can be independently derived by anyone with a mathematical understanding of reality and we would expect a suitably advanced alien civilisation to be aware of this relationship. Even if the human-alien languages, cultures, psychologies or even entire modes of thought were mutually incomprehensible.

In short it has been "verified to be objectively true" in a Platonic rather than an empirical/scientific sense.

 Stile originally writes: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.

I fail to see how the example of fails to meet the challenge you have set forth. It has been "collectively agreed to exist within objective reality". But is NOT "verifiable through the scientific method". I honestly don't understand your problem here?

 Stile writes:I'm talking about things like the man-in-the-box example.

Ahhhh. If you are now limiting the method of verifying aspects of objective reality to being exclusively the scientific method by means of imposed assertion then it should hardly be a surprise to you that nobody is able to meet your requirement that something other than the scientific method can be used to verify aspects of objective reality. Your challenege to demonstrate such verification becomes inherently impossible by the circular and tautological nature of your own requirements.

 Stile writes:But we should remain honest in our debate, shouldn't we?

Yes we should. But I am not sure that defining the method of verification to be the scientific method and then challenging people to show that things have been verified by methods other than the scientific method qualifies as honest debate. Although in this case I think you are being bamboozled by the circulairty of your own argument rather than actually dishonest in any way.

 This message is a reply to: Message 168 by Stile, posted 06-10-2010 11:31 AM Stile has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 170 by Stile, posted 06-10-2010 2:36 PM Straggler has responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3394
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 170 of 172 (564433) 06-10-2010 2:36 PM Reply to: Message 169 by Straggler06-10-2010 2:27 PM

There it is. Done and done.
 Straggler writes:Ahhhh. If you are now limiting the method of verifying aspects of objective reality to being exclusively the scientific method by means of imposed assertion then it should hardly be a surprise to you that nobody is able to meet your requirement that something other than the scientific method can be used to verify aspects of objective reality. Your challenege to demonstrate such verification becomes inherently impossible by the circular and tautological nature of your own requirements.

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.

 Although in this case I think you are being bamboozled by the circulairty of your own argument rather than actually dishonest in any way.

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 169 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 2:27 PM Straggler has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 171 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 2:42 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006

 Message 171 of 172 (564437) 06-10-2010 2:42 PM Reply to: Message 170 by Stile06-10-2010 2:36 PM

Re: There it is. Done and done.
If you know that your definition of verification results in a circular position why are you insisting on that definition?

I guess I just thought better of you..........

Silly me.

 This message is a reply to: Message 170 by Stile, posted 06-10-2010 2:36 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

1.61803
Member
Posts: 2817
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004

 Message 172 of 172 (564464) 06-10-2010 5:10 PM Reply to: Message 32 by nwr05-08-2010 10:24 PM

no spoon

"There is no spoon."
 This message is a reply to: Message 32 by nwr, posted 05-08-2010 10:24 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Rew Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12