If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Well that's what I tell my wife anyways.

Probably not according to you, so please tell me what you think the difference is.

Subjective is one person's opinion, like the best flavour of ice cream.Objective is something that people can agree on, like the length of a two-by-four. They've set aside their personal opinions. There is an inherent uncertainty in any objective observation because it's a combination of subjective observations. The objective length of the two-by-four is an average accompanied by an estimate of how uncertain it is.Absolute is what "is". But how can we know what "is" except by observation?

If truth is only objective, then we're forced to doubt the existence of the laws of logic and physics, prior to our objective perceptions of them, since we weren't always around to observe them.

Yup. Now you're getting it. We do doubt the laws of physics. That's why our understanding of them keeps changing.

Without absolute truths, there can be no actual reality. Scientific predictions would be impossible, past observations would be extremely suspect (if not impossible as well) and ultimately we would have nothing but absolute chaos (pun intended). You wouldn't even be able to trust your own analysis of this very subject. We would know nothing at all.

If by "actual" reality you mean absolute reality, then you're just being circular again. Objective predictions are possible. Based on past observtions, I can predict that the sun will rise in the east. Yes, and they are suspect, as they should be. (Note that the sun doesn't actually "rise" in the east, so the observations are not "actually" true.) I appreciate the pun but what would "absolute" chaos even be? Infinite entropy? Yes, we shouldn't trust our subjective analysis. We would know nothing absolutely but we could still know things objectively. Even if we don't know absolutely that the sun will "rise" tomorrow, we can still plan our day.

I understand your distinction and I agree that there is such a thing and that it is not the same thing as absolute reality. Absolute reality is the thing that we are all wrong about. It must exist if we can be wrong about it. I mean what would you use to prove that we are wrong if not reality.

Perhaps it is a good restriction.The truths that we recognize are the product of a long distillation process. By the time you are left with a pure product you have something that is equivalent to the definition. So, while 2 means 2 because we say so this does not make it circular. The symbol is not the thing.

It isn't a matter of "proving" anything. We don't know if Bigfoot exists so how can we be either "right" or "wrong" about it?

If we can be either right of wrong then there must be something that we can be right or wrong about.

So how do you know if we can be right or wrong about "something"?

Logic.

Don't confuse logic with magic. Logic only works with premises that are already assumed to be true.All logic can do is connect A to B to C all the way down to Z. It can tell you, "If A then B," but it can't tell you whether A was true in the first place.

What is the first predicate?If you are still right by the time you get to Zed then it is likely that your A was correct. If logic can tell you anything then there is your start.