The View from 40,000 FT and the Tip of Ones Nose

[honorentheos]

That's not a rule. Or not the form for a rule I recognize anyway.

Lol. Ok.

If you’re still interested, could you take your philosophical stance and create a practical example that an Everyman might understand and use?

- Doc

If I were to take your definitions and reframe them to work with what I think you are saying I'd do it as follows:

Subjectivity - Reality as filtered through my human senses. The properties of objects or phenomena that are defined by the mind.

Objective - Reality independent of my human senses. Self-referential objects or phenomena whose existence is external to the mind.
I use self-referential in the definition to make greater allowance for what could be called objective reality. It allows for cogito, ergo sum, for example, to be a statement of objective existence because the self that is aware of its own existence must in fact and indisputably exist in some way. Within the framework of self-reference, its existence is objectively demonstrated to itself. The trick being, that's also all inside of mind which forms the contextual limits of its objectivity. In fact, its existence within mind is the totality of that objective reality. But provided the entity can exist in a self-referential state that is used by the mind to define its properties its existence is objectively so. As such, coffee table and stump are self-referential in that they contain all of the information that mind takes and uses to create "coffee table" and "stump". Anything that mind assigns to "coffee table" or "stump" that isn't present in coffee table or stump is additive and therefore not part of their objective, self-referential existence. But its self-referential properties must be complete and not partial to be objective. Otherwise to try to create coffee table out of 0.Xcoffee table is just another form of "coffee table". Fair?

Truth - Rules that are inviolate.Beliefs whose justification has a probability of 1 for being obtained when a defined procedure is followed.

Using this definition of truth and your example of gravity, I take your meaning to be that there is a probability of 1 that I will move towards the center of the earth at a predictable rate of acceleration. Or, more plainly, I am certain to fall if I step off a chair with nothing else to stand on when I do so. If I did step off a chair and didn't fall, no rational person would believe gravity wasn't suddenly "real" or I was immune to its effects but instead would try to figure out what additional conditions were present that prevented my falling. More or less?

I want to make these clarifications in order to be sure we agree on what we're saying when we refer to objective reality, subjective reality, and when I use objective as an adjective for truth and argue there is no such thing as objective truth in so far as what we are sharing between us and which we can point to in a claim a person must be ignoring reality to sincerely approach something but end up with different results that we don't agree matches our understanding of reality.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

On a first and second read I don't see anything that I could quibble with. It appears to be straightforward and makes sense.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

On a first and second read I don't see anything that I could quibble with. It appears to be straightforward and makes sense.

- Doc

Ok, so by agreed upon definition we could probably agree that the belief I would fall if I stepped off a chair with nothing else to step on (and no other conditions present that would prevent my fall) is true since we agree that this is going to obtain 100 out of 100 times it occurs. And I felt pretty confident this is what you were getting at when you said gravity was a rule. If we do certain things, we will get predictable results.

The question then becomes whether or not we can describe our recognition of this as being objectively obtained or subjectively? and thus there is still some condition where the justification for our belief (regarding the prediction of what will occur according to our understanding of the phenomena of gravitation forces) is not secure and has a probability of being obtained that is less than 1.

We don't have to go very far, but just to very small scales to find our predictive beliefs fail about what should occur according to our understanding of gravity. Quantum mechanics is alien to common sense ways of thinking that defy predictive ability without deriving entirely different tools that give probabilities of what will occur and allow for our definition of truth to regain its footing. A bit like the self-referential knowledge one may have of one's own existence by the fact one is self aware of existing, the truth (predictable nature) of the quantum world is a context hidden within the larger context of the macro.

Likewise as noted in the article I linked, gravity runs into problems at cosmic scales that create predictions that leave unanswered mysteries. There are whole parts of gravity at this scale that are incomplete compared to what gravity must be in its fully self-referential (objective) state or else we'd have resolved those mysteries.

But to you and I, that doesn't matter because we don't deal with quantum mechanics nor do we deal with cosmic scales and dark matter. So...our ability to use gravity predicatively is contingent on using only a partial understanding of what gravity is even if we can feel confident in our ability to use it in the context that matters to us. So long as we avoid conditions where that breaks down, we've cool. I'll fall if I step off the chair, no questions asked or attempt to deny that isn't true. But it's not meeting the definition of being objectively so. It's subject to the limits on the conditions in which we can use it reliably and with a high probability of obtaining the result we believe will be obtained.

[honorentheos]

I should point out that this is something I think bothers people who believe in God when they argue against atheism and materialism. One encounters this discomfort with incompleteness and uncertainty all the time when dealing with religionists. In that framework, even if the truth of existence is subjective in our mortal conditions, the existence of something (god, the Tao, whatever) that is above/encompassing and contains or holds a complete understanding of the universe is a needed foundation. Morality according to this way of thinking is defined by this complete, full, self-contained whole and if our morality is flawed its understood to be flawed because it either adds to or subtracts from this perfect self-referential divine everything. Truth according to this way of thinking is defined by its alignment with this self-referential everything. The Mortal is subjective but God is objective.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose there must be a barrier which we cross when we strain at something so hard that the rules themselves begin to break down. It’s objectively true that human beings exist, until we don’t, because as that one Greek guy said the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When do I stop looking at you as I begin to focus in on a part of you? When do you stop being Honor and give way to being a strand of dna in a hair follicle, instead?

The same could be said about the Law of Gravity. At some point gravity becomes something else when we get to a quantum level where materialism gives way to forces and vibrations. It’s another reality within this reality.

If Truth becomes a ‘god of the gaps’ issue then we’ll never agree that something can be objectively so since it’ll wiggle away beyond our understanding through some crack somewhere. This obviously sets the stage for god-belief because if we literally can’t know everything, then that’s where God exists. Checkmate atheists.

Anyway. My living room stump is still in my living room, even though I’m not there observing it right now. Whether that’s subjective or objective is irrelevant. It just is. I’m not sure where that reality falls within the philosophical spectrum, but for practical purposes as it relates to our human condition it’s best to take that fact at face value, otherwise there’s just anarchy and chaos.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

I tend to view it as the belief one has objective truth - bedrock foundational comprehensive Truth - leads to a version of god of the gaps. How so? Well, when gaps appear because our understanding of the universe is inherently limited and typically able to be improved upon, the impulse is against openness to reexamine and amend ones understanding. The assumed truth already has it covered so the challenge is a priori rejected until it can't be ignored.

I mean, look at how negative reactions are to the idea we can't access objective reality directly. Does it matter? I'd argue only in how one approaches evidence that challenges ones adamantine beliefs.

in my opinion, acknowledging the subjective nature of our knowledge strengthens the dependability of the beliefs demonstrated by a rigourous body of evidence because it has integrity. It isn't attaching to itself a claim of unassailability that, when challenged successfully, casts the entire edifice of such knowledge in doubt and strengthens the position of those who espouse post-modern approaches to truth. Post-modernism thrives on failed claims of certitude.