Posts by fadedbison17

ironmarlin1 said:I mean, does an equator even exist if there isn't a single human being there to measure it? Are our judgments about the equator objective truths, or are they just subjective interpretations forced upon the landscape? ☕

I'm curious, John Doe—did we actually manage to answer your original question? And if so, what's your final take on it?

James Lee77 said:Yeah, exactly. I mean, what else would I be doing? The subforum's literally called "thought topics free from dogma." Look, I can't really know how the Sun "perceives" things—we aren't exactly speaking the same language, right?—but maybe you, or anyone else here, could try explaining what you actually mean by the difference not being about quantity. 🤷

Next you'll be fighting for the civil rights of atoms 🙂

Look, man, I'm a human being—you get that, right? Seriously, I'm asking.
I know how to count, so I can tell you clearly—yeah, the difference between atoms is just the number.
If you try asking sun anything, it won't answer because sun doesn't talk, or count, or do any of the stuff people do. You're mixing up two different things, and that's how you end up with weird conclusions like numbers existing without people or sun doing math.

So, basically, there's a distinction between stuff humans do (counting, categorizing) and stuff sun does (shining, heating up... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually tell a hydrogen atom from a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing...

swiftcobra15 said:

I. Kant essentially took Protagoras's premise and formalized it:

In doing so, he philosophically dismantled any possibility of true objectivism,
yet so many people still "philosophize" as if Kant never even existed.

Numbers are certainly more "objective" than simple digits, but both are human constructs.

"Objective" existence and objectivism are complete nonsense
because perception always belongs to the subject, and "objective existence"
is nothing more than an assumption—essentially, a leap of faith. 👎

In that sense, numbers are just as "objective" (intersubjective)
as crows, angels, dragons, rocks, abstractions, or black holes.

Look, try seeing if you can wrap your head around objectivity like this:

The fact is, we exist just like everything else out there—we have our own objective traits (like, the simplest example being—everyone dies eventually, and nobody can fly just by flapping their arms).

Claiming you can't be objective just because you're human would imply you belong to some weird meta-reality that’s disconnected from the actual world. But humans are part of the world. Our senses are objective and specific, so I don't see why that should stop us from being objective...

Maybe we don't know as much about a person as we do about, say, a Ford Mustang, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to learn.

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

Maybe we should just start a new thread called "Objective Epistemology" or something, and hash this all out from scratch over there... I'm not really feeling like starting from square one in this thread... but hey, if you're down, we can try.

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

That's not even a full quote... and we aren't really gonna judge a whole book based on incomplete snippets, right?

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

What am I supposed to say to that? That I'm part of a cult?? 🙂

If you don't feel like reading the book, nobody's forcing your hand, right?

Anyway, back to the point—what's your take on the idea that the Sun can count and that Pi is just baked into nature?

ironmarlin1 said:I suspect there is a fundamental error in that reasoning. You suggest that the mind "dissects" reality itself, but it strikes me that you might be conflating our subjective experience with objective reality (please, do correct me if my logic falters here). A human being dissects their *experience*. To conclude that by doing so, we are somehow penetrating the core of reality without any pre-existing conceptual framework seems, to my mind, an entirely unjustified leap.

No, abstraction isn't merely a label. When I see a chair and my mother tells me, "That is a chair," I am forced to synthesize those data points in some way. What actually occurs is that I identify the most salient characteristic shared with other objects—in this case, a flat surface—and then isolate the primary difference between it and other flat surfaces (namely, that people sit on it). In this manner, I bridge the gap between the abstraction (the name) and the concrete object (the chair).

That’s fine, but does it not follow that when you employ such an abstraction in speech, you are attempting to refer to something else? If that is the case, are you referring to the abstraction itself when you speak, or are you referring to the actual chair? If it’s the latter, where do these abstractions reside, and what exactly are they? You’ve provided a relatively straightforward example to illustrate abstraction, but I suspect that once we peel back the layers, your position becomes rather precarious. Consider, for instance, a scenario where someone commits a murder—an anonymous perpetrator—and you declare that the individual was "insane." You have provided a description of the person, but what precisely are you referring to? Is that judgment itself inherently untrue?

If this makes sense (which I hope it does), then it should also be clear that "chair" is simply a word used to describe the fundamental characteristics of a particular object. The word itself doesn't exist in a vacuum; it functions merely as a descriptor or a tag for what I am observing.

Perhaps, though it remains somewhat unclear how you actually manage to refer to things; you've largely just explained the mechanism by which we might grasp the meaning of a word.

Look, it wasn't meant to be a deep dive. I was trying to explain this to someone who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about, not someone with their own established view. If I recall correctly, you mentioned something along the lines of not knowing what abstractions even are.
Epistemology is an entire branch of philosophy... there's no way I can squeeze all of that into a few posts, nor does it even occur to me to try.

I'd suggest checking out that book I mentioned before (Introduction to Rationalism). Once you've had a chance to read it, I'd be more than happy to hash this out with you.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

James Lee77 said:But look, the sun doesn't need to learn how to count just to tell the difference between helium and hydrogen. I mean, the whole thing basically boils down to the number of protons anyway.

So, yeah, numbers exist on the sun even if there aren't any people there to "learn" them.

Counting is a human thing—something we learn...
Los Angeles can't count.

James Lee77 said:The whole idea was that numbers—and really, all of math—aren't actually built into nature, but are just something humans project onto the world to describe it.
But look, if there's a real difference between hydrogen and helium out there in the universe, and that difference is nothing more than a difference in the number of something, then that theory totally falls apart.
Basically, numbers exist just as much as crows do.

I thought you were gonna keep going to prove a point, but you just wanted to show the thesis was wrong...😕 .. except the thesis isn't wrong.

You're assuming the thesis is wrong by taking for granted that numbers are built into human knowledge rather than nature—which isn't how it works. Numbers are something humans have to learn. Once we learn them, then we can count, or rather, distinguish quantities.

Quick side note—looking back at my old posts, I realized that instead of saying "concrete abstraction" or "complex abstraction"—which I used a few times—the word "concept" probably fits way better. But hey, it is what it is.

James Lee77 said:Well, just say so. 🤷 I thought that was just common sense, but whatever, no biggie.

Alright, so basically, the massive difference between hydrogen and helium comes down to the number of protons in the atom's nucleus. Everything else just flows from that—if there's one proton in the nucleus, it's hydrogen, and if there are two, then it's helium.

And that difference stays the same whether anyone is actually around to count them or not.

I'm pretty much on board!

Basically, everything just *is*—that's the core of it.
Then we come along, observe stuff, and start drawing conclusions—defining things, measuring, counting, all that...

James Lee77 said:Man, I feel like I've been beating this drum for five posts now with my specific example: what's even the actual difference between hydrogen and helium?

To that specific question, I’d just say: "Is hydrogen even different from helium if there isn't a human around to tell them apart?" I mean, can you really grasp that there had to be a person capable of making that distinction in the first place just for you to even ask the question? If there’s no one there to perceive the difference, then the question itself doesn't exist, so talking about what it actually means feels kind of pointless. But, I guess what you're actually getting at is something else, so let me try explaining it this way—the phenomenon is still gonna happen regardless of whether a person notices it or what they decide to call it.

Exactly. There’s a massive difference between hydrogen and helium, and it doesn't matter what you call them or how you try to distinguish them—the physics stays the same. We know that because once Phoenix burns through all its hydrogen and is left with nothing but helium, the whole star is gonna swell up way bigger.

So, if there actually is a difference between helium and hydrogen—regardless of whether we can even wrap our heads around it or not—then what exactly is that difference?

Reality doesn't actually depend on people—which are basically just abstractions anyway. It’s more like everything works the other way around, I guess.
I hope you get what I'm getting at.

That’s exactly my point, though. Like, what's actually the big difference between hydrogen and helium?

Glad we're finally on the same page! 😉

So, what's the deal with the difference between hydrogen and helium?
Honestly, I can't give you an answer because I don't know. Sounds more like a question for a physicist... 😉

ironmarlin1 said:Even when we start talking about them, what does one even mean by "abstractions"? To me, it doesn't feel any more sophisticated than just admitting, "I haven't got a clue." If someone tries to claim that a number is merely an abstraction, I don't think they can possibly mean what kresho2 is suggesting here:

Abstractions are simply the descriptions we humans use to label or identify things that exist in the world.

Because, let’s be honest, numbers aren't adjectives or descriptive labels—and neither are elements like helium or hydrogen. 🤷

Let me break down how abstractions actually work, then you can draw your own conclusions about what they are.

If humans (like me) didn't have minds, nothing would matter—the word everything and something would mean the exact same thing. There wouldn't be any distinction between, say, a wall, a cabinet, or the sky. You couldn't tell anything apart.
Luckily, my brain "slices" reality into objects. When I look at a cabinet, I see the edge separating it from the wall and the floor—my mind creates that distinction, allowing me to view that object (the cabinet) as something separate from everything else.

Once I mastered those boundaries (the edges), all I have left are objects. A cabinet is an object, a wall is an object, the sky is an object, a table is an object, a chair is an object... but that doesn't tell me much, so I give each one a different label. That’s where abstraction kicks in.

To exaggerate: when I was a kid, I saw something that had a flat surface where people sit. I asked my mom, "What's that?" and she gave me a name for it—a chair. Way to go, me—I made an abstraction! 🙂

What really happened was that I spotted a new object that looked different from anything I'd seen before.

But abstraction isn't just a name. When I saw the chair and Mom told me what it was, I had to link that info together. Basically, I took the most similar trait shared by other objects (a flat surface) and found the biggest difference compared to other flat things (people sit on this). So, I tied the name (the abstraction) to the physical object (the chair).

Hopefully, that clears up what an abstraction is and how it functions.

If that makes sense—which I hope it does—then it's also clear that "chair" is just a word describing the basic traits of an object. The word itself doesn't exist in the wild; it's just an explanation or a label for what I'm seeing.

James Lee77 said:It’s pretty obvious what I want to talk about—I want to show you that numbers are just built into nature itself.

Yeah!
[Just to be more exact, because I think you might be tripping over a specific word I used that wasn't quite right—abstractions don't actually exist. Abstractions are just descriptions we humans use to label things that *do* exist. And we can split abstractions into, like, concrete ones and complex ones.]

But I’m asking you about stuff that actually exists. Like hydrogen and helium as physical things that exist (assuming they do). 🤷

1.) abstract or concrete.

I have no idea what that even means. 🤷

The whole point of abstractions is to help us tell things apart.

But do things actually differ on their own? Is hydrogen even different from helium if there isn't a human around to tell them apart?

Alright, let me pipe down for a second and actually listen... so, walk me through it, will ya?
Give me a concrete example of how numbers are just "inherent" in nature... please.

To that specific question, I can only say: "Is hydrogen the same as helium if there isn't a human there to tell them apart?" You gotta realize that there had to be a human to make the distinction in the first place just to even ask the question you're asking now. If there's no human to differentiate, there's no question, so talking about the "content" of the question doesn't even make sense—but I think you're getting at something else, so I'll try putting it this way: a phenomenon happens regardless of whether a person notices it or what they decide to call it. If someone calls a "concentration camp" a "college," it doesn't change what's actually happening in that camp.

Here's another one, hope I don't overcomplicate it: Before Galileo Galilei, people believed in a flat earth. If I'm reading you right, your question is basically: "Was the earth flat before humans noticed it was round?"
Reality doesn't depend on people (who are just abstractions)—it's the other way around.
Hope you catch my drift...

James Lee77 said:fadedbison17, you're reminding me of Ljub. I'll ask a super direct question and he'll write this massive post about everything except what I actually asked. 🤷

So, yeah, there are complex abstractions—like numbers—and concrete abstractions—like a crow.

Is hydrogen a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Is helium a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Are those two abstractions different?
Is the difference between those two abstractions a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?

Hehe, I’m just trying to be as precise as possible since you’re so brief—you don't really give me much to work with—so I'm always trying to pull the thread back to the main point and tie it to your question... I can't exactly read your mind, right? 😉

James Lee77 said:fadedbison17, you're reminding me of Ljub. I'll ask a super direct question and he'll write this massive post about everything except what I actually asked. 🤷

So, yeah, there are complex abstractions—like numbers—and concrete abstractions—like a crow.

Is hydrogen a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Is helium a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Are those two abstractions different?
Is the difference between those two abstractions a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?

Yep!
[Just to be super clear—since I might have used a word that wasn't quite right—abstractions don't "exist" on their own. They're just descriptions we use to label things that *do* exist, and we can split them up into categories like concrete or complex.]

James Lee77 said:fadedbison17, you're reminding me of Ljub. I'll ask a super direct question and he'll write this massive post about everything except what I actually asked. 🤷

So, yeah, there are complex abstractions—like numbers—and concrete abstractions—like a crow.

Is hydrogen a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Is helium a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?
Are those two abstractions different?
Is the difference between those two abstractions a concrete abstraction or a complex abstraction?

Alright, here's my answer to that literally since you haven't specified what part you're digging into.

1.) abstract or concrete.
2.) abstract or concrete.
3.) yeah. The whole point of abstractions is to help us tell things apart.
4.) your question is a complex abstraction 🙂 Just kidding! The answer could be both concrete and abstract.

The questions are pretty vague, so this is basically the best I can do.

Give me a bit more context on what you're thinking, otherwise we could be going in circles forever!!!

James Lee77 said:You’re basically saying that the number 2 doesn't exist, but a crow does.
So here's the thing: is hydrogen more like a crow (something that's actually out there) or more like the number 2 (just an idea)?
Second question: is helium more like a crow or more like the number 2?
And thirdly: is the difference between hydrogen and helium more like a crow or more like the number 2?

I think we're talking past each other here... I didn't say the number 2 doesn't exist—I just meant it’s a complex abstraction compared to a concrete abstraction like, say, a crow. Again, you gotta read my answers in context, and the context was "Does the equator exist without humans?" My point was that things like the equator (or pi) are complex abstractions built on top of concrete ones. So, if there are no humans around to use those abstractions, there's nobody left to even ask the question "Does the... exist?" which makes the whole question a bit of a contradiction in itself.
The debate just falls apart if we jump out of context. There's no point in grabbing one single word and obsessing over it—we won't get anywhere that way. You'll be talking about your stuff and I'll be talking about my "inner world" and we'll just end up totally misunderstood... so why bother?

I don't know how you view epistemology (you know, the branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge) or what principles you live by, but I think this whole argument basically boils down to that.

I tried explaining some basics that either you missed in my writing (maybe I wasn't clear enough?) or maybe you're just not interested because you want to push your own version of epistemology. But since you're mostly asking questions instead of stating positions, it's pretty easy to see why I'm not following you...

That said, this book actually really helped me wrap my head around epistemology (like, how humans gain knowledge, where it comes from, etc.). If you're curious, I highly recommend it— Objectivist Epistemology.

amberviper said:We’ve got a perfect word for this in American English—"discover." See, what you're talking about when you say things "emerged" or "came to be"... that doesn't really track. How does something just *start* existing? Unless we're talking about something popping out of thin air—which is obviously absurd—it had to be there all along. If it already exists, you don't create it... you just discover it...

That's what he said—here’s a snippet from my post:

Natural laws—specifically gravity—didn't just pop into existence the second some guy noticed them... they were already there.

Look at the negation there—"didn't arise." Just a quick reminder, like I mentioned back in that post you're quoting where I was talking about whether the equator actually exists... You're pulling my arguments out of context, and that's just not how this works...

amberviper said:This kind of philosophizing isn't just outdated—it’s flat-out wrong. Dialectical materialists used this exact logic to justify themselves, and honestly... I've got a quote from Lenin that pretty much exposes how flawed this whole mindset really is...
Lenin says:
From watching things happen to abstract thought—and then actually putting that thought into practice—that’s the dialectical path to truth... the only way to really grasp objective reality.

So, if you actually sit down and break these claims down... what do you get? You end up at one single conclusion—that abstraction doesn't even exist in the first place. Everything is just matter. Matter is objective, right? It’s our actual, physical reality. So, what's there left to abstract? But then again—look at quantum mechanics today—and suddenly that "reality" just vanishes. It isn't even there anymore. Not with abstraction, and definitely not without it...
Look, you’d really need to pin down what you actually mean by "abstraction" first—otherwise, your whole argument just falls apart... honestly, that whole "concrete abstraction" thing sounds pretty sketchy to me.

I'm diving deep into Objectivist Epistemology right now. If you're looking for info on how that whole system works... you can find it... Here's the book... Here's that thread if you're interested...

amberviper said:If something exists but isn't physical, it shouldn't be called an "abstraction"—it's more like a spiritual entity. It’s just as real within our consciousness as anything else... kind of like how an apple is part of both our inner and outer worlds while it's falling toward the ground. It's all just part of the same reality...

This is a textbook case of someone having zero clue what they're actually talking about.
When we look at nature, we spot patterns—things that repeat—and then we turn those observations into math equations to describe them as laws or constants. But here’s the thing: we aren't inventing anything during that process, we're just discovering what's already there. We can take what we observe and wrap it up in some spiritual concept, sure, but we can't just conjure something out of thin air.
The only people on this planet with even a tiny spark of creativity are the ones who can mimic God by making art or music that literally didn't exist before. That's why creativity is a divine attribute, while "abstraction" is really just an attempt to run away from reality.
Abstraction isn't creation—just like everyone seems to think when they read your posts.

So, yeah, laws are basically part of the information inherent to the universe. They had to be planted there by an intelligence that exists outside the universe... because if that intelligence were inside the universe, none of this would work. It's like claiming humans created the laws of physics; if we said that, we'd have to claim we created the entire universe too, which is just pure nonsense—basically your version of "abstraction."

Of course they exist as spiritual entities. And that's all part of understanding things, just like understanding an apple. Actually, it goes deeper than that—if you reduce an apple down to its absolute basics, all you're left with is information, specifically the laws that hold its constituent parts—the quanta—together.

I'm not really feeling like diving into deep topics like this since I don't see the point. You've thrown out a bunch of conclusions I don't agree with, and like I said, I don't see the sense in debating it. Plus, whenever I see the word God, I figure the conversation is pretty much over for me. It feels unfair to base arguments on something unprovable and then expect everyone else to prove their side.
Don't take it personally—it's nothing against you, I don't even know you—but I'm done arguing with you.

amberviper said:I'm thinking he might have been your professor or something. I've never seen anything this pathetic. Before you start typing, you really need to get your terminology straight. Your semantics are a mess, which is why you clearly don't know what you're talking about. That's just the vibe I get from reading your stuff.

And I'm thinking you just got worked up over my post for some reason, and the only semi-logical reason I can find is that I should pay more attention to semantics. Honestly, I might have taken that advice seriously if this weren't just a random forum and I didn't know who you were, but after seeing how you just wrote that, I can't even take you seriously. You sounded like a total caveman, honestly...

Take it easy. Enjoy! 😉

James Lee77 said:fadedbison17, I feel like you didn't actually answer anything there. So, if you're up for it, here are some even simpler questions just to clear things up:

- Is hydrogen an objective thing?
- Does helium objectively exist?
- Is there an objective difference between hydrogen and helium?
- And if there is, what exactly is that difference?

But what do you actually mean by "Is hydrogen an objective reality?" Can you put that in different words? To me, it sounds just like asking "does hydrogen exist"—which doesn't make much sense... I think maybe I missed your point.

James Lee77 said:But wait, did natural laws actually start that way? Like, did Newton invent his laws or just discover them? Are the laws of physics actually objective things? And I wonder, are these laws fundamentally mathematical, or could they be expressed without math? Could Newton's law of gravity even be explained without using equations?

So, did natural laws start out like that?
Natural laws—like gravity, specifically—didn't just pop into existence once someone noticed them. Humans observe stuff and then expand our knowledge base. A couple thousand years ago, people didn't have a specific name for the law of gravity, but apples were still falling from trees regardless... I can dive deeper into how Newton actually hit upon the idea for the law of gravity a bit later...

It feels like you might be missing the distinction between a concrete abstraction (something directly perceived—like a "dog") and a complex abstraction (built from those basic ones—like a "government"). The whole point of an abstraction is to describe something (anything) within objective reality. Unfortunately, some abstractions don't relate to reality at all (the concept of "God" is the first thing that comes to mind there), but hey, humans mess up sometimes, so no biggie.

But seriously, could you be walking with a buddy, stop dead in your tracks, and say, "Hey, look, the law of gravity—let's grab it and take it home to study"?
I really hope not 🙂
The thing is, you arrive at the law of gravity through a process where, say, your parents first taught you simple words like nose, ear, dad, mom, tree, car. After mastering those basic abstractions, you go to elementary school and learn more complex ones like time, velocity, etc. Only after learning all that could you ever reach the realization of what the law of gravity actually is.

You're asking if Newton invented that law or discovered it. First, there had to be something existing (like an apple falling from a tree) for Newton to notice (which you'd call discovering), and the second step is Newton—or anyone else—inventing the word to label what they observed.

No matter how you phrase Newton's law of gravity, it’s going to be expressed as a complex abstraction.
Newton used abstractions to explain the phenomenon he observed (the law of gravity). Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to explain the phenomenon to anyone else, or even to himself. Without that, the "law of gravity" (that abstraction) wouldn't exist, but the apple would still be falling from the tree, just like it did before Newton.

A few quick points:
Are the laws of physics objective?
Not really—they don't "exist" in a vacuum; they are definitions that describe a certain part of reality (acting as complex abstractions), while reality itself is what's objective.

Are these laws inherently mathematical, or could they be expressed non-mathematically? Could Newton's law of gravity be stated without math?
I'm no expert in math or physics (if you haven't noticed), but I actually have some interesting audio lectures queued up that I'll probably listen to over the next few days. I might circle back to this post and these questions after that. If you're interested, check out this link: Two, three, four and all that.

To wrap things up and stay on track...
What I was trying to point out is the principle behind how we reach new concepts—the difference between concrete abstractions (directly perceived) and complex abstractions (built from the concrete ones). Basically, I wanted to explain how humans acquire knowledge and how that knowledge ties back to objective reality. I also wanted to highlight how pointless it is to ask if "something" existed before humans came up with a word for it (an abstraction).
Just a quick heads-up—the whole point was whether the equator (or Pi) actually existed before we "invented" it—you know, created the abstraction—so please read my answers through that lens... otherwise, the whole debate won't even make sense 😉

I’m pretty much on board with most of what MrBeast is saying—plus I’d throw in some thoughts on the math side of things.

The number 2 doesn't actually exist, let alone pi.

Super basic example—you see two crows and say that symbolizes the number two. But that number isn't a physical thing; humans just invented it to make thinking and talking easier. All a person actually sees is one crow and then another crow. If I go full deep-dive on the epistemology of it—a person sees one entity with certain traits (it's black, has wings, etc.) and another entity that looks similar but is distinct from everything else they know.
They aren't "two identical crows," it's just that the word 'crow' refers to a concept representing an entity. We see multiple similar entities, and to save ourselves the mental headache, we don't think "one crow, then another crow," we just say "2 crows." This gets even more obvious when the number is bigger, like ten. It's way easier to communicate "10 crows" than "one crow, and another crow, and another crow..." and so on...

As for pi, it's way more complex than a regular number, and it's pretty clear it doesn't exist in reality as a tangible thing. You can't just look at something and say—that's pi! Pi is a higher-order abstraction that relates to other abstractions (which are also abstract, just like simple numbers like 2, 3, or 4...).

Now, I'm not crazy enough to end it there and act like the symbol PI doesn't exist or isn't useful.
The point is that humans invented numbers—they figured out how to measure stuff, compare things, work out ratios, and eventually arrived at the symbol for PI and what it represents.
Basically, people learned to create concepts (distinguishing things), and once they realized those basic concepts weren't enough to describe what they wanted to differentiate, they expanded their knowledge and created new labels to grow their understanding. That's how PI was "born." And that's how the equator was "born."

Sure, you could argue—Pi was always there, just like the equator. But if there's no observer to distinguish things, create concepts, and think, how would you even think to ask if the "equator" exists without an observer, or if PI exists without an observer? The question itself is a contradiction.

One more little thing—

"If a tree falls down in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

When you break it down into the core physics, it's clearer: when a tree falls, it creates air pressure disturbances (which is what sound is). If those waves have nothing to hit (like a human ear), the physical event still happens regardless. Hearing is just the phenomenon that occurs when those air disturbances hit an ear mechanism—so if there's no ear, it doesn't mean the event (the air disturbance) didn't happen.

placidranger said:I absolutely agree.

Your second sentence—'...that it affects one's interpretation of the surroundings'—doesn't quite follow for me. A person can't simply choose their cognitive faculties.
One might direct focus more toward sight than hearing, sure, but you can't just invent a new sense any more than you can invent a new aspect of physical reality.

The truth is, we are constantly bombarded by mountains of data from our environment. To make sense of what's happening, we have to filter it—discarding the noise and shaping the essential bits into something coherent.
Those filters that allow us to grasp the world are built on beliefs. I don't mean religious dogma here—I mean the fundamental connections between concepts that we all share. You see what you believe.
By shifting those underlying convictions, you shift your reality. Things start looking different. You interpret events differently. They take on entirely new cause-and-effect patterns.

Yup, I'm with you.
Nobody can know "everything"—you just know what matters within your own context.

We just need to distinguish "reality" from "personal reality."
What you’re calling "personal reality," I’d call a self-concept. It's a process driven by a value system someone adopts—the thing they act on (mentally and physically) to categorize and integrate everything they learn.
I'd call that value system a philosophy (basically, how everything in existence relates to me).

When a person changes their philosophy, they change how they perceive—or relate to—the world around them. They aren't changing the universe itself, just themselves.
Reality is just reality; it doesn't care which philosophy you pick. Everyone exists within reality regardless of their outlook—I'm talking about the relationship between consciousness and reality at any given moment. In that moment, things are what they are, no matter how someone chooses to label them or how they use their consciousness (like self-delusion or trying to wish things were different). That doesn't mean people are just passive victims of nature, though—it means being effective comes from understanding reality, not ignoring it.

Sorry if I'm being nitpicky here—if we're gonna dive deep, better if we're both talking about the same thing... 🙂

Sandra Wilson68,
I honestly can't tell what you're even trying to prove here—it's all a bit fuzzy—so I don't really see the point in clicking those links you posted (btw, I did check them out, and yeah... just as confusing)
But hey, no biggie. Have a good one! 😉

restlessridge36 said:Louis explained everything perfectly. There is no need for me to repeat him. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective—"without color or warmth." You need to "shift" your mindset to actually see and understand; you have to "train" yourself.😁 You are dug in, stubbornly clinging to your own narrow view.

I don't really see the point in bending my mind to fit whatever someone else is preaching—so maybe that makes me seem stubborn. It’s not that I’m dismissing people just because I don't vibe with them; I just want to figure out what they’re actually trying to say from an angle that makes sense to me (logic over "vibes," you know?).
To me, philosophy should be clear-cut and precise, not some mystical, emotional thing. If it isn't accessible to anyone with a basic education, then it isn't philosophy—it's just a cult where a few "enlightened" elites dictate reality to everyone else. Not my style, thanks 🙂